Party Pill Ban passes first reading
NZPA reports that Parliament voted 113-8 (Greens and ACT against) for the legislation allowing party pills with BZP to be made illegal drugs with the same seriousness as cannabis.
The motivations of those supporting the ban are sincere I am sure. But I really hope they consider at select committee a few things:
1) Will regulation and education be more effective than prohibition?
2) How do you justify banning party pills, and not alcohol or tobacco?
3) Why do you think prohibition will be any more effective than say it was for the US with alcohol in the 1930s
4) Do you think it is a smart move to criminalise almost every party going under 25 year old?
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: New Zealand
September 12th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Some diverse speeches on the first reading from National – some pro-ban, some basically as you’ve written above… conscience vote?
September 12th, 2007 at 10:14 am
I suppose one has to draw a line in the sand.
Heroin is fairly harmless too if you can afford quality stuff and don’t need to commit crimes to get it. Yet few suggest it should be legal.
Marijuana is highly carcinogenic and sparks pyschotic attacks in mentally disturbed people, yet many people call for it to be made legal.
The comparison with prohibition is wrong, as alcohol is a drug consumed by almost everybody and which is not at all harmful in moderate doses. It is a pleasant drink. Banning such a widely used product naturally led to mass rebellion. (And for the record, I do not drink alcohol, though I have no objections to it.)
Tobacco is used by only 23 per cent of the adult population so its use is not in the league of alcohol which is consumed by more than 90pc. Also, any tobacco consumption is immediately harmful. And worst of all, it is filthy and disgusting and obnoxious to be around, unlike alcohol used in moderation.
Party pills contain harmful substances and arguably should not be promoted the way they are to young people. I was horrified when my daughter said she needed a packet of them to get through an all-night dance. I told her she was a victim of marketing and she didn’t need them at all.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:17 am
They won’t though. They’ll consider exactly what sentences the cops should be allowed to give out, what extra powers could be needed to search children, and how to deal with the currently legal stockpiles that are in NZ. Perhaps extra gang busting powers will be needed too, why not, while we’re getting rid of some rights, why not get rid of some more?
The obvious points you make don’t even enter the heads of the 113 people desperately hoping to shore up the middle NZ vote. Or they are suppressed along with every other part of their conscience.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Except perhaps in mentally disturbed people for whom it can spark pyschotic attacks. Also, moderation is fine, but if you don’t drink in moderation you progressively ruin your health, your brain, your life, and you can die from amounts as small as $20 worth.
Perhaps the fact that you don’t drink alcohol makes you think it’s a pleasant drink. Actually it’s an acquired taste – most children will shy away from it in disgust, tasting the base toxin no matter how many sweeteners they put over the top. But they will persist through social pressure until eventually they even like the taste, much like the way smokers say they love the taste of smoke.
Perhaps you should try going to an all-night dance before you judge your daughter. Notice how she’s having fun with her mates and not causing any trouble, how the other pill droppers aren’t vomiting or starting fights.
You might also like to observe some heroin addicts before claiming that is harmless. You can easily overdose and die. The only reason most of the addicts don’t is because they can’t afford that much heroin because they are jobless bums begging for money. There are plenty over in Ozzie to check out – I have an image burned in my brain of a guy standing on a street corner with his eyes closed, swaying from side to side, then opening his mouth for a shotgun blast (that is what it looked like) of vomit, before lying down in the gutter to sleep it off.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am
I’m reading some interesting stuff at the moment in a book entitled ‘Reefer Madness’ and as far as I have read, it discusses the attitudes of legisaltion towards pot – for example how in some cases you can get life for it in some US states, and just a small fine in others. It raises interesting issues about the undferground economy in the US and that is a big factor (we are talking tax-evasion, growing your own, paying in cash etc) that too raises some interesting issues.
Personally, I’d ban them if they are proven to be harmful to people, but where demand is high enough, it is worthwhile to look at de-criminalisation of recreational drugs, because outright prohibition sends the drug of choice (and the user) into the arms of organised crime.
Organised criminals will be rubbing their hands at the idea of a new ‘illegal’ drug entering the market place, surely? IT creates a state-sanctioned monopoly for them.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:36 am
This is an arguement that can go around in circles for ever in a day, alcohol and cigerettes would with out doubt be the most harmful of any drug in our community, however both legal. Without question there are far more people out there that consume alcohol regulary and responsibily that would be horrified if it was made illegal. Just as party pills are currently legal, I am sure many take them responsibily. In fact I have not heard of any problems with them so far. By the way, I have never had one. Maybe there are some ingredients that need to be changed, but to ban them totally I believe is a wrong choice and possibly just a crusade from one bitter political person with personnel undealt with issues.
I wonder how Winston would react if they were to consider banning alcohol, I’m sure he wouldn’t be supporting it.
answer:
Has anybody read the book 7 tools to beat addiction by Stanton Peele?
This book beats any AA program or 12 step program ever!! In very brief terms its about taking controll of your own life….
VALUES
MOTIVATION
REWARDS
RESOURCES
SUPPORT
A MATURE IDENTITY
HIGHER GOALS.
alcohol users can still enjoy a drink, just not get pissed rolling around a bar.
heroin users can still (should they choose) have a shot from time to time, just not go and steal to get it.
marijuana can enjoy a smoke….. just get a haircut!!
and party pill takers can still pop a pill just know what your taking and what not to take with it.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:38 am
I must say I find this argument rather tiresome.
I think it is in contrast to your previous post where you are shocked (and rightly so) at the violence and lack of self-control of the father in Hastings.
However the very next post wants to allow open slather on party pills. I would argue that self-control and discipline is needed in both areas. The under 25s need to learn self-control and discipline so that they can go on to be responsible parents. The virtues to be a good parent are learned earlier in life. It is not good preparation for parenthood to live a life of all-night parties, fuelled by party pills and goodness knows what other substances.
As to your other arguments –
1) I am unconvinced about the benefits of education. Our university students for instance are well-educated but are not notable for their restraint and moral virtue.
2) tobacco and alcohol have been with us for centuries. It is difficult if not impossible to ban them. Party pills are hopefully not so well entrenched in our culture and if made illegal hopefully their use will greatly diminish.
3) the banning of alcohol in the United States in the 1930s was a mistake. That does not mean however we should not ban drugs such as heroin. There will never be a perfect world and so there will always be inconsistencies. However we need to minimise harm from these drugs and other substances.
Those who want perfect consistency often seem to argue for a complete liberalisation — let’s make everything legal and so things will be okay. That is consistent — but given the harm that heroin does for example is hopelessly wrong.
Similarly it is a mistake to make everything illegal — should you ban tea and coffee for example? So somewhere there has to be drawn a line.
4) if every party going under 25-year-old is taking substances that is an indictment on our culture. What a waste of our best young people. That the highest aspiration they can think of is to take pills so they can party all night long and presumably spend the rest of the day sleeping it off. What a perverse culture we have.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:20 am
“What a perverse culture we have.”
Damn right there.
..and its not laws that are needed to change that. The collectivists have a lot to answer for. Turned NZers, once an independent and self reliant group of people, into a sad bunch of uneducated group think lemmings.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:23 am
As someone who has long since passed David Farrarr’s recent milestone of age can someone younger and more out there advise which of these statements are true:
All night dance parties exist because party pills and other stimulants give people the stamina to last that long and have created the demand for venues to release all that energy or:
Party Pills and other stimulants are available because people want to be able to last through all night dance parties that they think they would otherwise crash at.
I’m curious
September 12th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Scott if this childbashing prick was on party pills you might have a point. But he was actually on religion, and possibly piss.
As for your other arguments:
1) What’s so morally unvirtuous about students? Are you talking about those pissed idiots down in the South Island? Anyway the education point isn’t about “general education” it’s about specific education about party pills, which doesn’t involve going to varsity, but does involve them being legal, if any real truthful information about them is to be had.
2) Murder has been with us for centuries too, but that doesn’t make it right.
3) Inconsistency in the law is actually not OK. To say it’s not a perfect world doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make it more perfect. Drug prohibition has done a completely useless job in the US at minimizing harm from the drugs. In fact, it’s closer to maximizing harm.
Heroin does harm anyway. A lot. Illegalizing it has done nothing at all to ‘minimize’ this.
4) So it’s an indictment on our culture. Go live somewhere more puritanical if you don’t like it. Throw a party and see how many kids come.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:29 am
The harm caused by most illegal drugs stems entirely from their illegality.
Death and destitution from legal heroin would be very rare. Firstly, the price would come down, so nobody would be out committing crimes to fund their habit. Secondly, the quality of the drug would be better. Thirdly, nobody would shoot it up themselves – why risk it when you can get a professional to help you?
Addicts of legalised heroin would be placid, blissed out people representing no threat to anyone but themselves, and seeking help for their addiction would become ten times easier.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Good one for the manifesto there ratbiter
“Vote for me uneducated group think lemmings.!”
September 12th, 2007 at 11:31 am
David, all night dance parties exist because kids like to dance and party.
Pills and other uppers have surely extended a lot of people’s ability to stay awake longer, but I can’t see that they created the demand for the parties. The parties created the demand for the pills.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Those who want perfect consistency often seem to argue for a complete liberalisation — let’s make everything legal and so things will be okay. That is consistent — but given the harm that heroin does for example is hopelessly wrong.
Scott, thanks for reminding me why my Bullshit-o-meter tends to melt down at slippery slope arguments like that – and has anyone here seriously put the case for legalising heroin? I’m shocked as anyone to find myself agreeing with Nandor on anything, but I’m still to be convinced that banning BZP (and doing it in this manner) is based on good science and good public policy, rather than the political interests of an associate minister who needs all the good ink he can get.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:35 am
“Go live somewhere more puritanical if you don’t like it.”
There you go Scott. Same old same old.
“You must think they way ve tell you to”..
For daring to voice an opinion that challenges leftist orthodoxy, you’ve been dispatched to the gulags. Make sure to pack your government provided copy of Das Kapital. Its compulsory reading out there.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Reading up on BZP (on Wikipedia) there have been no deaths caused directly by BZP itself – anywhere in the world (even with overdoses). This is the government trying to say that BZP is bad, but it is actually bad when consumed with alcohol or other drugs, which packaging of party pills clearly states not to do.
It’s sort of like those toys that say “Not suitable for children under 3″ (i.e. McDonalds toys) but they are still given to children under 3 – let’s ban that!
I agree with the Greens… it would go underground with potentially hazardous substances going into these party pills. Once this happens, it would get publicised in the media with the focus on it being BZP killing someone, when it was probably BZP+another drug inside the pill.
But, the non-BZP party pills are already starting to make their way here, and they are possibly worse so there won’t be any stopping.
We have a legal high that doesn’t kill anyone here and could take people off other, more serious, drugs yet good ol’ Jimbo is going to take it away and then say how great he is for doing just one thing this term at next years election.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:44 am
“Vote for me uneducated group think lemmings.!”
Naah, I wouldn’t use that Sonic. The Labour Party already owns the copyright.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:48 am
wot blair said..
another benefit would be people not having their minds fried..and their ’spirits’ negated/killed..
on that foul muck..
..the uber-addictive methadone..
and of course..any of the elderly who are suffering the aches and pains of arthritis..or whatever..
should be able to request heroin/diamorphine from their doctors..
(it is..after all..still perhap the most effective painkiller..
and why should the elderly (anyone!) have to endure unecessary pain and suffering..?
when salves are to hand..?)
just because of some twisted morality-base of society..?
a stance purely based on ignorance..and manufactured fears/demons..?
we need rationality..devoid of hysteria..in our drug policies..
and even tho i think party pills are a ‘foul muck’ of another brand..
and in the main..a big caffeine-laden ‘con’..
their banning is just another manifestation of that irrationality..and hysteria..
that we don’t need..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 12th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Yup, it’s an oldie but a goodie. Any time I don’t like a place I leave, rather than promising to for years on end.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Ah, but PhilU, that’s what alcohol is for, and it has the added bonus that it kills them off faster now that they’ve passed their economically productive period. If they could just take a little morphine to help them sleep they might live an extra 10 years in comparative comfort, and we can’t have that.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Ben, you don’t think any other cuntry is going to take ratbiter off of our hands do you?
You need skills to emigrate, being on the benefit does not count.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
David,
Both.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
“Any time I don’t like a place I leave, rather than promising to for years on end.”
Of course you’re free to leave or return as you desire, but that’s not of course anything to do with *telling* Scott to go somewhere else because he might challenge the culture you have attempted to impose upon this country.
Your comment is underpinned by the typical Stalinist mindset that is today so tragically ascendant in NZ, whereby if anyone fails to conform to what the left consider “approved”, in thinking speaking and culture overall, they become targets for marginalization.
Obviously you know nothing of history, or you’d be aware of what is frequently the ultimate outcome of such attitudes. Pity a few of those who disagreed with Pol Pot, and who failed to respond to re-education, and who died with a plastic bag held over their heads (bullets were unaffordable) couldn’t come back and give you the lesson you deserve.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
sonic, Oz would take him. He’d fit in there, too. From the way he talks he’s already lived there for a number of years, may even be an Ozzie, may already be living there, may have always lived there. I lived there for years so my ears are fine tuned to the little oz-isms that slip into what he says.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Actually Redbaiter it was advice, not an order. And it’s advice you could take too, if you were the sort to take advice. If NZ really makes you as miserable as you sound then you are crazy to stay here and really should piss off somewhere more up your alley. Not that I don’t love to have you around killing the mood from your totally anonymous ideological hideout. I used to dislike it, but now I read your posts like ‘poems from a miserable prick’ and I see there is art in what you do.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
1) Will regulation and education be more effective than prohibition?
The most common use profile for BZP is to use the CNS properties of the pills to increase endurance whilst drinking, so punters are usually making a calculated choice for a binge night when they purchase them. I doubt an educational message will get through to people who are making a choice for abuse. Hence, its my view most people will now just stay with the liquor and not top up with party pills.
2) How do you justify banning party pills, and not alcohol or tobacco?
Old men who ring talk back and politicians use these two drugs.
3) Why do you think prohibition will be any more effective than say it was for the US with alcohol in the 1930s
if the experience with GHB is any guide prohibition will be successful in killing demand for BZP. I doubt that many people will keep BZP as their pill of choice if obtaining it becomes a hassle. However, a significant portion of the population who use BZP will simply migrate to Ecstasy, on the reasoning that if you are going to go to the hassle of sourcing something illegal it might as well be the genuine article. Given the general social stigma around meth I doubt you’ll see much increase in P use, but I would guess E use is set to go through the roof.
4) Do you think it is a smart move to criminalise almost every party going under 25 year old?
Most middle class young people regard social laws such as this as an abstract that doesn’t affect them anyway. Little Amber, Tamsin, Blair and Anton from Remuera would be shocked if they got arrested for possession whilst pilling their heads off in a nightclub or at the BDO.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
There is absolutely no reason why ANY individual should be crimialised for consuming a substance where the only person harmed is themselves.
This bill is wrong and immoral, a complete waste of police time, and will have massive unintended consequences.
Mark my words you will see an increase in Pure Meth being used in NZ after this comes into effect, I’d suggest its already startign now. When BZP came in, the amount of meth and speed being used in clubs (and the nastyness along with it) dropped dramatically.
I know for a fact that other drugs (legal and unregulated) are currently being trialed in NZ, without anyone really knowing what they do to fill the gap in the market. This will have massive unintended consequences.
Jim Anderton, Jacqui Dean and the other prohibitionists will be responsible for tearing apart families, increasing crime, and strengthening the power of gangs in New Zealand because of this legislation.
Full credit to the ACT Party and to the Greens for their principled approach towards sensible, harm minimisation based drug policy in New Zealand.
I repeat – NOONE should be treated as a criminal, simply for what they put into their body.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Oh and the real reason BZP is being banned is that the government allows one orally ingested CNS stimulant pill onto the market, how will it be before that is used as a precedent for argung for the de-criminalisation of MDMA?
September 12th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Oh and for the record, I’ve had heaps of BZP, in various forms (be it in party pills, or pure BZP Crystals) and in some fairly large doses back when I was at uni over the last 5 years, with no adverse effects bar a hangover the next day.
The same doesn’t apply to my experiances with alcahol.
Of course if NZ’s policy was actually based on Harm like its supposed to be, Alcahol would be deemed to be a much greater harm than BZP, Cannabis and MDMA, as these have far less negative effects on the human body (and social effects as well) in comparison to that socially acceptable, legal drug – booze.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
TomS, I tend to agree about the education thing. The main actual illness that comes from long term party pill use is that you don’t get enough sleep, which is bad for you. But these kids want to dance, not sleep, so that’s really lost on them.
I also agree that BZP will die. It’s only the principle that I lament. The actual drug itself is lame, and as you say, the other illegal alternatives are much more effective. I’m not sure that P won’t get a bit of a kickstart, though, it’s effects are much the same as party pills, just stronger. It will just need a new name, or maybe a new way of taking it that doesn’t involve dodgy looking glass pipes.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
“If NZ really makes you as miserable as you sound”
It sounds miserable to you Ben because you don’t understand it. You’re afflicted with leftism, and this makes it very hard for you to accept serious criticism of your culture without a violent and insane reaction toward the critic. (There’s millions of dead anti-leftists out there to prove this.)
“I see there is art in what you do.”
My objective is to challenge leftist orthodoxy wherever I can, but more so to show others that your culture is the emperor with no clothes.
I want to show others what destruction you have brought upon what was once such a great little country. I want to awaken others to the idea that there are other views out there besides those approved by the socialists.
I want to explain to other readers that the sad box-like conformity of thought speech and culture in Sweden (for example) is not the only option for NZ.
I want to show other readers the intolerance and ignorance of the common garden type of socialist (so typified by shallow boring fools like Sonic)
.. and I thank you all for so often displaying here your empty rhetoric and your crass inability to deal with criticism, for providing the opportunity for me to do what I do, and in almost everything you write here, illustrating so well the truth of all that I say.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
MikeE, you’ve haven’t got a clue, honestly. Why you fancy yourself an expert on this escapes me, since your utterances on the subject and are usually highly coloured emotive claptrap. Meth has already claims every victim it is going to. Meth use is dropping due to simple Darwinism and a general realisation how dangerous it is.
Secondly, the state has a responsibility of care to its citizens that means it makes decisions and choices about what is legal and isn’t, what has warning labels and doesn’t, what is prescription only and what isn’t etc etc etc. No responsible government is going to let chaos reign and see its assorted citizenry killed or injured by an open slather.
The BZP analogues currently being trialled are all shit, and they’ll be banned one by one by order in council anyway.
My general view is you hvae to approach drug use in an essentially pragmatic, empirical, and utilitarian fashion, not a moral one. Much as I dislike BZP, I am not persuaded that the prohibition argument really has any merit in its case – or in the case of MDMA for that matter. Its about striking a balance between community and individual, and on this matter the argument is to far skewed in favour of the community.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
“I used to dislike it, but now I read your posts like ‘poems from a miserable prick’ and I see there is art in what you do.”
priceless
And I thought RB’s reply was poetic
September 12th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
The government has stated disappointment at the rising numbers of prisoners in NZ. The government has expressed concerns at the growth of gang violence in NZ. The government is about to criminalise thousands more NZers and provide more profits for gangs. The government is stupid.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
hmm..!!..does redbaiter have ’stalinest mindset’ on predictive txt..?
and i understand from elsewhere that he/she is ’seeking elective office’..soon..(!)
(dosen’t that thought/idea cause the grey matter to fizz..?..eh..?..)
i mean..you wouldn’t want him/her in charge of a freckin’ mousetrap..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 12th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
No, I understand it, and it still sounds miserable. You are misery-guts personified. But that can still be artful. Many artists I know are miserable. What seems to make them the most miserable of all is, like you, the fact that their art is unappreciated, their message is not getting through. Perhaps in a utopian future without socialists you will be read out much like Juvenal was in my Classics classes. You both have similar style, the diatribe, although his was more original 2000 years ago. His epigrams have lasted to this day “Bread and Circuses”, “A sound mind and a sound body”, etc. You should work on yours, they waffle on repetitively. Shorter and more pithy is better.
That’s if it’s the Art you are about, and your persistence indicates this. If it was about the message you might do a lot more than trolling blogs, read only by a small number. You’ll never change the world that way.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Many do, few triumph. Chances are we’re safe from rule by Redbaiter.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Hey RB, I don’t suppose you would like to fill us in on this elective office rumour would you? I’m sure you’re proud of the views you express here and know that the extra publicity would help such a campaign.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
TomS
There is nothing pragmatic or empirical and definitely nothing utilitarian about the War on BZP. It’s all about riding a moral horse. The wrong horse.
I’m all for correct labelling. The labelling on BZP packs so far has seemed pretty accurate to me.
And Meth use is not dropping.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Jolly Jim’s one man crusade against drugs. He’s gonna win the battle and loose the war as more and more people realise that there are much more enjoyable substances to be had than the banned BZP.
Just out of interest, can you buy shares in the gangs ? I predict their profits are going to be going up again.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
“You’ll never change the world that way.”
So, why the hell do you get so burnt up you (and so many other leftists) write hundreds of lines here trying so hard to discredit me?
The fact is that the drugs culture is a natural outcome of socialist policies, and that will only become apparent if people not indoctrinated with leftist social mores point this out. Otherwise, it won’t ever be said.
That’s why you want Scott to leave, because he’s not conforming to your idea of what should be said, and like me, he’s attacking the real cause of the problem, leftist culture and those who support it and attempt to enforce it.
BTW, don’t all you leftists get tired of that little poodle Andy Pandy attempting sexual intercourse with your leg all day? Please, give him the attention he’s begging for, and maybe he’ll lie down.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Humans love drugs – some go for a run and pump up their endorphin levels, some down a few pills and some snort some stuff up their nose….
Nothing has changed here in thousands of years… But Jolly Jim knows better !
How is his suicide prevention program comming along? Has he achieved anything more than banning the reporting of the statistics ?
September 12th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
If the medical and legal fraternities had known the consequences of alcohol and tobacco 200 years ago would we have had early-stage intervention and/or prohibition to curb their uptake? I suspect so. Seems we’re destined to not learn anything from the past. I guess we’re human.
Also the suggestion that people who self-medicate using mind altering drugs (incl tobacco and alcohol) harm no one other than themselves is just rubbish. Some may be able to claim this, but the harm does happen – just elsewhere in society. That’s rather like saying “I don’t care what impact this has on others and/or society – I just want to do whatever the hell I like”.
On that basis I’d like to decriminalise tax avoidance!
September 12th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
krazykiwi
If the medical and legal fraternities had known the consequences of refined sugar….
And so the list goes on…. Personal responsibility and education are the answer – not Jolly Jim telling us how to live our lives.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I know for a fact alot of my mates stopped using harder drugs when party pills came out. I am worried this will lead alot of people onto harder drugs as there is nothing else legally available.
I bad decision in my opinion.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Krazy kiwi,
No, to be “early” intervention would have needed to occur about 10,000 to 20,000 years ago. Plus there are observations of chimps getting wasted, so maybe it is even older than that.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
RB, your attacks don’t other me, infact the poodle comment had me in fits of laughter. pity you’re too embarassed by your comments here to use your real name.
The thing is comments people make say more about themselves than others, as I’m sure you know. Over the months you have attacked so many people that the currency of your attacks has been debased, you are too much of a joke for your abuse to cause offence, this is one reason why I think moderation of the blog is all but unneccessary
September 12th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
“MikeE, you’ve haven’t got a clue, honestly. Why you fancy yourself an expert on this escapes me, since your utterances on the subject and are usually highly coloured emotive claptrap. Meth has already claims every victim it is going to. Meth use is dropping due to simple Darwinism and a general realisation how dangerous it is.”
Toms – do you know anyone who has personally used Meth? I know plenty of people who have and moved off it, some of which have used BZP as a stepping stone to get off it, others which have gone through all manners of hell before quitting. Do I want to see people move on to it? No. Do I support legislation which pushes drug use underground and people on to harder and dirtier drugs – hell no. This is exactly what banning BZP will do.
While it might be emotive, it certainly isn’t claptrap. What this does is criminalise people for what they put in their bodies. By definition this will increase crime. This *will* waste police time and money – one crimes that have no victims.
I’ve been in situations where teh cops were too busy to help when there was a legitimate victim. So have many other kiwis – why should we make it even harder for police to do their jobs, but creating a whole new class of criminals, who have hurt NOONE.. when they are barely resourced to do their current jobs.
People should be able to consumed and possess whatever they want, providing they do no harm to anyone else. If they do harm to another person, that is the crime, not the consumption of a particular product.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
“The BZP analogues currently being trialled are all shit, and they’ll be banned one by one by order in council anyway.”
Also – there aren’t BZP analogues being trialed, as after the ban, these would be deemed to be structurally similar to an illegal substance under the MODA and thus illegal.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
“Just out of interest, can you buy shares in the gangs ? I predict their profits are going to be going up again.”
You can buy shares in Glaxo Smith Kline.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
burt, i don’t disgree. in fact i’m a huge supporter of personal responsibility. having said that i’m happy to drive on the roads knowing that speed limits and driving conventions are regulated rather than being left to everyone better judgement.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Redbaiting Retard Says:
Drugs culture is as old as civilisation, you ignorant reactionary moron.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
This ban is just New Zealand following the lead of the USA in committing to a long war on drugs.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Redbaiter said:
“The fact is that the drugs culture is a natural outcome of socialist policies”
Nobel Prize winning economist (and no left winger) Milton Friedman once refered to the “The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise”
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/socialist.htm
September 12th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Still nothin on what office democracy hating Ratbiter is standing for.
Come on tell us all, we can put out some helpful leaflets with some of your classic quotes for the perusal of the electorate.
Why so shy?
September 12th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
if the experience with GHB is any guide prohibition will be successful in killing demand for BZP. I doubt that many people will keep BZP as their pill of choice if obtaining it becomes a hassle. However, a significant portion of the population who use BZP will simply migrate to Ecstasy, on the reasoning that if you are going to go to the hassle of sourcing something illegal it might as well be the genuine article.
A migration to Ecstasy might come as a relief to hospital emergency departments. It’s years since there was an ecstasy-related death, and my guess is that it doesn’t produce the same rate of nasty reactions as BZP has been — in part, of course, because it’s more expensive to overdose on.
I strongly believe that a legal social stimulant is a good idea, but I can see why BZP was banned. The Christchurch ED study, which was the basis of the medical evidence, is hair-raising — a parade of critical cases taking up hospital resources, and people who would probably have died without intervention. The Auckland study over a slightly earlier period found far, far fewer problems, leading perhaps to the conclusion that they’re nuts in Christchurch.
OTOH, it’s also true that Anderton would have given the likes of Jacqui Dean a great big stick to beat him with all the way through to election if he hadn’t banned it.
On a personal level, I won’t miss BZP. It’s garbage. But I do still have fond memories of Matt Bowden’s Ease (aka methylone) which was legal until the MoH changed its mind and decided that it was actually illegal all along, as an MDMA analogue.
The thing that everyone misses is that there now exists a Class D category for legal recreational drugs, which is quite remarkable, and when the government gets its act together, manufacturers will know what test they have to meet for Class D approval. It’s not like BZP is the only not-yet-illegal psychoactive substance out there. And Tom, the next generation won’t be BZP analogues — they’ll be something from the big book of phenythylamines. I think the next couple of years are going to be quite interesting.
And Ben:
Perhaps the fact that you don’t drink alcohol makes you think it’s a pleasant drink. Actually it’s an acquired taste – most children will shy away from it in disgust, tasting the base toxin no matter how many sweeteners they put over the top. But they will persist through social pressure until eventually they even like the taste, much like the way smokers say they love the taste of smoke.
True, but once you get over how bad single malt whisky tastes, you can start to appreciate how stunningly wonderful it can taste.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Russel, the issue isn’t whether you miss BZP or not. I can’t stand the smell of the crystals/pills anymore – it makes me want to gag.
The issues is whether people should be criminalised (because thats whats going to happen) for its consumption.
Do you believe that someone should recieve a jail sentance, and have their life ruined, simiply for the consumption of a pill. The cure should not be worse than the problem.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Perhaps you are a descendent of the people (admittedly the majority) who didn’t believe cigarette smoke to be of harm to the smoker, let alone to people nearby.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Personally I don’t see why anyone would want to take drugs such as BZP.
(puts down ciggy and takes another swig of beer)
As fast as new drugs are banned, newer ones will replace them. It has been an ongoing issue for all time and will continue to be.
As with most really important decisions in life, it comes down to the individuals choice. My choices have always been ‘legal’, but I suspect have done as much if not more damage than some illegal choices may have.
At least they were my choices.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Well done to ACT and the Greens for opposing this move.
When will all the conservatives in the Labour and National parties get it?
The point isn’t whether party pills are harmful or not.
The point is that there are two kinds of people populating our Parliament.
1. Those who believe its Parliaments job to protect our rights to life liberty and property, and to defend us from those who try to take those away – thugs and foreign threats.
2. Those who believe its Parliaments job to use force to tell people how to live their life, trade away citizens liberty in order to mold their “virtuous/safe/strong/proud/whatever society” and take and redistribute property without compensation.
Pick who you support.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I pick 1.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
krazykiwi Says:
Perhaps you are a descendent of the people (admittedly the majority) who didn’t believe cigarette smoke to be of harm to the smoker, let alone to people nearby.
Complex issue, no? Should smokers and drinkers receive free public health care for ciggie or booze-related conditions? Should sufferers of mental illnesses that can be shown to be – at least in part – triggered by marijuana use be allowed to be admitted to public facilities?
Interesting road to go down.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I’ve written posts to you a few times, usually when you directly ask me a question or attack me, or misquote me, or something like. That’s not trying hard at all. It’s what posting on forums is like. But exchanges with you go rapidly towards abuse because that is what you offer.
It’s not because I’m burned up that you’re changing the world behind my back. I’d be surprised if you’ve even changed your underwear, much less anyone’s mind about anything. Except mine. I thought you were a pest before, but now I think you’re a bit like the old homeless guy who wanders around near me – you feel sorry for them, but they’re part of the fabric society, even if they choose a very strange way of showing it. You should be allowed, even if no-one actually likes you.
I don’t want Scott to leave. I’m just suggesting it, since he’s shocked and sickened, like all old people are, about the depravity of modern youth. If he went somewhere, perhaps Tauranga, he might feel more at home. As for you, I wouldn’t know where to suggest. By your standards the entire planet is a socialist hell-hole. So you’re stuck in hell, being piss-miserable and desperately trying to get other people to feel miserable too. And it’s not catching on, too many socialists think they have a right to happiness in this world.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
“Drugs culture is as old as civilisation, you ignorant reactionary moron.”
That maybe. Its a pity you had to use a sock puppet to make the point. Shame is that its totally irrelevant. Anyone with average comprehension would understand that the concern is an ever growing dependency on drugs. That you missed this is probably also the reason you felt the need to change your ID and also why your argument is so remarkably uncompelling. You’re just a typically thick as a brick socialist.
Socialism’s rise to political ascendancy has been paralleled by increased drug use. This has occurred everywhere the left have fastened their talons. The Scandinavian countries, UK, Europe, the USA. Where hopelessness is a feature of life, so are drugs. The old Soviet Union was awash in Vodka before its collapse.
Singapore has a different culture. Drug use there is hardly noticeable.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Redbaiter:
Can’t follow your point/paragraph. The former Soviet Union is still awash in “vodka”, and is now awash in other pharmaceuticals.
I changed my ID?
September 12th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
“As for you,”
Snip boring and bigoted monologue. Y’know the thing that baffles me about you leftists, is that you actually imagine I give a damn for whatever regard you may hold me in. You people are so stupid you can’t tie your own shoelaces. Why should I regard your rants about Redbaiter as worth more than a pinch of goat shit? Grow up you sad intolerant bore. Debate the issue. Your role (as far as I can discern) is defending the charge that socialism (your culture) leads to increases in substance abuse. How about giving it a go?
September 12th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Alcohol and tobacco are rated as more dangerous than cannabis, LSD and ecstasy according to a rigorous assessment of the social and individual harm of drugs:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,2040886,00.html
September 12th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Russel, the issue isn’t whether you miss BZP or not. I can’t stand the smell of the crystals/pills anymore – it makes me want to gag.
The issues is whether people should be criminalised (because thats whats going to happen) for its consumption.
I actually think that no one will bother with BZP, knowlingly at least, after it becomes Class C, but I understand your point. In a perfect world, yes.
But in a society where the taxpayer foots the bill for medical intervention, the taxpayer’s representative has some rights too. Ideally, several low-risk (meaning low potential for addiction or overdose) recreational stimulants would be annointed as Class D and appropriately regulated. Whether the government — and that includes a potential National government with Jacqui Dean in it — keeps faith with the structure it has created remains to be seen, but I think it will be an interesting time.
One obvious problem is that some of those substances may well be already illegal because they can be identified as analogues of already banned drugs such as MDMA, which is what happened to methylone. BZP didn’t creep through the door because it had much to particularly recommend it, but because it was cheap and easy to make and it didn’t happen to already be illegal.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
When did that become the issue? Blatant threadjacking!
September 12th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
You people are so stupid you can’t tie your own shoelaces. Why should I regard your rants about Redbaiter as worth more than a pinch of goat shit? Grow up you sad intolerant bore. Debate the issue.
That’s rich. Is there any topic you haven’t spoiled with your own tedious and repetitive ranting?
September 12th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
1) My point about university students is that education of itself does not necessarily produce virtuous citizens. To take another example I am sure that we educate people not to throw rubbish and litter. However the amount of rubbish carelessly thrown around on Saturday nights is amazing. People may know the right thing — don’t drop litter — but that does not mean they will do the right thing. Education does not always mean virtue. Therefore we can educate people not to abuse drugs but that does not mean they will exhibit self-control and restraint.
2) The point about alcohol and tobacco is that we cannot ban it because it is too well entrenched in our culture. As the prohibition example of the 1930s proved. However that does not mean that we should not ban anything. The idea of open slather seems to me to be abhorrent. Given the abuse of alcohol which is legal and freely available, goodness knows what our young people would do with harder substances. The amount of harm the drugs cause in our society today is incredible. I cannot imagine how drugs being more freely available can do anything but increase the harm.
3) Regarding inconsistency in the law I think we are having a liberal versus conservative moment. A liberal will always look for perfection, believes in progress, the innate goodness of the human race and that if we just have the right rules and laws and regulations then society will just keep getting better and better.
A conservative, like myself, believes in the essential sinfulness of humanity, that perfection will not be found this side of heaven, that we should have a minimum of rules and regulations and that inconsistency will always occur.
When you draw a line, as in what drugs should be be legal and what not, there is always an argument as to what side of the line a drug should be. People might argue that marijuana should be legal — no more harmful than alcohol they might say. But you will always get those arguments. To achieve perfect consistency you must ban all drugs (including coffee) or legalise all drugs (including marijuana, heroine and P).
4) “Go somewhere else if you don’t like it” is probably not a scholarly debating point.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Russell
Whiskey is to me the purest form of that poison. It tastes like…alcohol. Yuck. But it is second to none in washing the taste of smoke out of your mouth, so it goes well with cigars and other smokez.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Alcohol and tobacco are rated as more dangerous than cannabis, LSD and ecstasy according to a rigorous assessment of the social and individual harm of drugs:
Indeed. The only NZ Parliamentary party that makes an effort to take that on board in a policy sense is the Greens.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Try ’shine sometime. Preferably out of a jam-jar. No hangover, tho.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Apologies — my post above is in reply to Ben Wilson — apologies for missing out that rather essential point.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
“That’s rich. Is there any topic you haven’t spoiled with your own tedious and repetitive ranting?”
Just can’t help yourself can you Russell.? You absolutely burn with the compulsion to attack those who hold socialism (your precious religion) in contempt, and are so blinded by your intolerance you cannot see what a sad hypocrite you are.
I am suggesting that substance abuse is a cultural problem, and a natural outcome of socialist culture. If you don’t want to argue that thesis, then why don’t you just shut the fuck up and carry on with your own unreadable tedious gobbeldy gook?
You can’t can you? You just have to attempt to assert your (perceived) moral superiority. Here’s the news Russell. Your “superiority” is an illusion that makes you grow more desperate everyday. Your superiority is an illusion because of the obvious degradation that you and your ilk have brought upon this country, not only as manifested in the terrible problem of substance abuse, but in so many ways that you are already well aware of.
You can call me names, call out the water cannon, get the police dogs, but its only just starting Russell. Sweat you socialist, and get used to it.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Socialism’s rise to political ascendancy has been paralleled by increased drug use. This has occurred everywhere the left have fastened their talons. The Scandinavian countries …
You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Are you familiar with the rate of recreational drug use in the lefty Scandinavian countries as opposed to, say, the US?
Singapore has a different culture. Drug use there is hardly noticeable.
That will be because the government incarcerates people for very lengthy terms — and sometimes kills them — for drug offences that might not even earn a term of imprisonment in most countries. Because the police can empty out a nightclub, blood-test everyone and prosecute those who return a positive test, with no further evidence required. Because Singaporean citizens who have consumed banned drugs where they are legal — in some Euopean countries for example — can be pulled aside, blood tested and charged on re-entry. Because in Singapore, you do not own your body — the government does.
This is your earthly paradise?
September 12th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Scott.
Once again you miss that when ‘education’ was referred to, they didn’t mean university. They meant something like what you’d read in a pamphlet on waste-disposal. Short, factual, to the point.
I can’t see that open slather on drugs is either:
1. Not happening anyway
2. Any worse than open slather on alcohol or tobacco
The only real question is whether you want to make criminals of huge pieces of society. With alcohol that was impossible (in the West) because it was most of society. With other drugs, it’s barely sustainable. You can put a reasonable subsection of harmless society in prison and get away with it, however stupid an idea it is.
As a conservative who believes in a minimum of rules, why is it that you favor adding some more, then? Oh, that’s right, inconsistency’s OK because it will all be resolved in heaven?
Personally I draw the line at ‘any substance which has the sole purpose of harm’. So I don’t think you should be allowed to buy botulinic toxin, for instance. Things that have other uses but are incredibly harmful (like cyanide) should be controlled. Things whose main purpose is amusement and have some harms as side-effects should be clearly labeled, studied, and allowed. That includes ALL recreational drugs.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Whiskey is to me the purest form of that poison. It tastes like…alcohol.
Except for the BenRach 20 year-old, which tastes like honey and nougat, the Adelphi Breath of the Isles, which has a brilliant, astringent sense of seaspray about it, etc, etc …
September 12th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
if guaranteed harm to others were the benchmark for prohibition of something otherwise seen as a personal right (the right to consume whatever pills, or do whatever) then there would be no speed limit. after all, only a tiny percentage of those that travel at 120km/h actually kill or injure someone, so why do we regulate it?
I wonder if those who call for total freedom to self-medicate with whatever junk they want to fry their brains with would be happy to share the road with absolutely 100% sober drivers doing twice the since-abolished speed limit? after all, we could just procsecute those responsible for any carnage rather than limit the rights over other drivers.
No, I don’t buy the line “It’s ok as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else”. Few can predetermine the origin of harm, much less identify it when when manifests.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Well Willie, it’s an easy choice for you and me, not so easy for the socialists and moralising conservatives.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
When did that become the issue? Blatant threadjacking!
Wrong Llew. It is the core issue. This law is aimed at reducing substance abuse. It is a futile knee jerk piece of legislation. The real problem is much greater, and deep seated in NZ’s culture. Substance abuse will not be stopped by parliamentary legislation. It will only cease when NZers begin to take responsibility for their own actions, and stop fooling themselves that their plight is the responsibility of the collective….
Socialists will continue to do all that they can to discredit this as a solution. (They have no argument against it tho, as their posts here show.)
September 12th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Russell, remind me never to sniff anyone’s breath from Adelphi.
krazy kiwi
I would. Going 220km/h in Germany was better than any party pill I’ve ever tried. I think compulsory insurance isn’t a bad idea though.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Socialism’s rise to political ascendancy has been paralleled by increased drug use. This has occurred everywhere the left have fastened their talons. The Scandinavian countries …
Ah yes, who can forget the music, movies and fashion of the mid-90’s crack epidemic that swept through inner cities across Sweden and Norway.
If there’s one thing you can say about Redbaiter its that he’s up front about his intentions – just look at his name. He isn’t remotely interested in debating any issues or convincing anyone of his points – his goal is to waste your time and he appears to have limitless amounts of his own time to waste in which to do this. It still mystifies me that people indulge him.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
“You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Are you familiar with the rate of recreational drug use in the lefty Scandinavian countries as opposed to, say, the US? ”
No you don’t. In terms of culture, the regions where drug abuse is so endemic in the US (San Francisco, LA) have similar cultures (politically and socially) to the Scandinavian countries.
…and whatever the Singapore government does, its citizens are not prisoners in their own homes, as they are since socialism became ascendant in NZ. You think what you have brought upon this country is a positive, when all the social indicators prove a negative. Most obviously crime and violent crime. So much of it tied to substance abuse.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
So Ratbiters, the way deal with drug taking is for everyone who is taking them to take some responsibilty and stop.
WTF have you been smoking?
September 12th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
LA is culturally similar to Scandinavia?
Could you get us the name of your dealer ratbiter, that must be some week you are smoking.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
“his goal is to waste your time and he appears to have limitless amounts of his own time to waste in which to do this. It still mystifies me that people indulge him.”
So answer me this simple question. Why do you and so many other pretentious smug leftists waste so much of your own time writing line after line of personal attack? If I’m so unimportant to the scheme of things, surely I would be totally ignored. Perhaps you could be kind enough to explain that logical conflict.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I’ve long said the same thing about people who watch Celebrity Treasure Island.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Ratbiterm leaving aside the glaring fact that you write long screeds about a “left” you find so unimportant the answer is best expressed thus
Why do people pay money to go see clowns in the circus?
Because watching someone else making a total fool of themselves is funny.
Why do small children prod animals?
To make them squirm.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
An addiction perhaps!
September 12th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
It’s a kind of juke box man. It’s the ambience of the forum. Any time it’s all getting a bit silent and uncontroversial, poke Redbaiter. Just as well there’s no Jake the Muss in this bar though.
I’m only playing with him today because he could be gone tomorrow, or whenever it is the moderators descend. I’ll miss being reminded of how the lessons of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao can be found in the most seemingly unrelated topics.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
No you don’t. In terms of culture, the regions where drug abuse is so endemic in the US (San Francisco, LA) have similar cultures (politically and socially) to the Scandinavian countries.
Again, completely clueless. From a handy little summary at The Prospect:
“The 5 states with the highest rates of alcohol dependence or abuse among 12- to 17-year-olds are also red states … The per capita rate of methamphetamine-lab seizures in California is 2 per 100,000 … In Arkansas, it’s 20 per 100,000 … The number of meth-lab seizures in red states increased by 38 percent from 1999 to 2003 … In the same time frame, it decreased by 38 percent in blue states …”
…and whatever the Singapore government does, its citizens are not prisoners in their own homes, as they are since socialism became ascendant in NZ.
Bold new heights of cluelessness!
80 to 90% of Singaporeans don’t have “their own homes”. They live in government-built HDB housing, either renting or “buying” leasehold. They do so at the government’s pleasure. The government will inspect any potential leasehold purchaser’s domestic circumstances to determine the presence of a “proper family nucleus”, as a strict condition of eligibility. Divorcees are inelgible to buy leases for five years after divorce. Etc.
Again, your earthly paradise?
September 12th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I used the term BZP analogues loosely, to describe all the pills being developed at the moment to try and get around the BZP ban. MikeE, I know plenty of people who have fallen victim to meth, far far to many. Not many have come back, and all are damaged. The number that made it back using BZP as a help is in my opinion in the margin of error of recovered users. It might have worked for a handful of middle class users who went over the edge and found themselves hanging on by their finger tips, but that would be about it. Thats why I don’t see any increase in meth use as a result of this ban – those who were there for the taking, have been taken already.
Ease was a great product, though I remember thinking at the time the worst thing a person could say to Matt Bowden would have been “Man, your Ease really helps bring on my pill.” It is a pity it was banned so quickly.
Russell, I have always held the view that Jim Anderton has been playing a long game with the ultimate aim of a far more restrictive regulatory and legal attitude to drug use. I suspect the Class D classification will turn out to be a false dawn, weighed down with impossible standards and vasts amounts of red tape as a deliberate way of foiling a more liberal drug policy whilst at the same time appearing to be lenient. My cynicism stands to be corrected, I’ll be pleasantly surprised if I am wrong.
This redbaiter individual is hardly worth taking seriously – I’ve observed a fairly tenuous grip on reality (he/she is calling for a military coup, and is serious FFS) that appears to be getting worse. My main concern would be to identify the person behind the IP address and see if they either an immature youth or an adult in need of help from mental health services. Seriously.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
It still mystifies me that people indulge him.
Transient amusement, basically. Bored now though.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
krazykiwi
Fair call about traveling on the roads. However would you support the installation of a device in all cars that restricts them from doing more than 50 kph in a 50 zone or 100 kph in a 100 zone ? We have the technology so it’s only a matter of should we do it ?
September 12th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
“The only real question is whether you want to make criminals of huge pieces of society”
Yes, of course they do. Sect 59 repeal made criminals out of a large number of parents (not convicted but still lawbreakers). Now the “under 25″ set are next.
Set-net policies that have huge consequences way beyond there intent.
Stupid laws made by stupid people.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
80 to 90% of Singaporeans don’t have “their own homes”.
This hardly the issue. The point that you avoided so inadroitly is that Singaporeans do not have the crime rates that NZers have to endure since socialism became ascendant. This has nothing to do with whether they rent or own their own homes. Crime is down to self worth, and socialism has taken that from too many NZers, whereas Singaporeans living in a society where self reliance is encouraged and not penalised, don’t need to struggle with such psychological hurdles.
..and oh yeah, I’ve lived in many different parts of the USA, and while I was in Rexburgh for example, I noticed that the streets teamed with drug abusers, whilst in LA, hell- there’s none. Pseudo liberals.. pffft, a different universe.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Isn’t Ratbiter amusing. The self-styled libertarian yearns for a Singapore style government.
It is interesting though that since the revelation that he wishes to stand for election he has stopped the swearing that normally adorns his deranged rants.
I wonder how long it will be before the mask slips?
September 12th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
burt, i know what you’re getting at re driving etc. the question of legislation isn’t a binary one, more of a continuum along which we have to find the ‘right’ place.
and we can be sure that with any legislation within the domain of recreational chemicals there will be a wide spread of views on where that point should be.
my view is that we have too much evidence of the social damage caused by tobacco and alcohol to ignore the potential impact of other mind altering drugs becoming corner store shelf-fillers.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
or whenever it is the moderators descend.
I’d guess whatever the moderators may be, they’d possess enough objectivity to discern who has posted the most disruptive messages to this thread.
No matter how I try to keep you socialists on topic, you can’t help posting line after line of personal attack. That makes about 60 from you alone Ben, and probably a couple of hundred off topic lines from other leftists. Mostly boring opinionated monlogues of absolutley no worth to the discussion (and no other worth either).
You can’t argue my thesis that substance abuse will only recede when socialism recedes, then just ignore me. Please do me that simple pleasure, and cease cluttering the discussion with your arrogant and bigoted adjudications on Redbaiter.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Singapore! Yes, that would be the perfect place for you Red. No blogging though, not if you value your freedom. But that’s fine cause you wouldn’t need to blog, there would be no social ills to get bitter on. That’s what all the pamphlets say! And the statistics back them up! And you won’t have to feel like a prisoner in the government’s home that you inhabit, terrified of all the pill-heads that are ganging up to force Marxism into you. It must be stink to feel that way, I can understand your poems of woe on a daily basis now.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
krazykiwi asked:
…to which Ben Wilson replied:
Now there’s an interesting potential correlation. I wonder if a study has ever been done on whether living in a dull, grey, over-regulated country where your every move is regulated and an army of bureaucrats serving their political masters (and mistresses) by hampering your every desire leads to people escaping inside their own minds in search of entertainment or obilivion? I suspect it does.
If, to float but one possible instance, instead of enacting tougher and tougher “anti hoon laws” legislators funded a racetrack on which young men could race either their own vehicles – if they wished to risk them – or those seized from the truly dangerous (repeat drunk drivers, for instance) whether they’d find going hell-for-leather in relative safety (and complete safety in terms of the rest of us) more stimulating than sitting in someone’s lounge dropping party pills and/or quaffing booze, catalysed by their own testosterone into potential tragedy for them and/or others. I suspect at least some might.
Likewise if the revenue-raisers… sorry, officers of the law… would exercise a bit of restraint with their cash registers… sorry, speed traps… I’d be tempted to concede to an import ban on single malt (yes, even Laphroaig, which is far superior to that BenRach stuff Russell Brown is shamelessly hawking
Someone mentioned the consumption of Vodka in Russia, which an acquaintance living there tells me hasn’t changed much from communism to capitalism. That’s because it’s still crashingly dull there, except for the privileged few. Seems to suggest krazykiwi and Ben might be onto something…
September 12th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Your thesis is laughable, it relies on the weird theorum that the USA is a socialist country, as I suppose are Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan (all areas of high heroin use) Columbia (Cocaine) and Japan (alchohol)
You also ignore the fact that people have been taking drugs of various sorts all through human history, no doubt hoping we will conclude that early cavemen were “communists”
InRatbiter you blame every problem that exists or has ever existed on “socialism”, it’s no wonder no-one takes you at all seriously.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Just curious which tentacles of socialism Redbaiter thinks need to recede in order to reduce the substance abuse.
Getting rid of civil unions? Rolling back the anti-smacking bill? The foreshore and seabed legislation?
September 12th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
If i may add, the secret truth behind most recreational drugs is that people take them because they like the effects, they make you feel good.
I’ve always been of the view that you are as likely to get rid of sex as you are to get rid of drugs. Better to regulate it so it’s clean and as safe as possible that hand the trade over to gangsters.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
The point that you avoided so inadroitly is that Singaporeans do not have the crime rates that NZers have to endure since socialism became ascendant.
Man I don’t know where you live, but you need to move somewhere nicer!
I live in the middle of the CBD of our biggest city and I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen any crime, drunk kids not withstanding. Whereas a lot of downtowns of big cities are almost no-go areas at night.
You can bang on about crime as much as you want but NZ’s still a hell of a lot safer than most other countries. The fact that a kid getting stabbed can be headline news a couple of nights in a row says it all really – in many places that incident would be lucky getting a mention in the paper.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Leftists ar emissing the point on Singapore. Drug use is a mentality, and its generally a reflection of a person’s psychological makeup. Socialists are different psychologically to Singaporeans. Socialist have a dependancy mindset. Singaporeans are independent and self reliant. This is the real issue. All the other froth and bubble that the left have written here about Singapore is worthless to the discussion. Socilaism brings on a mindset that increases the potential for drug use. Its rife where hopelessness and socialism prevail.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
“Socialists are different psychologically to Singaporeans”
What about Singaporian socialists?
September 12th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
“Better to regulate it so it’s clean and as safe as possible that hand the trade over to gangsters.”
No, Better to NOT regulate it so it’s clean and as safe as possible, that will avoid the trade being handed over to gangsters.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
oh no..!..he’she’s talking about themselves in the third person..!
the shark has been jumped..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 12th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
“Better to NOT regulate it”
Sell the stuff to schoolkids, don’t have any quality control?
September 12th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
I’ve always wondered if someone steps in when the going gets tough & provides a slightly less rabid voice, maybe the campaign manager. Anyone able to check IP addresses?
September 12th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Up to parents to teach their kids… well it used to be, now that’s Helens job, socialism is sidelining parents.
Let the buyer beware
September 12th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Is it really so many? It only feels like a few, but when you’re having fun…
You have a thesis? You blame substance abuse on (for a change) socialism? I guess if you really wanted to have an argument, and I know you really don’t, then you could be asked to define what you mean by socialism. Failing that, and you will fail, you could list where you think is socialist, and more importantly where is not. Doesn’t have to be a complete list, just one that doesn’t leave the crowd scratching their heads wondering what you mean by socialist because they can’t see any pattern. You’d also have to define substance abuse. Then you could be said to have a thesis, rather than a collection of hints, which is the sum total of your dispensed wisdom on this thread.
After that, you might want to try to prove the connection. But let’s get to that after we actually know what the thesis is.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
“You also ignore the fact that people have been taking drugs of various sorts all through human history,”
I’ve already addressed this point when I said that the *increase* in drug use was the issue, and that this increase has roughly paralleled the ascendancy of socialism. Why do people with such poor comprehension skills hang out on discussion forums? I guess they expect others without such handicaps to keep repeating themselves. So dull.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Please provide evidence of increased drug use, and ascendant socialism.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
I’ve already addressed this point when I said that the *increase* in drug use was the issue, and that this increase has roughly paralleled the ascendancy of socialism.
You know what else has increased over this time?
Technology.
I blame technology for socialism, and therefore drugs. We were better off when we lived in caves, the ORIGINAL leaky homes.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
And technology means you don’t have to work so hard and so long so there is more time for recreational drug use. We need to uninvent the wheel here I think.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Socialism is the use of government to gradually enforce “approved” Marxist behaviour patterns. Socialists get power by means of welfarism. Welfarism diminishes self worth and combined with the suffocating influence of socialism, also attacks morality and purpose. As loss of self worth, morality and purpose widens in the populace, it leads to increased levels of drug abuse.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
“*increase* in drug use was the issue, and that this increase has roughly paralleled the ascendancy of socialism”
Herion use leaped in the UK when a certain M Thatchre was PM.
Crack cocaine use exploded un the US under a certain Ronald Reagun.
I never thought of either of those two as socialists, but in your crazy world they probably are pmnko commie scum.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
RabidBitch
No drug abusers on the streets of south central LA? I bet your lily-white ass is too fraidy to go anwhere near there.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
“it’s no wonder no-one takes you at all seriously.”
Of course not. that’s why there’s hundreds of lines here dealing with my point of view. (Well. take away the boring self important monologues attacking Redbaiter personally, and there’s still quite a few.) BTW, there’s no hyphen in “no one”. Get an education.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
But no instead it was the self worth of these people being diminished by the welfarism otherwise known as Thatcherism and Reaganomics.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Of course not. that’s
That’s (It’s called a capital letter.)
But stay away from school Redbaiter, those socialist teachers will get you!
September 12th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Sorry Red, we’re still stuck on “what is socialism”. I think you need to make a list. I don’t know what you mean by “use of government to gradually enforce “approved” Marxist behaviour patterns”. That just unfolds into more unknowns. In fact, I’d be happy with 5 examples that were clearly not socialist in your definition.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
In fact, I’d be happy with 5 examples that were clearly not socialist in your definition.
I presume shooting yourself can’t be socialist… Because why would the socialists kill themselves? Unless it’s part of their evil plot to overthrow the world? Evil suicidal socialists.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
ok, my bad. I meant 5 countries.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
OK then, 2? 1? One state? One territory? One city?
September 12th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
One state? One territory? One city?
Haha careful, or he’ll start talking about Singapore again.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
My favourite part of Singapore is how it rains flowers and candy.
(Soft candy, I’m not talking about hard and dangerous candy that could hurt somebody if it fell from the sky – they only have that sort of candy in socialist states. I bet Helen Clark from Liebour has a big jar of it!)
September 12th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Even committing to Singapore as not-socialist could be hard for Red. It’s a corner he’s painted himself into, and now he’s frozen, worrying about his Sunday suit getting socialist paint of his own lathering on it.
Funny thing is, there are dozens of examples of countries that are not the least bit socialist even on Redbaiter’s hazy definition, but he doesn’t want to point to any of them. Because the problem is that by saying they aren’t socialist he has just realized that he is endorsing them. So even if they prove his point about drug abuse (which they won’t anyway), they will undermine his more important point that socialism is shit. That’s why he will not give a list, I’m predicting. But the abuse can continue merrily, I’m kind of sad I killed it with that card.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
“he has just realized”
Woow, from rancid and boring personal abuse to mind reading. Why don’t you just let me post my own thoughts here? Jezuz H Christ on a bike. You socialists are always so smug and arrogant.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
waiting for your thoughts…tick tock.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Jim Anderton has put out an interesting press release.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0709/S00173.htm
It seems that Jacqui Dean has asked him to investigate banning the evil substance DHMO:
* Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
* Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
* Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
* DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
* Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
* Contributes to soil erosion.
* Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
* Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
* Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
* Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
* Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
* Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
Of course this is the same prank that ACT on Campus played on Sue Kedgely a few years ago, this time it was by some clubbers (and instigated by myself) … If she was silly enough to call for a ban on DHMO (otherwise known as water) based on our emails – imagine how little research she has put into BZP.
I’ll be doing a full write up on this topic when I get home later tonight.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Mind reading… ? Logical conclusion.
I can do mind reading tricks, what would you like to know?
September 12th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Jezuz H Christ on a bike.
You make Him sound like some sort of socialist greeny!
At least give Him a Holden or a Harley…
September 12th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I don’t know what you mean by “use of government to gradually enforce “approved” Marxist behaviour patterns”.
Well, i can’t really be held responsible for your (Benny) lack of comprehension skills. There are governments that merely govern, and there are governments that focus on enlarging themselves, and promoting among the governed a mentality of dependency on government. There is a massive difference in attitude between (for example) the politicians who govern Singapore and those who govern New Zealand. Marxism is something notable by its absence in the former.
The issue here tho is drug use and the futility of legislation in dealing with an issue that is cultural. If you disagree that socialism is the cause, then give me an alternative causation. How do you (Benny) explain the increased instances of substance abuse over recent decades?
September 12th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Just a small point of interest: New Zealand head shops sell salvia divinorum, a short-acting but very strongly psychoactive substance (I tried some once and spent an indeterminate time, probably about 30 seconds, outside time and space). The news media tried to whip up a panic about it a couple of years ago, but couldn’t get a rise from anyone because only freaks use it and they don’t cause any trouble.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
“waiting for your thoughts…tick tock.’
You’ve no damn idea have you? You’d have as much chance of controlling the operation I am controlling here, and simultaneoulsy exchanging opinions with a bunch of impotent half educated left wing robots, as pigs would have of piloting a space craft into solar orbit.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
New Zealand head shops sell salvia divinorum
Like Cosmic Corner? Haha I want to investigate now.
a bunch of impotent half educated left wing robots
At least your kids aren’t gonna have to worry about this stuff in the future, cos it sounds like we’re a dieing breed… What with our inability to procreate and everything.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
I have a few colleagues with a pretty long psychoactive substance use resume who got together and tried salvia one evening. Apparrently it wasn’t a nice experience at all, albeit short lived, and they reported much the same experience as Russel, they felt more or less outside time and space. One said that he thought the universe was folded like a piece of paper, getting smaller with each fold, causing him to panic. Crazy.
I haven’t heard many reports of anyone actually enjoying it, I think they said it tastes terrible too?
Can’t see it catching on, it’s more of a novelty thing as far as I can tell. Still, we should probably ban it anyway.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Still got no example Reddy? You’ve had an hour and a half and have directed 3 posts at me in that time, so you can’t claim you were doing something else. Can I conclude that you can’t come up with one single example of a non-socialist country? Not even one itty bitty little one?
It’s not like you don’t claim to be an expert on socialism. It is your only theme in all your poems. Surely you have at least one example of somewhere that is not at all socialist to hold up proudly? One tiny example of what it is you think is grand. The nirvana you’re holding up to show just exactly why NZ is so shit.
Just one. It’s not so much to ask of someone who claims to be debating a question intelligently that they provide just one example of the main word they are using so that people can actually get what they are talking about.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Stop it Ben you’ll make him cry.
(psst keep going keep going…)
September 12th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Still got no example Reddy?
Are you totally unable to comprehend or do you just find it difficult to understand opinions that aren’t couched in smug self congratulatory socialist phraseology.? I’ve provided the example. Singapore is not a socialist government, as it applies to governments who use wealth transfer as a means of controlling the population staying in power and perpetuating their existence.
Seeing you seem to believe that posters here are for some reason obliged to deal with the off topic crap and arrogant demands of smug leftist bozos like you, let me try the same making the same kind of demand- Where’s your answer to my question?
September 12th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
That’s NOT what socialism is, you ignorant pillock. Could you stop ranting for a minute to get your facts straight?
And when are you going to back-up your claim that I “changed my ID”?
September 12th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
waiting for your thoughts…tick tock.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
“That’s NOT what socialism is, you ignorant pillock.’
Thanks for that opinion. I guess you must really believe that. No harm done. Brainwashed socialist morons are everywhere in NZ. They’re kind of like roadkill, only usually they smell worse.
September 12th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
So, I take it you’re saying singapore’s low drug use rate isn’t because of draconian drug laws, it’s because of their high sense of self worth. Nothing to do with fear of punishement.
If you read his answer he’s being a bit coy there, qualifying his statement because he’s screwed otherwise.
If I recall correctly baiter quite digs 18th and 19th century USA quite a bit too.
I’ll fire up the delorean!
September 12th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
So singapore is your socialist-free utopia Baiter? Your shining light of free enterprise in a dark and evil socialist world? hehe – this is just too easy.
“The Economist Intelligence Unit classes Singapore as a “hybrid” country, with authoritarian and democratic elements. Freedom House ranks Singapore as “partly free”. Reporters Without Borders ranked Singapore 140th out of 167 countries in its 2005 Worldwide Press Freedom Index.[2]”
“Western democracies consider the form of government in Singapore to be closer to authoritarianism rather than true democracy and could be considered an illiberal democracy or procedural democracy.”
“However, some of PAP’s policies do contain certain aspects of socialism, which includes government-owned public housing constituting the majority of real estate and the dominance of government controlled companies in the local economy.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Singapore
September 12th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
No Red, you have now provided the example. The one we’ve all been waiting for. Wasn’t really so hard.
Your question was “How do you (Benny) explain the increased instances of substance abuse over recent decades?”?
Since I’ve extracted the one word answer from you that I asked for, it’s fair to answer this, although at the time it appeared merely to be a way of avoiding my question.
For starters, it’s a loaded question. I would need to even agree that there was an increase in substance abuse over recent decades. Which would involve knowing which substances, and what you meant by abuse. I’ll guess you meant illegal substances, and by abuse you mean use, and by increase you mean per capita. I can’t be sure that’s what you meant, which is why we establish what we’re talking about beforehand if we really want intelligent debate.
Even with all those qualifications, I’m not sure if I can agree there has been a rise in use of those substances, since many of them were made illegal during that period. So sales prior could be known with high accuracy, but sales after are entirely blackmarket, illegal, and mostly unknown. For the ones which have been illegal the whole time, the sales are not known at all. We can only get a hazy idea of how much P is consumed in NZ. Do you know how much that is? How do you know?
So for the illegal substances the usage is basically unknown. I’d guess that it’s gone up as technology has made production cheaper, and reduced costs may have stimulated increased demand. I don’t know. No one really does. Counting police seizures is not a particularly accurate measure, just as counting the number of convictions is not. That tells us about enforcement, not usage.
So if you meant illegal substances I can’t agree that it’s gone up, so explaining why would be purely speculative…dropping costs? Increased wealth in the hands of those who would use? That’s IF it’s gone up, which is unknown.
For the legal substances it’s an easier matter. Will take me some time to find out, but I won’t waste that if that’s not what you’re talking about anyway.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Of course, if you feed the monster…..sustain it…..give it succour, you only help it to gro-o-o-o-o-ow.
but if you hear a lie repeated often enough (“socialist governments….use wealth transfer as a means of controlling the population staying in power and perpetuating their existence”) the risk is that you will come to believe it…..to accept unquestioning its stained veracity.
so at the risk of feeding the beast, challenge we must.
I want to get hiiiiii-i-i-i-i-gh, so hiiii-i-i-i-i-gh
September 12th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
I’ve provided the example. Singapore is not a socialist government, as it applies to governments who use wealth transfer as a means of controlling the population staying in power and perpetuating their existence.
Redbaiter does have a point here.
In Singapore government-owned public housing constitutes the majority of real estate. They have a rigorous compulsory public education system and government-controlled companies dominate the local economy.
In NZ on the other hand we’ve got rid of a lot of State Houses and sold off a lot of government owned companies. Sure Labour’s tried to stem the tide, buying back Air NZ and launching Kiwi Bank, but all hope’s gonna be lost when National gets voted in and decides to privatise schools. Cos we’ll be even less like Singapore then!
For this very reason I personally forsee drug abuse becoming so prevalent under the next National government that we’ll need by-elections ever month to replace MPs overdosing in the chamber.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Heh, I’ll leave it to others to show why Singapore may not be Nirvana. I consider it an achievement just to have got Redbaiter to clearly say it is not socialist. I will hold him to that, if he survives the next week.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
“…it applies to governments who use wealth transfer as a means of controlling the population staying in power and perpetuating their existence.”
If you weren’t such a FW RB, and I weren’t such a “commie”"wank” and sex crazed poddle, I would support you on that.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Would be good to get this redBaiter guy at a public meeting…
September 12th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
“…it applies to governments who use wealth transfer as a means of controlling the population staying in power and perpetuating their existence.”
This is evident in every western democracy bleater – why? Because income redistribution is simply popular, thus people vote for it. This is why the Act party performs so poorly at the pols. To get rid of wealth redistribution would be to get rid of democracy.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
“Would be good to get this redBaiter guy at a public meeting…”
I read somewhere that he has aspirations to become a politician. So if this is true you may get your wish
BTW can anyone confirm this? Bleater, are you still here?
September 12th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
“Because income redistribution is simply popular, thus people vote for it.”
Bit like 4 thugs mugging someone in a car park, 80% of those in the car park are in favour of it, an overwelmingly popular form of wealth redistribution.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
“To get rid of wealth redistribution would be to get rid of democracy.”
Who says that? Since when? Where are the facts to substantiate that astonishing discovery?
Roger nome: you should be nominated for the Nobel Prize of Economics, otherwise confine yourself to the hopeless task of propping the Labour Party.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Andrew W
They don’t call democracy mob rule for nothin’.
It isn’t always pretty but;
I think it was churchill said it’s the worst form of government, except for those forms of government that we’ve already tried.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Any excuse to push my own barrow
Within New Zealand, and every other Western democracy, the government has a monopoly, the result is a tyranny of the majority. However New Zealanders do have an alternative to submission to the NZ government, they can move and be submissive to the Australian government instead (or for some the British, or American governments.
In this respect, in principle, the New Zealand government is in competition with other western governments for its citizens, especially its most productive citizens. Unfortunately, this can hardly be considered laissez faire competition as the cost and dislocation involved in the move, for many people, is considerable. Even so, it is enough for business, economists, and the population in general, to take note of what the relative tax rates and other laws between the two nations are.
Imagine a situation (think of the confederates winning in the US civil war) in which the effort to people to switch states within a nation is minor, and in which federal tax, and other legislation was also minor compared to the individual state taxes and legislation. In this situation, in principle, we could hope for there to be enough competition between the states to result in much more substantial efforts by individual states to attract those people that make a positive contribution to society, and also to discourage these people leaving. Assume that borders remain open, and that an agent, something like the Commerce Commission (also, ironically, known as the Communist Commission by some free market advocates) acts to prevent the establishment of interstate government cartels to reduce this competition.
The result is governments actually competing in a free market.
Now, we can actually take this scenario much further, and go outside the square in terms of how we view the boundaries of governance. There are several market situations, Free market, Oligopoly, Natural monopoly.
“A natural monopoly occurs when an industry in which advantages of large-scale production make it possible for a single firm to produce the entire output of the market at lower average cost than a number of firms each producing a smaller quantity.”
Examples of natural monopolies are reticulation systems, physical networks. In our society these are often managed by local government (in effect it becomes a co-operative of ratepayers/residents) to minimize the exploitation that would occur if it were privately owned.
Most of the services provided by central and state governments are not natural monopolies THEY ARE NOT GEOGRAPHICALLY BASED so once we recognize the separate roles of state and local government there is no logical reason for states within a confederation to be contiguous!
Effectively you could in switch your membership, assets and income from one state to another without physically changing address! As easily as Maori can move from between the Maori and General roles.
So we have a democratic system that frees people from the tyranny of the majority in the same way as the free market frees us from the tyranny of a market monopoly.
People, from both the left, and conservative right, who believe governments need the power to tell us what is best for us would not like such a system.
September 12th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Good God what an astonishing display of small minds and rank ignorance. (with the exception of Manolo) I’ll try and deal with it all on a one by one basis-
Nome- You think that expressing incorrect ideas for someone else and then asking them to defend against your infantile bullshit is debating?? Go way, you’re a boring ignorant shallow child and your attempts at understanding the issues are so pitiful you’re just not worth a modicum of effort..
Andrew Wank- You’re a silly little narcissistic jerkoff. As boring as Nome in that every post you make is not really about the issue, its about Andrew “look at me” Wank. Worth as much effort as Nome ie none.
Benny- Can’t answer the question so needs to obfuscate. There is massive concern with accelerating substance abuse- alcohol and drugs both illegal and legal, yet poor Benny apparently can’t see it. ..and nobody said Singapore was Nirvana. I merely say that Singapore is not a socialist country in the context that most other western democracies are, in that elections there are not about who gets to loot who. Their electoral system has not been perverted by welfarism, and their politicians are not power obsessed Marxists who believe in government for the sake of government.
Whatever role the government plays it does not try and instill Marxist values in the population, thru the education system, thru the media or thru the government. Government does not see its role as converting each citizen into an ignorant little Marxist (look at how such dimbulbs they proliferate here) That is the difference Benny. Not one of the numerous other issues you have waffled on about matter one iota in the context of the argument.
Unlike NZers, Singaporeans do not have the government created mindset that presses them to seek refuge in substance abuse.
The rest- Yawn…..
September 12th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I’ve got it… RedBaiter is an anarchist.
September 12th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Redbaiter, Ben is well known for cursory, holier-than-thou prolixity. Or hadn’t you noticed ?
September 12th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
“Or hadn’t you noticed ?”
How could one not. Its all part of the leftist mindset, because so many of them seem to suffer from the same personality defects. Smug, superior, condescending, arrogant, sneering, use ‘we’ when they should use ‘I’, pitiful comprehensive skills, shallow political perceptions. Shame really, nothing much to chew on intellectually. Just time wasters.
September 12th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
I think RB’s right, we must all bow down to his greater wisdom, who are we to organise and run our own lives when the great Redbaiter would be so much better at it. We need lots of new legislation, written by him to guide us through life, his great teachings and respect for his benevolence should be instilled in our children.
RB with all this telling other people how to run their lives, are you sure you’re not a communist?
September 12th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
“Smug, superior, condescending, arrogant, sneering”
Only when it comes to dealing with you RB, that’s because, well.. you’re you.
September 12th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
And what is it about you that makes people adopt such an attitude towards you?
Perhaps it’s your own abusive, rude, denegratory, superior, condescending, arrogant, sneering attitude.
September 12th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Since you are aparently seeking elected office why won’t you say so and state your true name so that your electorate can judge you by your true and honest views? Is it because you’re a two faced tosser, like so many other would be politicians?
September 12th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Oh! God , Allah, Buddha or Jack Daniels… please deliver me from Roger Nomes 18 year old “I know it all because I read it on Wiki” philosophy
September 12th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Andrew W postulates:
Interesting essay, Andrew. A coherently argued train of thought, whether one agrees or disagrees with it, is a welcome break. And it has the benefit of being something that hasn’t been advanced in the previous 200 posts, thinly disguised as an original argument (apologies to those others who also make the effort).
What you’ve described is precisely what’s happening in Australia. Albeit it’s not as evident as it would be if not all of the states were ruled by the same party (Labor, as it happens, though the same would be true if it were the Coalition). An acute shortage of labour – particularly in the resource-rich states of WA and Queensland – mean that the state governments, who’ve always tried to maintain relatively unified policies so as to present a cohesive Labor platform, are finally figuring out that they can attract people to their state by making laws and setting tax rates which are more attractive than those of their neighbours.
In effect, each Australian state is being forced to operate within the Australian market. They’re trying everything they can to avoid competing with one another, including running roadshows up and down NZ recently to attract yet more Kiwis. But nonetheless the final “closed shop” is beginning to collapse and Australian workers are starting to realise that they can shop around for a good government in much the way they can look for a good employer.
And employers are realising that their attraction to workers can be greatly enhanced by operating in a state which permits them to offer better incentives, pay lower taxes, etc.
Of course there are limits – the convoluted Australian income tax law being the main one. But when state governments take thousands of dollars off anyone buying (or transferring ownership) of a house, car or business as well as a myriad of other indirect taxes, policy changes can make a difference.
But for it to work in NZ we’d have to return to provincial governments or – heaven forbid – vest much more power in local government. And the only thing that puts me off returning to NZ more than the thought of Helen or John dipping their hands in my pocket is the thought of letting someone like Dick Hubbard or Michael Laws loose with even more power.
Nice in theory, though, and workable in larger countries…
September 12th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Rex
I think you are onto something in your previous post. Re seeking oblivion and then again with the idea of a race track for hoons. Note that although it was resisted for years when I was young there are skate parks and bike tracks everywhere these days… Such is progress. Society eventually learned that kids on skateboards were here to stay and they got over their obsession with simply banning it.
Quite simply we need to ask if a racetrack is going to be any more damaging than a skifield. They were probably banned years ago as well !
September 12th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Clarifying is not obfuscating. It’s the opposite. What you are doing is obfuscating by refusing to clarify. Each point must be wrung out like shit from a dirty nappy.
“There is massive concern with” is not the same as “There is”. There is massive concern that Global Warming is happening, for instance, but that doesn’t mean it is. A cretin can see this, which is why I’m asking you for your evidence, after we’ve established what the basic point is that you are trying to make. That’s to answer your loaded question which was phrased to assume the point you were trying to prove.
Since you choose to accept legal drugs too, I completely disagree that substance abuse is on the increase. If anything, it is coming down, as people become more aware of the consequences of drink driving. Alcohol is far and gone the most popularly consumed drug, and in the past it was abused as par for the course. Now it is less so, although it’s still by far the most popular and heavily consumed drug.
Tobacco consumption is also down, the second most popular poison, and in much of the developed world it is now not possible to inflict it on others so easily, a particularly nasty form of substance abuse that used to happen.
So if everywhere is tending towards socialism, then that not only refutes your point but reverses it. Socialism is leading away from substance abuse.
If you had enough wit to be more careful about what you meant by substance abuse, and I gave you ample opportunity, then you might have stuck only to illegal substances, where the answers are less clear. Perhaps use of those are on a rise. I don’t know, I bet you don’t either. If you do, put your evidence on the table. If you don’t, consider yourself refuted.
I know you didn’t say Singapore is Nirvana. You are not that much of a fool. But you are enough of a fool to raise somewhere as troubled as Singapore as your shining example of how to run a country. You do this by contrasting it with socialism, which you hate, and which is pretty much everywhere Western, and a great deal of other places too.
Since Singapore is so far your only example of somewhere successful and not-socialist, the other aspects of their society have to be weighed up against this purported (and not yet proven with a shred of evidence) claim that they are somehow ahead of us in the world of substance abuse which you foolishly included alcohol in.
It is not irrelevant that political imprisonment is a fact of life there. It is not irrelevant that the very act you are committing right now, attacking the government, is a crime there which could lead you to a lifetime in jail. It is quite important in weighing up if your cretinous solution to the unproven substance abuse problem in our society is worth giving up basic freedoms that took hundreds of years to accrue.
I personally do not think so. I think you are highly confused about the kind of society that you revere and that is why you cannot point to an example of it. If you can, I want to hear it.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Yeah, I tried firing short trolls under an anonymous name and then running for cover for a while, but it just wasn’t me.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
“Clarifying is not obfuscating.”
You’re not clarifying. You’re trying to deny the reason why there is rising concern about drug use. From booze to P, its a social malaise that is reaching crisis point in NZ society. …but you , merely for the sake of your inability to present an argument, pretend not to acknowledge it. I say pretend, because I am sure you do in fact know how serious the problem is.
Snip irrelevant waffle
“I completely disagree that substance abuse is on the increase.”
Well yes we’ve already covered this point at least twice, and the fact that you cling to such a facile viewpoint merely alerts me again as to how weak you are on this issue. You say that alcohol abuse is down, yet instances of drunken rampaging by youths is everywhere, and this is a relatively new social phenomenon, or not that new that it isn’t coincident with the social ascendancy of the left.
Tobacco is not a mood altering drug to any extent that matters, and therefore talking about it is just more senseless band width wasting waffle.
“So if everywhere is tending toward socialism, then that not only refutes your point but reverses it. Socialism is leading away from substance abuse.”
A fantastic claim, so detached from reality it is laffable. You have not in all that previous verbiage presented anything but partisan assertions to support it.
“I know you didn’t say Singapore is Nirvana. You are not that much of a fool.”
Its nothing to do with being a fool. Its just not relevant to the the argument. NI am not suggesting and have never suggested Singapore is Nirvana. (this is what I mean by abysmal comprehension) The issue is whether or not the Singapore government is a socialist government in the context that we are discussing socialist governments- ie governments that promote leftism/ socialism as a prime component of governance..
“But you are enough of a fool to raise somewhere as troubled as Singapore as your shining example of how to run a country.”
Jezuz h Christ on a bike. I have done no such thing. Why are you people so unremittingly dense? It is not even the argument for fuck’s sake. You expect me to be patient, when almost every word you utter shows you’re light years way from understanding the point. For chrissake. Like talking rocket science with a flatfish.
“Since Singapore is so far your only example of somewhere successful and not-socialist, the other aspects of their society have to be weighed up against this purported (and not yet proven with a shred of evidence) claim that they are somehow ahead of us in the world of substance abuse which you foolishly included alcohol in.”
Not at all. Once again- The argument is that socialist governments promote mindsets that lead to substance abuse. Singapore serves one purpose in this discussion. Not to stand as an example of a non socialist Nirvana. Not to stand as an example of a perfect society. Not to stand as any example other than to show that a non socialist government has far less problems with substance abuse than a socialist government.
Snip rest of tiresome pseudo intellectual waffle. You’re really just another dumb leftist wank Ben. A verbose self important time waster and a low intellect bore who is just too thick to get it. Please don’t waste any more of my time with your interminable off the point waffle.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
No, I think it is less serious than it was. That is what I honestly think and since you’ve presented nothing but anecdotal evidence to the contrary, my belief is not rocked by you disagreeing.
Tobacco is mood altering. Try not having it, if you are an addict. The main reason they have it is to calm down and feel better.
Not, it’s the subject of what snippets of debate I’ve managed to extract from your abuse. It’s a controversial claim and I wouldn’t stand by it myself, but it follows from your stupid definitions and equating of correspondence to cause. I don’t think that way, but I figured it might show you, who clearly does think that way, how easily your conclusions are reversed.
Yup, it shows that governments that frighten their populations into apolitical terror and subservience and remove all of their rights can control illegal drugs better. It’s not a particularly useful thing to show, since it’s not an alternative our society would consider, for reasons any 15 year old could explain to you. You wish to equate their lack of illegal substance abuse (the legal stuff is still in dispute) with their economic system. The connection is tenuous, at best. It’s their police and political system, the very worst part of their society, which leads to this, not their lack of socialism.
You may have a point that their lack of socialism leads to their accepting such a political system. But that’s more of a plug for socialism than an argument against it.
You still have a window of opportunity to tell me about a country that really does use your dream-alternative to what you call socialism, and is also a good place to be. Singapore clearly is not it. Is anywhere? Was anywhere? Or are you just a dreamer like Marx who envisages a world which follows their manifesto to a living heaven? Sure seems that way. You’re just bitter on Marx because his version is way more popular than yours.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
“No, I think it is less serious than it was. That is what I honestly think and since you’ve presented nothing but anecdotal evidence to the contrary, my belief is not rocked by you disagreeing.”
..and all you too have presented is opinion, and opinion that flies in the face of that anecdotal evidence and the perceived need for the legislation that is the topic of this thread.
“Tobacco is mood altering. Try not having it, if you are an addict. The main reason they have it is to calm down and feel better.”
Yawn.. cling to your morsels of detail, only shows again how barren of real argument you are. …and I didn’t say it wasn’t mood altering for chrissakes. Learn to read.
“it’s the subject of what snippets of debate I’ve managed to extract from your abuse.”
Considering that you’ve written at least three to four times as many lines of abuse as me, that’s a comment of amazingly blind hypocrisy.
“It’s a controversial claim and I wouldn’t stand by it myself, but it follows from your stupid definitions and equating of correspondence to cause. I don’t think that way, but I figured it might show you, who clearly does think that way, how easily your conclusions are reversed.”
&%$#@(!@#@$….????? Sorry, can’t read anything coherent at all there.
“governments that frighten their populations into apolitical terror and subservience and remove all of their rights”
They still have the right to leave. If they’re as terrified and subjugated as you claim, why don’t they? I’ll tell you. Obviously because your claims are transparently partisan political garbage.
“You wish to equate their lack of illegal substance abuse (the legal stuff is still in dispute) with their economic system.”
Jezuz…!!! I have not said one word about their “economic system”, other than to say they do not promote welfarism as a means to government or partisan political power.
“You still have a window of opportunity to tell me about a country that really does use your dream-alternative to what you call socialism, and is also a good place to be.”
Why the hell would I want to do this, seeing as its (for maybe the tenth time) its NOT THE DAMN ARGUMENT FOR CHRISSAKES.
BORING SCHMORING……………………!!!!!!!
September 13th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Yup, we’re even on the opinion stakes. You think more people are abusing piss, I think less. Like I say, until you’ve got some evidence I’ll be sticking to my opinion.
Tobacco is not a mood altering drug to any extent that matters…
Your words, 1 post ago. Going crazy with withdrawal matters, in my book. It’s the main reason people don’t get off the stuff. It’s all about mood.
Considering that you consider disagreeing with you abuse, you’re probably right.
If you’re too lazy to read my quote and put what I said in the context (or just remember, like I do), then quit complaining I’m long winded.
For the same reason you claim not to have left NZ. Because you shouldn’t have to. And the same reason you claim everyone else hasn’t left NZ. They’ve become sheeple, accepting of the powers that be.
Yup, that’s part of their economic system. It’s the part that you seemed to think makes the big difference. It doesn’t, sorry. It’s the cops.
Naturally they don’t use welfarism for partisan political power because there are no real partisans. It’s not allowed. So they get away with refusing to allow something that most people there would probably want, if they were allowed to say they wanted it.
To set the record straight. No one really knows what you stand for. They only know what you stand against. Which makes everything you say as empty in it’s rhetoric as the utterances of either of our Dear Leaders.
I’m offering you a chance not to be boring schmoring. It’s a free soapbox, and I’m even listening.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:22 am
In response
(2) As Hone Harawira says, good on him. It was Labour that liberalised the alcohol laws and which has refused to fix their mistakes.
(3) Prohibition is the basis of our entire legal system, yet I never hear anyone saying we should not have laws against, say, burglary.
(4) There is already plenty of ways that this happens already
September 13th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Ratbiter road kill again.
“I am controlling here”
Quite, quite mad. Imagine having to run a campiagn with this bozo as your candidate?
September 13th, 2007 at 7:52 am
I gotta disagree with Ben here – I think substance abuse is increasing, both locally and globally. In New Zealand, while the amount of tobacco sales is nose-diving, alcohol is gradually increasing. P use seems to be on the rise.
Globally, heroin use has enjoyed a massive surge thanks to the vast quantities of really good, cheap opium coming out of Afghanistan. (Thanks President Bush!)
And, of course, there’s still dump trucks filled with cocaine washing across Europe and the US every day.
My only contribution to the drugs/socialism debate is to note that the worlds bastions of capitalism – Wall Street, Shinjuku, ‘The City’ are fueled by drugs, mostly cocaine. I’ve worked at three merchant banks and drug use was endemic in all of them – with the exception of the Singapore offices, of course, where everybody got tanked on overpriced booze at Boat Quay every night.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:11 am
It was Labour that liberalised the alcohol laws and which has refused to fix their mistakes.
While I like putting my boot into the ‘Liarbore dykeocracy’ as much as the next Tory, that’s just untrue. I supported ‘lowering the drinking age’ when I was an officeholder in the Young Nats and haven’t changed my mind. (And before anyone brings it up, I see no inconsistency holding that view as a recovering alcoholic. Just because I don’t drink alcohol – and consider my physical and mental health depends on maintaining my sobriety – that doesn’t mean nobody else should, or nobody else can drink responsibly.)
Of course, there are plenty of people in both the organisational and parliamentary wings of National who through differently – and that’s reflected in the fact that votes on such legislation were considered conscience matters not subject to the party whip. AFAIK, Labour has always taken the same view.
Harawira’s entitled to his opinions, and so are the Maori Party caucus. What he’s not entitled to do is just make shit up.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Wether or not one agrees with the morality issues when it comes to banning party pills, I think is it a bad idea. I don’t use them myself, and don’t think I ever will. The strongest think that I take is a good scotch. But the use of these is widespread, and generally responsible. There have been some issues associated with their use, but the frequency of these is so low that this measure is the legislative equivalent of using a piledriver to crack a walnut.
Alcohol causes far more problems in my opionion, but for most it is a lifestyle issue. Used responsibly it causes no problems, and most of us do drink responsibly. The actions of those who do not won’t lead to prohibition, and we all know that prohibition DOES NOT WORK.
Also, we have a police force that is overwhelmed and understaffed. Passing this bill will only increase a workload that they struggle to cope with as it is.
September 13th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Alcohol causes far more problems in my opionion, but for most it is a lifestyle issue.
Well, indeed – and I think you can honestly argue that it’s a lot less socially acceptable to be routinely ‘tired and emotional’ (as the scribes at Private Eye euphemistically put it) than it used to be. And just to stir the pot a little, does Jim Anderton – or anyone else – really give a shit how many foreign alkies are blasting their livers with New Zealand wine or 42 Below vodka, or how many fat bastards are clogging their arteries with New Zealand meat, cheese and butter as we speak?
September 13th, 2007 at 9:03 am
And one more thought: How much money does the Gummint make from tobacco excise taxes (which make up the overwhelming majority of the price of a pack of cigs)? Don’t these people feel any shame at profiteering off death and misery – or are ’sin taxes’ more addictive than P?
September 13th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Good, stick to it, (I see even your fellow travelers are challenging you on this) but please let me disabuse you of the presumption that I argue here in hope of changing the mind of reality denying pseudo liberals such as yourself. I don’t. I well realize that your delusions are far too deep seated to be dislodged by anything I might say.
I write here only to alert those who may (unlike you) have the capacity to adjust their thinking if they are just made aware that there is a different viewpoint. In this country, controlled by narrow minded half educated totalitarian socialist loons (like Sonic), viewpoints that challenge mainstream thinking are not well known to exist.
All I want to do is let readers know how easy it really is to challenge leftist orthodoxy, and to make fools of those who seek to enforce it.
Yes that’s right, and why you would post them in the apparent belief they support your accusation is something that (if I was dealing with a rational human being) would leave me gob smacked.
I don’t claim to be “terrorised”. My complaint with NZ is the stifling conformity of Marxist based political ideas that socialists attempt to impose in their quest for totalitarian rule. Anyway, if Singaporeans were even leaving the country to the extent that NZers leave this country you may have a point. Of course they don’t and therefore you don’t. And anyway this is all just so much obfuscation. The issue is socialism increasing the potential for drug use in the population. In Singapore, no Marxist style socialism, no drug use. My argument stands, so far unchallenged by you, as you attempt (as is usual with religiously believing leftists), to take the discussion as far from the reality that hurts you as you possibly can.
…but …but liberals like you frequently claim that drugs can not be stopped by laws and police action and that harsh punishments don’t work. If I thought I might get a rational and coherent response, I might ask you to clarify this contradiction, but please, don’t bother, I’ve really had enough issue dodging waffle for now. When it isn’t sleep inducing, its nauseating.
I reject your offer. I don’t need offers from patronising smug arrogant bores. I do as I please. When you decide to address the real issues in concise and coherent language, perhaps I might offer you further conversation, but to date, I’ve only seen reasons to regard myself as unwise in putting even the slightest effort into dealing with your meaningless waffling off the point leftist hogwash.
September 13th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Danyl, some actual numbers would help either point of view. Alcohol sales per capita, for instance. It’s a fuzzy connection to ‘abusing’ alcohol which carries a slightly moral connotation. I don’t know how you’d measure that, maybe numbers of people admitted to hospital with poisoning?
My perceptions are all around alcohol, since the ‘debate’ I was having included that as a substance, and it’s hell and gone the most commonly consumed. In the past I totally subjectively felt that drunkenness was worse, that it was more accepted, particularly using it and then driving, and doing it whilst pregnant. Everyone I know uses it more responsibly now, including the teens I know (who I can only compare with my peer group when I was a teen).
As for the illegal stuff, I really don’t know, and don’t really know how anyone can with confidence. Seems like more people use now. Seems also a likely thing to me, for reasons that have very little to do with socialism
September 13th, 2007 at 9:22 am
“All I want to do is let readers know how easy it really is to challenge leftist orthodoxy, and to make fools of those who seek to enforce it.”
look at the ratbiter debating technique from above
Me “Heroin use leaped in the UK when a certain M Thatchre was PM.
Crack cocaine use exploded un the US under a certain Ronald Reagan”
Ratbiters stunning reply?
“there’s no hyphen in “no one”
No wonder ********* are so pleased to have him as a potential candidate.
September 13th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Sonic, rebutting delusional claims from brainwashed dipshits like you is not something I feel compelled to waste my time with.
September 13th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Likewise. Doesn’t really need to be said. I doubt anyone’s reading either of us, except for the most hardcore and unlikely to be converted anyway.
Clearly you stopped reading a while ago, too. I’ve challenged it by explaining their low illegal drug use in another way. They have a police state. The connection to welfarism could be true, but you certainly have proved nothing about that. You’ve just done your usual ideological ranting, which is not proof.
I’ve never said any such thing. I’ve said it’s not worth it. The laws, the police actions required and the harsh punishments are evils in themselves, and any society which has democracy of any meaningful kind never allows that sort of shit.
Snip. So you do have nothing to say except complaints. Thought so.
September 13th, 2007 at 9:39 am
“delusional claims”
Mrs Thatcher was not PM in the UK in the 1980s?
You do learn something every day!
“brainwashed dipshits”
Oops the mask is slipping. Better not let Mr ***** find out you have been swearing online, he may have to reconsider which candidate best reflects the party’s values.
September 13th, 2007 at 9:55 am
is ***** dunne..?
redbaiter..?
oh..!..now that would be ‘priceless’..!
(so..is dunne nurturing the far-right..?..i mean..he hasn’t got many interest/racial groups he hasn’rt flogged-out..eh..?)
you know you will eventually be ‘outed’..eh redbaiter..
your moronic/repetitive tirades have annoyed enough people i think..
especially from one who hides their abuse behind a blog-de-plume..eh..?
and there is a novels’ worth of your words to come back and bite you on the bum..eh..?
chin up..!..darls..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 13th, 2007 at 10:06 am
They do not have a police state. If they had a police state, people would leave. Many people seek to live in Singapore. (unlike your buddy Castro’s Island of dreams) More people leave NZ than leave Singapore.
Yeah, and of course, in all that meaningless waffle from you there was some “proof”? Sorry, didn’t see it. Maybe you could point it out.
Oh, I see. So the NEW argument from liberals is not that policing and regulation doesn’t work, only that its not worth it?? Wow, this is a change of tack well worth noting. (Are you reading this all you leftist bleeding hearts out there?? Ben is challenging one of your most sacred tenets).
Maybe you should tell all the NZers cowering in their own homes, in prisons they have made for themselves, all the victims of rape and random violence, the families of the poor people who were killed during the P fuelled raid on the Panmure RSL, that it isn’t worth it. Good grief..!!!
September 13th, 2007 at 10:14 am
I wonder phil how long it will be before Ratbiter blows up on the campiagn trail?
You can imagine the scene.
Old person “I wonder mr ******, what are your views about old people’s homes”
Ratbiter “Why you pinko, commy, wankstain, how dare you waste my time with that socialist bullfuck shit. Go get a job you cowardly brainwashed lemming”
It’s going to be comedy platinum!
September 13th, 2007 at 10:46 am
By the same argument, NZ is socialist, since you do not leave.
It was your thesis that we were talking about, which claimed it knew the exact cause of drug abuse, namely socialism. It’s a big call. I don’t need to prove it false, since it’s your definitions, your thesis, your claim. It’s enough for me to say that both sides are not proven. Your opinion is just opinion, as is mine, on this matter. I have offered a viable alternative to explain low illegal drug usage in Singapore and that is more than enough to cast doubt on your claims.
I don’t claim to speak for all liberals. I don’t care if they disagree, and I doubt that they do. No one seriously poses Singapore’s entire government system as a solution to drug abuse for Western countries, except you, because most people are not insane dreamers.
I’m telling all those people you claim to speak for exactly that. Having a totalitarian government is not worth it. The harm is greater than the good. Maybe not right now in Singapore, depending on who you are. But any time in Singapore that position could reverse, there are no checks and balances to stop it. It could move from benign dictatorship to sickeningly bad very rapidly. That has happened countless times in history which is why democracy is still my choice of government. If it is not yours fine. Keep arguing against it. Or vote with your feet. I’m not worried that either your feet or your mouth will convince any significant proportion of the population.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Ooops correction:
Should read: “By the same argument, NZ is not socialist, since you do not leave.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:52 am
you left out ’stalinist mindset’..
a ‘key’ plank..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 13th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
“By the same argument, NZ is not socialist, since you do not leave.”
Hahha, funny. after all that confusion, still all you managed was to illustrate the tortured mental processes that identify the leftist mindset. According to your logic, socialism is a police state.
“knew the exact cause of drug abuse, namely socialism”
I have never claimed to know the “exact” cause of drug abuse. I do know that there are many factors involved (for instance, Phil self medicates out of deep seated insecurity and feeling of desperate inadequacy). What I also know is that socialist governments create a mindset and an environment where drug abuse occurs to a greater degree.
“No one seriously poses Singapore’s entire government system as a solution to drug abuse”
You know you socialists have a cheek coming to a discussion forum and expecting other users to spend time assisting you because your comprehension skills are so abysmal. One gets so tired of correcting you, when its really just a matter of good reading skills. Pathetic. Why don’t you go back to school and learn to fucken read before you come on here raving in your half educated state? I have never posited any such thing. I do tho say that if this country turned away from socialism, drug abuse would decline, and that the Singapore government stands as testament to the truth of this claim.
“why democracy is still my choice of government.”
Pffft.. what soppy socialist crap. . Looting the productive sector with a perverted voting system is your choice of government. To call what happens in any NZ elections a democratic process is just laffable. Stop stealing from the productive and buying the votes of the non productive with that stolen money. Then you might be getting close to a democratic process. To say that what happens here is in someway superior to any process that occurs in Singapore is just the height of socialist arrogance.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
rat-biter said..
“..Phil self medicates out of deep seated insecurity and feeling of desperate inadequacy)..”
um..!..isn’t ‘deep seated insecurity and feeling of desperate inadequacy’ a given tenet of the human condition..?
and claiming anything else indicative of a raft of ‘issues’..?
and the adoption of the uber-uncertain ‘certainties’ of a rat-biter..?
phill(whoar.co.nz)
September 13th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Shorter ratbiter
Vote for me, and I’ll take away your right to vote scum”
I see he is still too chicken to tell us which party he is standing for.
Cluckity Cluck.
Cluckity Cluck
September 13th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
It’s not my logic. I don’t use your argument that failure to leave means you like the status quo. It’s your tortured logic and it goes to all sorts of stupid conclusions.
No, it’s just the only cause you’ve mentioned so far. And you’ve held onto it like your chop, with a vicelike grip. Only now is your grip weakening, as the ludicrousness of your stupid thesis is unpeeled, agonizing cretinous layer after layer.
No, numbnuts, you are saying that if we moved toward what Singapore does drug abuse would decline. On that ridiculously trivial point I have already conceded several times. It is your leap to claiming it is their failure to have socialism that would cause this decline which is being contested. Actually it is their failure to embrace political freedoms and human rights that would cause it, and we could do that whether everyone was on welfare or not. Your connection between welfarism and drug abuse is not borne out by your solitary example in any way and I tire of telling you that. You have found a totalitarian regime that happens also to not have much welfare and you equate every outcome of their totalitarianism with that lack of welfare. Bullshit, plain and simple. You have proved nothing and your thesis is merely another boring manifestation of your close minded opinion toward your private definition of socialists.
It’s way less democratic than it could be, and waaaaay more democratic than Singapore. In this country, the actual ruling party has changed in the last 40 years. In this country political opponents are not incarcerated merely for speaking out against the government. If you can’t see the difference I really don’t know what else I could say. If you do not value political freedom at all (and from your thousands of posts it’s pretty clear it’s about the only thing you value) then sure, totalitarianism is a fine system.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Bok: Oh! God , Allah, Buddha or Jack Daniels… please deliver me from Roger Nomes 18 year old “I know it all because I read it on Wiki” philosophy
The beauty of that, of course, is that we could be editing the wiki daily and changing his opinion daily
Because it is such an authoritive source that is entirely beyond tampering. Hard not to disbelieve it when that is cited as a reference.
1) Will regulation and education be more effective than prohibition?
I suspect it will be. It would be interesting to see the effects of this drug in hospitals however. From what I understand here there are cases where it has exceptionally bad effects. That would be a point against it.
2) How do you justify banning party pills, and not alcohol or tobacco?
I don’t think that is possible. Common use does not seem to be a justifiable defense for alcohol and tobacco. Just look at the rising numbers of drink drivers, I’d argue they are just as – if not more – harmful to our society as a whole.
3) Why do you think prohibition will be any more effective than say it was for the US with alcohol in the 1930s
It’s a laughable proposition. Unless Prohibition is backed by a severe government enforcement agency (Like the Singapore example) prohibition will be essentially ineffective.
4) Do you think it is a smart move to criminalise almost every party going under 25 year old?
Probably no smarter than criminalizing all parents. But hey, of stupid mistakes governments are made.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Actually it is their failure to embrace political freedoms and human rights that would cause it,
Oh, yeah, Singaporeans, driven mad by drug abuse and drug related crimes.. so much more prevalent than NZ.. duh…!!!!
“waaaaay more democratic than Singapore.”
Of course a totalitarian socialist would like to promote that illusion, but to me, its just weak and transparent propaganda. NZ is not a democratic country while socialism is the ascendant political system, and if there is one powerful and logical and definitive argument against socialism, it is that it is destructive to the democratic process, (as Tytler so correctly posited a couple of centuries ago) ..and it causes increases in drug abuse.
“In this country, the actual ruling party has changed in the last 40 years.”
The parties may have changed, but except for one fleeting period, socialism has continued to grow and destabilize and attack the democratic system.
“In this country political opponents are not incarcerated merely for speaking out against the government. ”
…of course not. That’s not how modern socialism works, as I ‘ve pointed out on here so many times. Just look at the venomous idiocy coming from its jack booted thug supporters, (eg the preceding few posts) and you’ll understand how its done in New Zealand.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Redbaiter,
I don’t agree with Party Pills either but keep up the good work making the rabid sonic and philu keep dibbling they are totally blinded by a failed ideology that would make Stalin so proud of them,
BTW Selma’s awfully quite at present as she has been odered by H2 to help H1 working on answers to Q3 and Q9 today
September 13th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Shorter Ratbiter.
New Zealand is not a democracy because only a tiny minority of people agree with my extreme right-wing views.
As I am obviously correct it must surely follow that everyone else is brainwashed.
Hey Ratbiter, rather than cast your pearls before us swine, why not go somewhere you will be appreciated?
http://www.littlerglobal.com/index.cfm?event=ImmigrationRegulations&country=71
September 13th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
“they are totally blinded by a failed ideology that would make Stalin so proud of them,”
You guys should get a room!
September 13th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
“You guys should get a room!’
In a gulag right?
September 13th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
“The beauty of that, of course, is that we could be editing the wiki daily and changing his opinion daily
Because it is such an authoritive source that is entirely beyond tampering. Hard not to disbelieve it when that is cited as a reference.”
I certainly don’t see wiki as high quality referencing material, and I don’t think it’s suitable for academic use (though many lecturers are now accepting it as a legitimate source). I do however believe that it provides a place to start debating the facts of an issue, and it certainly trumps the blow-hard rhetoric of a rabid bleater as a source. Also, it’s possible to asses the quality of a wiki article by checking the quality of references that it uses – i.e. one that cites quotes from a peir-reviewed journal, is certainly of better quality than one that merely relies on anecdotal conjecture for its sources. So rather than writing off wikipedia as being useless in this discussion forum, maybe it’s more accurate to say that its credibility as a source varies article by article?
Overall it appears that wikipedia has more credibility that many here seem
to think.
“This short study examines Wikipedia’s credibility by asking 258 research staff with a response rate of 21 percent, to read an article and assess its credibility, the credibility of its author and the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. Staff were either given an article in their own expert domain or a random article. No difference was found between the two group in terms of their perceived credibility of Wikipedia or of the articles’ authors, but a difference was found in the credibility of the articles — the experts found Wikipedia’s articles to be more credible than the non–experts. This suggests that the accuracy of Wikipedia is high. However, the results should not be seen as support for Wikipedia as a totally reliable resource as, according to the experts, 13 percent of the articles contain mistakes.”
So 87 percent of the articles contain no mistakes? Not too bad I would have thought.
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/chesney/
September 13th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Great thread! Can someone email me when y’know, the details are revealed?
September 13th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
“In a gulag”
Many of them in NZ Ratbiter?
September 13th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Pascal @ 1pm
You realise that you have almost ruined the last few hours of this thread by posting a comment that actually contains something that is on topic.
Please stop this at once. The threadjackers might be feeling threatened.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
“The threadjackers”
Ok buddy step back from the thread with your hands up…..
September 13th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
CraigM
BZB is no more harmful than tobacco or alcohol. DPF hit the nail on the head when he implied that you can’t justify banning BZP and not tobacco and alcohol. What’s there to debate?
September 13th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Pfft. WHo does this “Pascal” think he or she IS?
September 13th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
CraigM, fear not! I am about to threadjack away!
RogerGnome: This short study examines Wikipedia’s credibility by asking 258 research staff with a response rate of 21 percent, to read an article and assess its credibility, the credibility of its author and the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole.
So they looked at a total of ~54 articles and found that approximately 13% of them contained mistakes with no peer review amongst the experts, at least not indicated. So it is entirely possible the experts might have even missed some mistakes. They also excluded disputed articles from their second, non-expert sample.
I can see your argument for it as a beginning discussion point and agree that it is largely correcting. To me, however, citing Wikipedia as proof for any argument is a lazy shortcut and will most likely result in me simply scanning that response, rather than reading it for an intelligent post.
Personal perspective, but if it is a commonly held belief then surely one is only doing harm to your viewpoint by citing it no matter how accurate the information is? Of course – one could argue that any reference is inherently biased, as we’ve seen whenever somebody posts a link here it’s either:
* Wikipedia – discredited
* From the left wing – discredited
* From the right wing – discredited
It’s funny actually, most days.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
“Many of them in NZ Ratbiter?”
You’re the one with the blueprints.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
llew: Pfft. WHo does this “Pascal” think he or she IS?
An old Japie. Hijackers? Pffft. If you’ve survived Johannesburg, you can survive a thread at Kiwiblog
Aside, the feminine form is with an “e” at the end.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
“What’s there to debate?”
Nuttin. I was threadjacking.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Ooh ta Pascal, I was being polite & inclusive
September 13th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I expect you also have a private definition of democracy to back that up. The idea that people can freely choose to vote support for whatever form of government they want doesn’t seem to be what you call democracy.
If you don’t like democracy itself you should just say so. It would be a lot more honest than the constant selection of private definitions which you pass off as argument. Your chosen example is one of the best forms of a fuxored lie of a democracy that has ever even bothered to call itself one.
But you’ve given up anyway, I can see that. Your argument self imploded under the weight of it’s stupidity, your abuse was ignored, and you finally endorsed your ideal society while you were at it. You can keep it.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
“So they looked at a total of ~54 articles and found that approximately 13% of them contained mistakes with no peer review amongst the experts, at least not indicated. So it is entirely possible the experts might have even missed some mistakes.”
It’s “possible” pascal – though still a success rate of 87% in these circumstances still isn’t bad IMHO. i.e What kind of success rate would a kiwiblof thread score do you think? Maybe 5%? 10% on a good day? As I’ve said, wiki certainly isn’t the most credible source you can use, but it does raise the bar above the usual tired rhetoric which is sadly the norm on this blog (which admittedly isn’t difficult).
Also – you failed to address this point:
“it’s possible to asses the quality of a wiki article by checking the quality of references that it uses – i.e. one that cites quotes from a pier-reviewed journal, is certainly of better quality than one that merely relies on anecdotal conjecture for its sources. So rather than writing off wikipedia as being useless in this discussion forum, maybe it’s more accurate to say that its credibility as a source varies article by article?”
September 13th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
“You’re the one with the blueprints.”
I think old Ratbiter is at his funniest when he is trying to be all serious. He really beleives we have got plans to throw him in a gulag for his fearless diatribes against “socialism”
He’s got my vote
September 13th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Whom, by chance, gives a flying fart what Wikiwhatever says about anything?
If I have to start doing research before I post on this site, then I’m not going to bother anymore. Besides I reckon I can make up crap about pretty much anything and still sound smarter than you wikiwankers.
ps: Craig is not here right now and he is going to pissed when he gets back and sees this.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
japie/Pascal do you by any chance also post under Bok? who’s also a right-wing saf. If not do you guys know each other?
September 13th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Roger Gnome: Also – you failed to address this point
I was unaware that we needed to adress every single point to have a discussion. Is it a requirement to have a line by line rebuttal? If so, my apologies for being unable to find it amongst the Kiwiblog guidelines. To that point however – I cannot address it until I work out what a “pier review” is. Thus far I’ve been unable to find something that details that particular process for me.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
No, roger, I don’t post as Bok. I’m not in the habit of inventing aliases for myself, either overtly or covertly. There is a large number of South Africans living in South Africa. And a large number of them living in New Zealand. Heck, Browns’ Bay is just about a suburb of Cape Town. So no, I have no idea who that is.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
“The idea that people can freely choose to vote support for whatever form of government they want doesn’t seem to be what you call democracy.’
I do not believe an event where a bunch of looters elect representatives who agree to steal money from one sector of the population and deposit it in the pockets of those who voted for them is an example of true democracy. It is a perversion of democracy, and that’s what I mean when I say socialism is destructive to democracy.
“But you’ve given up anyway, I can see that.’
Given up on what exactly? Trying to get a hardened socialist like you to see reason and sense? I’ve tackled many a task in my life that I might have once thought was impossible, but I would never ever expect to alter the mindset of one who has reached your years and still believes so ardently in such a discredited political system.
To be what you are, you must be totally impervious to logic. Smug in a no think existence. Your belief system is bereft of intellect and reason. It is the refuge of the uninspired, and has objectives that are the polar opposite of such principles as underpin any truly free nation.
I haven’t given up. That I might make an impression on your mind was an objective I wouldn’t fool myself was ever going to be possible. I only hope that a few of those who might be reading this have observed once again the utter hollowness of the left.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
ok pascal if you want to be pedantic/avoid addressing the point it’ “peer review. So do you have an answer? Of course you don’t have to address the point, we can just leave it at that and assume that you have no answer?
September 13th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
“He’s got my vote”
I reject it.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Ah, thank you Roger. That odd mistype might be a byproduct of too much Wikipedia? In any event, you failed to address my point about requiring a answer on every point. Would you care to address it first? And no fair claiming “You first!”
In response to the point however, it can be a fair estimate. But that would mean researching each of those references and validating them. As it would for any form of research. In which case it would seem smarter to me to base your research off a platform that is not inherently flawed.
Now, how about you address the point of perception versus validity? Seeing as you’re so fond of playing the “Oh, but you didn’t address my point therefore you are wrong!” card.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
““He’s got my vote”
I reject it.”
You can see rabid bleater’s drooping bottom lip as he petulantly proclaims “i reject it” – hehe keep the good times coming bleater
September 13th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
“…..hollowness of the left”
RB’s , you just had to mention that word didn’t you. You know that you have opened pandora’s box and now we are going to get bombarded with Hagar/Hollow Man comments. Thanks a lot.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
*laughs at Craig* That was funny. It’s almost as authoritive as … wait. I don’t want to get dragged into another “*wails* but you didn’t address my point” discussion. Better not mention Wikipedia.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
roger nome
Playing the man rather than the ball again roger…. How lefty of you !
September 13th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Really? I assumed Roger was just curious.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Shorter Ratbiter
When the left wins an election it is by definition a perversion of democracy.
Had that General Pinochet in the cab once, clever man.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
“In response to the point however, it can be a fair estimate. But that would mean researching each of those references and validating them. As it would for any form of research.”
So no source is valid until you fact check all of the sources that it quotes from. But then by your logic you have to fact check all of the sources from the sources, and so on and so on – an infinite regression of fact checking. No wonder you never bother supporting your arguments with research. The amount of fact-checking that you would have to do in order to meet your own standards would require several years. And just to make one post on a blog! comedy gold my sowdafrekan friend
September 13th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Where was it writ that democracy can’t make mistakes? It’s not less ‘true’ because it can be wrong – that is built into democracy. It is also built into every other system, including yours, although you would no doubt like to define it back out again.
Yup, given up, back to abuse. I thought you had more puff.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
“Had that General Pinochet in the cab once”
Yeah really? Who was on top?
September 13th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
“Where was it writ that democracy can’t make mistakes?”
So you admit socialism is a mistake. Bravo. Perhaps I was wrong about you after all. Now, lets get to work on a constitution that prevents elections from becoming events where power obsessed socialists bribe their way into parliament using the votes of the immoral. Whad dya say?
September 13th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
lets see if I have this straight…
Someone, who may or may not be standing for an elected position, complains we dont have a real democracy.
This person is offered a vote by someone who he regularly disagrees with.
And he wants the power to examine his ballots by who posted them, and choose which to accept an which to reject?
Yes, that seems like a far better form of democracy to me!
September 13th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
“Had that General Pinochet in the cab once”
Oh Sonic…..
Must be a bitch typing while you’re driving.
I don’t care where you had the general. Way too much information.
Sonic like’s old men.
Oh a cab driver! No wonder you are so good at misdirection….
Sonic, your personal attacks are not fare!
Sonic to the one legged man…hop in son, I’ll give you lift.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
“…….where power obsessed socialists bribe their way into parliament using the votes of the immoral”
Holy shit RB, that’s good. Accurate and succinct.
It WAS worth waiting for.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Roger: Should I be the one to point out that you have gloriously failed to address the points now? No, I won’t be that immature. This is after all not a high school debate, but a discussion amongst adults. Right? Or maybe I will be that immature. Only time will tell, but it’s such a sunshiny lovely day up here that I’m favourably disposed to your debating technique.
I would suggest though that you are: “Rukking die hol uit die hoender”. Literally pulling the arse out of the chicken. An expression that attempts to convey the sheer hyperbolic excess of a comment or position.
So let us assume you have looked at your Wikipedia page, which you have indicated that *you* check the references for and use those to verify the veracity of the article. How do you know those references are correct or not? How do you judge their quality? By reading them.
My point is, quite simply, twofold. Firstly that using a starting point that is alterable by any man and his dog, despite the reference checking which you have said you do, you are basing it off something that is potentially flawed. It seems smarter to actually find a published, authoritive source on this. And yes, sometimes learning something takes time. True knowledge is not lightly gained, despite your humorous japes to the contrary. And if one were to sprout facts as if you are an authority on the matter you’d damn well better have something to back you up. Other than Wikipedia, that is.
The second point, which I see you have once again glossed over, is the matter of perception. I put to you that it does not matter how valid, accurate and correct the information in Wikipedia is, if the source is perceived to be erroneous and prone to mistakes / edits / dispute then anyone citing it as a source has the value of their contribution diminished. It does not matter if [insert imaginary friend/deity/anything] wrote the article, it’s the stigma attached to it. Any politician will tell you that perception counts for a great deal.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
“lets get to work on a constitution that prevents elections from becoming events where power obsessed socialists bribe their way into parliament using the votes of the immoral.”
Socialist parties banned from standing?
Thats not very libertarian of you is it?
September 13th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I think that Ben’s point was that democracy is defined as a “process” of governance – not a specific distribution of wealth. Can you find for us one definition of democracy (other than your own personal and quite bizzare and self-serving one) that specifies a particular distribution of wealth?
September 13th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I think he might have to ask Bernard or Julian what the party line is Roger.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
“Socialist parties banned from standing?’
Feel free to bribe those commie voting suckholes with your own money.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
“Feel free to bribe those commie voting suckholes ”
Ok to quote you on that?
September 13th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
While riding my bicycle to work this morning I had an opportunity to ponder socialism and welfare in NZ.
I had stopped at a red light behind quite a large chap also on a bicycle. The wind was strong and the next 4-5k’s of the ride was directly into the wind. The light went green and we both started riding. I drafted the big chap for about a hundred meters then passed him. As soon as I passed him he started drafting me. I don’t have an issue with this practice, it’s normal cyclist behaviour. He was big, on a mountain bike and he created a considerable drag on me as I rode into the head wind. After about another k I slowed down and suggested he might want to take a turn pulling me. He didn’t want to… he went as far as saying that he was hoping to draft me all the way into town. I protested that if he wants to be dragged along by me then he needs to do his share of pulling as well. He rode in front of me for about 50 meters getting slower and slower as the force of the wind and the drag I created slowed him down. After about 50 meters I passed him and he tried once again to hook on behind me. So I gave it a bit of a nudge and broke away. Never saw him again but I can make the following assumptions about him.
a) He is not as fit on a bike as I am.
b) He’s a socialist and most likely a Labour voter.
How do I assume b). Well it’s simple really.
He didn’t have the personal ability to ride at the speed I was riding but wanted to and he saw nothing wrong with slowing me down to help himself.
He didn’t see anything wrong with taking more than he was giving.
This pretty much sums up the socialists, blood sucking leeches who think the world owes them a living.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Can you find for us
Go away Nome. You bore me. You bore me so much more than any other socialist dipshit posting here (and that’s fucken well saying something). Go away, and take all the other knuckle dragging boring socialists dipshits there with you. (us)
September 13th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
So now Mr Japie has retreated to “you can’t cite wikipedia because some folks think that it’s a dodgy source. Who cares about reality.”
My point is that if it’s alright to spout unsupported rhetoric here it’s alright to support your arguments with a source that’s mistake-free 87% percent of the time. you disagree?
September 13th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
“Ok to quote you on that?”
No problem. If you can memorize it.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Roger, my points stand. This is not a retreat, however if you are unable or unwilling to debate them in a mature fashion without resorting to childish name calling, I don’t see a point in continuing this discussion. You can go home now and gloat about “winning”.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I’ve copied and pasted it into an email Ratbiter, got anything else to add before I send it?
September 13th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Pascal – it isn’t about “winning” for me – but you just seem to want to but heads like a spring bok competing for a female mate. Can’t you concede that wiki is a valid source to use on a blog? At least as valid as spouting unsupported rhetoric?
September 13th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Nope. I just want to know why you think it’s not part of democracy’s definition that it can’t choose it’s own course, whatever that course is. Like I say, you’re running your own definition of democracy here.
As Roger nome says, whether a system is democratic has nothing whatsoever to do with what it decides. It is about how it is decided.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
“I’ve copied and pasted it into an email Ratbiter, got anything else to add before I send it?”
Yeah, ask her if she’s a lesbian.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
sonic,
I hope you copied the whole sentence and not just the part of it you quoted?
Burt: still laughing. Very good.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
“Nope.”
Funny. I’d swear you just said that.
“As Roger nome says,”
Bleeeecchh… Now you have done your dash…
September 13th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Hah! Redbaiter – very good.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
heh – I mean the “anything else”.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
“I hope you copied the whole sentence and not just the part of it you quoted?”
Doubt it. “own money” is a concept socialists just can’t cope with.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
“Go away Nome. You bore me. You bore me so much more than any other socialist dipshit posting here (and that’s fucken well saying something). Go away, and take all the other knuckle dragging boring socialists dipshits there with you. (us)”
I’m very sorry that I can’t provide for you same level of hilarity as do me rabid bleater. But I fear that to do this I may have to lose a few dozen IQ points – not worth it I’m afraid.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Feel free to find where. Search is only a click or scroll away.
Got plenty of miles left soz. If you think you can pull ahead, stop puffing, pull finger, and go for it.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
“But I fear that to do this I may have to lose a few dozen IQ points – not worth it I’m afraid.”
A few dozen? Hmmm.. 70-36= 34. Why worry. You’ll feel much more at home among your leftist buddies. After all, Sonic gets by OK with half that number.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
“Feel free to find where.”
I already know where.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Roger: Can’t you concede that wiki is a valid source to use on a blog? At least as valid as spouting unsupported rhetoric?
No. Because I disagree with it and I have told you why. Why do I have to conform to your viewpoint? Am I not allowed to hold my own perspective?
The moment you cite a source you are elevating something from being merely hearsay to something which has research behind it. That attaches a validity to it, and I do not see Wikipedia as an authoritive enough source to consider it that. Yes, you posted a research link that in itself concludes:
“These results may be some cause for cheer by advocates of Wikipedia, but they should be taken with caution. The sample size was small and the difference between the means of the articles’ credibility was only significant at the 10 percent level, not at 5 percent. Further work should be done to verify this finding. In any case, the results should not be seen as support for Wikipedia as a totally reliable resource as, according to data collected during this project, 13 percent of the articles contain mistakes”
Note, they looked at 55 articles! Out of 2,004,000+. Where they discarded disputed articles, stubs and allowed the researchers to pick their subject matter. And you consider that enough to judge the quality of it?
Is it good enough for a blog? It depends on what you want. If you do not care that your research could be flawed, or if you are only sprouting uninformed opinions, then yes. If however you take it slightly more seriously, then no.
You disagree, I have no issue with that. I do reserve the right to only skim what you write when you link to it, however.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
“A few dozen? Hmmm.. 70-36= 34. Why worry.”
So you say that you have an IQ of 34 bleater? Being a bit generous to yourself aren’t you?
September 13th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I never said that wiki is a “totally reliable source” – each article should be judged on a case by case basis. If it quotes peer-reviewed research and official statistics and other verifiable and reliable sources of information, then in my view it has something to add to debate – on the other hand if it’s simple rabid bleateresque rhetoric it should be duely treated as mere opinion. The reality isn’t as simplistic as your view, which is – “it’s a worthless resource that no one should use”.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
nome
You been beaten in an argument again or are you bleating about other peoples IQ’s because you have forgotten that there is a ball again?
September 13th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Why should i, or anyone play the ball where Bleater’s concerned?
September 13th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Two wrongs don’t make a right roger. I learnt that the first time I was caught eating stolen easter eggs with chocolate all over my face and I pointed at my brother saying ‘he did it too’. (I was 4 at the time)
You know the funny thing is we were both punished, unlike a left wing appologists approach which says it’s OK to do something if somebody else was also doing it…..
September 13th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Burt – You may have also learned that you shouldn’t expect people to treat you with dignity and respect unless you’re prepared to offer them the same in turn. Since bleater does neither he gets neither.
adieus – off to a friend’s birthday celebrations now – have a good night all.
September 13th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Then you don’t need to swear. You can simply quote. Naturally you won’t though. You will hide your refusal to behind ‘I’m not giving you the satisfaction’. But I already have the satisfaction because I know what you swore is false.
September 13th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Sigh.. like a small child..
I posted this as a criticism of the electoral process in New Zealand:
“I do not believe an event where a bunch of looters elect representatives who agree to steal money from one sector of the population and deposit it in the pockets of those who voted for them is an example of true democracy.”
and you responded to that with:
“Where was it writ that democracy can’t make mistakes?”
and that is a clear admission that elections in socialist NZ that follow contrived socialist processes and elect thieving socialist governments under the flag of socialist “democracy”, are a “mistake”.
One could hardly expect a more telling criticism of socialism (from a socialist) than that.
September 13th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
“I posted this as a criticism of the electoral process in New Zealand”…
Isn’t the democratic process in all western countries open to this same criticisim?
Some countries are further to the left or right that NZ but I would put that down to historical and cultural factors rather that the differences in the mechanics of the democratic process between countries.
September 13th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
No, it’s a simple question. It is writ nowhere except in your fevered imagination, which can parse that question into the tripe you want to put in my mouth.
My question did not have the purpose you would like to misrepresent. It was pointing out that EVEN IF socialism was a mistake made by democratic NZ (and I’m not saying it is), it’s a democratic mistake. It’s not a perversion of democracy. Your ‘clear admission’ shows all the clearer that you haven’t the first clue what the word democracy means. And if you did, you’d hate it.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
“No, it’s a simple question.”
It is a rhetorical question.
“My question did not have the purpose you would like to misrepresent.”
I am misrepresenting nothing. A “democratic mistake” (WTF is that???) or any kind of mistake, it matters not one jot. You admitted socialism was a mistake. What’s more you admitted it was a mistake for the very reasons I specify.
Snip rest of insane rant. Why don’t you just swallow your pride, drop the infantile pretence, and admit you fucked up?
Any vote that is bought by direct wealth transfer is a perversion of democracy. Without it, you leftists wouldn’t stand a chance of election. Without the votes of lowlife immoral thieves, seduced by your democracy perverting bribes, you’d be out on the bones of your power obsessed socialist arses.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
The Winner of the Oxford Debate on this thread today;
Redbaiter- because he is referring to actual lessons learned in History.
The losers –The Rabid left – it sooner or later becomes difficult if you continue to justify a ideology that has never been successful.
The trouble is they been feeding on theories at varsity and they “learn more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.”
Great effort Redbaiter.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Do you find those kinds of questions complex? Apparently so.
Ummm, a mistake made by a democracy. It is possible to make mistakes.
I never said socialism was a mistake. You have not found any quote to that effect, although you’ve tried unsuccessfully to twist one out. We were discussing whether NZ was a democracy, and you seemed to think that because NZ had elected socialists (which I have at no point admitted), that made it not democratic. I figured that you were trying to say that no real democracy could make what you consider such a terrible mistake. Hence my question.
Even if it’s a mistake, NZ is still a democracy. Furthermore, it’s not a mistake.
I know EVEN IF points can be hard to understand, but honestly, I’ve held your hand enough now. It shouldn’t take 4 posts to clarify what I’m saying about something, you only have to ask. To desperately try to put words in my mouth is a Bart Simpson calling Moe tactic, amusing in a small child, tragic in an adult.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Heh, Castafiore, who’d have thought you’d have come in to play the beard for an old sailor like Redbaiter? Certainly your love does have a strong streak of the buffoon, and a really foul mouth on him.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
“I never said socialism was a mistake.”
I’ve pointed out that that was quite clearly the implication of your question.
“you seemed to think that because NZ had elected socialists (which I have at no point admitted), that made it not democratic.”
It is not a democratic election so much as an exercise in bribery and corruption and looting, which is the state that socialism and socialists have brought upon NZ’s elections and NZ’s so called democracy.
“I figured that you were trying to say that no real democracy could make what you consider such a terrible mistake.”
I don’t see how you could “figure” that, and I don’t believe anyway that that is what you “figured”, seeing as I said nothing like that. There has been no mistake made by the socialists. Their perversion is deliberate and has been planned and is a strategy they have worked on for years. They have purposefully poisoned the well of democracy. That has always been my view and I have never said or implied otherwise.
“Even if it’s a mistake, NZ is still a democracy.”
Pffftt.. It will never be a true democracy when “government” is bought by power obsessed thieves pandering to ignorant immoral half educated parasites. Do I need to quote Tytler or can you work it out all on your own??
September 13th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
“Great effort Redbaiter.”
Thank you kindly Sir. It really doesn’t take that much effort. They are all just pontificating arrogant and smug bags of wind. Easily deflated.
..and a good analysis. (No doubt you will become the target of scorn for daring to express support for Redbaiter.) Continue to be true to yourself. That is always what is most important.
September 14th, 2007 at 6:10 am
There have been poorer people seeking charity from the better off since time in memorial, socialism is the modern form of this, chuck in the mob rule of democracy and enough wealth creating technology, and the drift to bigger govenment that we have seen around the world over the last century is inevitably. the problem is human nature, that you can’t change.
If RB has had a victory it’s only for bullheaded determination, there has been no rationality in his arguments.
September 14th, 2007 at 7:08 am
I do declare this has been easily the funniest thread of the season.
I wonder how the ******** party will feel about a candidate with this slogan?
“Vote for mef lowlife immoral thieves, seduced by your democracy perverting bribes,”
Bye list!
September 14th, 2007 at 7:22 am
“I do declare this has been easily the funniest thread of the season.”
Call me a pesimistic bastard but I keep wondering how much impact moderation will have
September 14th, 2007 at 8:04 am
It’s alll been good fun Andrew, no-one has been libeled and no animals were hurt in the making of this thread!
September 14th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Don’t you get tired of all that sycophantic panting and those disgusting stains on your trouser legs Sonic?
September 14th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Anyone know what is the shortest political career in history?
Present company excepted of course.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:27 am
As usual RB you’re exactly wrong, I will disagree with Sonic on almost all things that promote socialism and state expansion, to a greater extent than you would.
As Willie said:
“The point is that there are two kinds of people populating our Parliament.
1. Those who believe its Parliaments job to protect our rights to life liberty and property, and to defend us from those who try to take those away – thugs and foreign threats.
2. Those who believe its Parliaments job to use force to tell people how to live their life, trade away citizens liberty in order to mold their “virtuous/safe/strong/proud/whatever society” and take and redistribute property without compensation.
Easy choice for me, hard choice for a hypocrite like you.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:31 am
I think it’s time for another example to get around your private definitions. Where is a true democracy that satisfies your standards.
Quote away, but an example will clarify your point even more. 5 examples would be better, but I’d settle for one. Just for clarity, you might like to say “My example is: ” when you come up with it, rather than huffing and puffing for several hours and then claiming to have come up with it.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:33 am
rat-biter is a national party candidate..?
priceless..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 14th, 2007 at 9:35 am
“no animals were hurt in the making of this thread!”
Wrong there Sonic. Your sycophantic little poodle is yelping his head off.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:42 am
You’re the one doing all the snarling Rabidbleater, I agree with Sonic that you’ve made this the funniest thread this year, well done!
And RB, whose side are you on? less state control or more? option 1 or option 2?
September 14th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Poor little sod’s been battered from bother sides.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:48 am
“Where is a true democracy that satisfies your standards.”
Any true democracy would satisfy my standards. Its sham democracies that I complain of. Especially those sham democracies where those doing the perverting have the arrogance and deceit to profess they care for democracy. That tho, (advocating one course of action and shamelessly doing the opposite) is standard professional communist procedure.
I’m surprised you appear ignorant of Tytler’s quote. The interesting thing is that it was made so long ago, much before Marxism became politically ascendant, yet it describes so accurately that calamitous circumstance.
I’ll give you two quotes actually, each one relevant in its own way. See if you can guess the author of the second. The other interesting thing is how once, before socialists became ascendant, and began their insufferable attacks on freedom of expression, there was quite a bit said along these lines. Not so these days.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
-Alexander Fraser Tytler (later Lord Alexander Fraser Woodhouslee), in “The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic,” published 1776.
Second quote-
“There is nothing which impresses a person of reflection with a strong sense of the shallowness of the political reasoning of the last two centuries than the general reception so long given to a doctrine which, if it proves anything, proves that the more you take from the pockets of the people to spend on your own pleasures, the richer they grow: that the man who steals money out of a shop, provided that he expends it all again at the same shop, is a public benefactor to the tradesman whom he robs, and that the same operation, repeated sufficiently often, would make the tradesman a fortune.”
September 14th, 2007 at 9:50 am
I wonder how a small poltical party looking for an electoral breakthrough would react to this sort of story a week or two before an election?
Hypothetically of course.
The ********* party’s General election campaign was thrown into turmoil last night as it was revealed that one it’s leading candidates had a history of posting extremist views on NZ political internet sites.
It was alledged that The candidate Mr ********, used the psuedonym ******* to express the view that “democracy was a fraud” and “General Pinochet was right” as well as writing a stream of four letter abuse at other posters and personal slurs against the Prime Minister and her husband.
******** spokesman Mr ******* assured reporters that the party had been unaware of the allegations until today and had launched an urgent investigation.
“The ********* party is no place for these kind of extremists, we stand for getting government off of the back of ordinary kiwis and are a democratic organisation. If these charges are proved we will be moving quickly to deal with them.”
Mr ******* was unavailable for comment.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:53 am
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
Smart words, so how do we change it? So far your only offered solution is a military coup.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Mine too. Just one. That’s all we need. Now that you’ve got the quotes off your chest. One place, one single little place, where your standards of democracy have been met.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:09 am
“One place, one single little place, where your standards of democracy have been met.”
There is no single place where my standards of democracy would be met, and I could say the same for you or any person. Your question is daft. All one can hope for is a democracy that is tolerable.
The key is a constitution, and to make that constitution enforceable. The constitution must limit the expansion of government powers and forbid the election of theives and vote buyers. Otherwise freedom is always going to be at threat. I actually felt less threatened in Libya than I do in Socialist New Zealand. (err, Libya is [in reality] anarchist not socialist)
September 14th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Ratbiter’s quotes are, of course, old ones defending the idea of a “property qualification” for voting. As against the idea of universal sufferage that emerged during the American revolution.
In other words onlt the well off get to vote, the poor having no stake in society get no right to elect representatives.
It would be interesting to see what the other members of his party would think of removing universal sufferage.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Sonci will you go back to having sex with old men in uniform in taxi cabs, and stop putting your stupid socialist words in the mouths of other people.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:39 am
So you are now saying that, despite quoting two arguments against universal sufferage you are denying you are against it?
Your going to have to up your game before the election old chap, given present evidence you could be outwitted at the hustings by my cat.
And my cats dead.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:46 am
NZ needs a constitution Sonic. One that preserves democracy, and keeps clod hopping jack boot wearing unimaginative brain damaged power obsessed thieves like you well away from the reins of government.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Ah, I got to Redbaiter’s comment on the 13th at 9:03, and to amuse myself, felt the need to register & reply to his comment:
“In Singapore, no Marxist style socialism, no drug use.”
This reminded me of some of the “talking rubbish” a friend and I would get in trouble with our respective partners for, this was one of my favourites…
In the sea, there are no Tigers. It is therefore obvious that Dolphins have killed off all the Tigers that lived in the sea.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:59 am
“NZ needs a constitution …”
That’s not a workable solution RB and you should be bright enough to know it.
As long as the mechanics of the democratic process remains basically unchanged and if most people want a socialist state you will get a socialist state, if you use a dictatorship to impose the sort of constitution that you envisage a few years later the population will vote to change the constitution.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:22 am
A constutution that bans people you dont like from getting elected?
How about one man one vote, with you being the one man of course.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Perhaps I should rephrase the question then. Can you provide an example of somewhere that democracy is tolerable?
As for me, my standards for democracy are not that high. I would in most places like for them to be higher, but the barest minimum is that the government can be changed in elections by the citizenry. That would be enough to call it a democracy. Obviously there are shades after that, right through to governments which actively involve the citizenry in the decision making processes at a detailed level.
So NZ is an example. Fiji is not. The US is. China is not. Singapore is a borderline case, where they appear to allow voting, but the leadership never has changed in 40 years. When you look more deeply you find that political opposition that seriously challenges the existing government is simply imprisoned or exiled. That makes it a sham democracy. Another example would have been the Soviet Union, which allowed voting, but there was only one party, which is slightly more honest than Singapore in it’s blatant totalitarianism.
The requirement of a constitution seems to me a matter of semantics. A constitution is just another set of laws. In places like Australia, the document is so vast it might as well be just called the law. I can see the appeal of a constitution but I can’t see the requirement of it to call a system democratic.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Redbaiter said- “To be what you are, you must be totally impervious to logic. Smug in a no think existence. Your belief system is bereft of intellect and reason. It is the refuge of the uninspired, and has objectives that are the polar opposite of such principles as underpin any truly free nation.”
To which Ben replied- “Yup, given up, back to abuse.”
You see readers? This is why it is dangerous to appoint brainwashed socialists as moderators. They are completely unable to distinguish criticism of their political system from real abuse.
That is what their indoctrination with socialist ideology has done to them. Made them so hurt and troubled with criticism of leftism, they really do think they are suffering personal abuse.
Sad, but more than sad. This is one of the most poisonous circumstances that pseudo liberal leftists bring to our society, this Stalinist strategy to stifle criticism of their political system- by terming abuse as bad, and then calling critics of socialism abusers.
Do not be deterred by false accusations of “abuse”. If you disagree with socialism, say so. Do not let your freedom of expression be curtailed by this deceitful and dangerous (to democracy) socialist strategy.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
A Constitution is exactly what NZ needs as it puts in place a whole lot of safeguards to stop Executive interference in the Legislative arm of Govt like the Electoral [Mugabe] Finance Bill and it also would prevent Executive interference in the Judicial Arm of Govt like the SFO.
It would then self impose on Constituional change that a lot higher bar of politcal support such as 75% is needed before changes can be enacted to amend the consitution.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Redbaiter shall we move on to the EFB thread and leave them in their red muck,
But I’ll just leave them this
Imagine a similar scenario to sonics 9.50am dribble,
Two weeks before next election [Labour polling at all time low of 23% Greens 16% ]
TV3 news revealed that former PM Helen Clark speaking from UN HQ in Washington is strenuously denying that her office as been supplying information direct to Mr***** a prominent unionist who has been spending taxpayers money defending her office from right wing commentators under the pseudonym of ***** on NZ’s leading debating site Kiwiblog.
PM Phil Goff said it was completely inappropriate and the public should have confidence in him to eradicate any further internal corruption within the Labour party and said that although his private secretary Miss Simpson had advised him from commenting he felt it was important for the public to know it was an error of judgement on Ms Clark so they will re-elect a Goff led Labour Govt.
PM Goff also denied that ***** sharing the same information as ****** and said that just because they have been seen working in the same office doesn’t mean that they have been both getting information from Helen Clarks office at the time.
When asked for comment an award winning right wing commentator Redbaiter admitted to mouthing off more than he should about the said ***** and ****** and said that while he would improve his swearing he did find it completely hypocritical that the Labour Party would condone such corrupt behaviour but then said of course Pledgegate was worse corruption so its not surprising.
Labours Roger Nome a 1st year varsity student and Selma [Heather Simpsons private secretary] also tried to accuse Redbaiter of being a normal person when all commentators should be changing over to Brown Shirts but TV3 political editor said that Roger and Selma were not available today for interviews as they were on an indoctrination course Socialism Ideology 101 which wouldn’t be completed for another week unless they could speak to One Left News.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
“Can you provide an example of somewhere that democracy is tolerable?”
Democracy is more tolerable the less it is perverted by socialism. In New Zealand, with society in a state of decay everywhere, and the current totalitarian socialist government mounting daily attacks on freedom of expression, non-socialists say the the need for change is dire.
If things don’t soon alter for the better, and this current government continues with its totalitarian objectives, or any other government continues to weakly follow the socialist road, (as they have done for far too long) I predict it will soon become intolerable for a lot more people.
Many NZ citizens have made that choice and left already, and its lucky that there are places in the world with even worse regimes in place, or NZ might be suffering an even more serious population crisis.
Don’t write off constitutional law. When the USA is finally saved from the sick disease of socialism, the constitution they have will be pivotal to this event.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
This piece of legislation will pass, it is legislation that restricts some freedoms that people have had to date, it will be passed by much more than the 75% Castafiore suggests is nessessary to protect our liberty.
The US constitution (after numerous ammendments) functions because it remains popular, not because of any artificially high hurdles to protect it.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
September 14th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Classic, you even quoted your own no-point abusive tirade.
..and you have merely confirmed my disagnosis of your unrealizing brainwashed mental conditon as correct. It is not abuse, and people should be free to make such criticisms of socialist thought and socialist political systems without being falsley labelled “abusers”. One day Ben, when your kind is no longer socially ascendant, when this country has moved on from this dark period in its history, we will once again enjoy that freedom.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Still no example of a tolerable democracy?
September 14th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
And on it goes…personal attack after attack. I guess thinking of a tolerable democracy is really just a little bit too hard.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
“Still no example of a tolerable democracy?”
I have just pointed out to you that toleration is conditional upon your state of mind. ie brainwashed socialists believe they are happy in Sweden, when I wouldn’t live there if it was the last place on earth. You need to think about what right you have to force a system that repulses so many people upon those people by means of a perverted democratic system.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
“And on it goes…personal attack after attack.”
It is not a personal attack. I am positing that the reason you think it is an attack is because you are brainwashed, and that when a population is made up of so many who are similarly brainwashed, it is extremely dangerous for democracy.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
“the USA is finally saved from the sick disease of socialism”
So it seems even George Bush’s America is part of the vast communist conspiracy!
Castafiore Says:
“September 14th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Redbaiter shall we move on to the EFB thread and leave them in their red muck,”
He is trying to save you ratbiter, I’d take his advice.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
..and I should have said that the objective of your attempts to term such criticism “abuse” is merely a device to stifle criticism of socialism and socialists and their thought patterns and their speech patterns and their totalitarian objectives.
You are trying to make everybody think and speak like you, and follow your sick socialist objectives. To many that is repulsive, and we still in this country have the right to say that, even tho as everyday goes by, you attack that right more viciously.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
He is trying to save you ratbiter, I’d take his advice.
I might take it too, but not ever because you might.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Well said Castafiore. (I’d like to join you on said thread, but I need to catch a plane now.)
September 14th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
…and on…still can’t think of an example huh?
September 14th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
While Redbaiter’s on a plane, Castafiore, feel free to confirm that you are not the same person.
September 14th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
” I need to catch a plane now.”
Brave Sir Robin!
It’s instructive to see what happens when RB is forced to actually try and defend his positions rather just just indulging in his usual insults
September 14th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
You know, I kinda think that what with the obtuse and circuitous nature of the baiter’s “debate” that s/he merely enjoys making you angry. In which case there is no point in debating, as the Redbaiter isn’t playing by your rules.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Rules?
There are rules?
September 14th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
JimmySouthgate, what makes you think that we don’t enjoy making Redbaiter angry by requesting that he actually have a debate? Anyone who knows what a debate is can see that an honest attempt has been made. They can see the worm wriggling on the hook of his own making, and finally tearing his guts out to get off it. And everyone who doesn’t know what a debate is and doesn’t care already agrees or disagrees with Redbaiter on their preexisting prejudices anyway.
Not that we’re proving anything anyone wouldn’t already know. I’m just having one last play with Redbaiter before he changes his handle and brings his style out of the gutter.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
“While Redbaiter’s on a plane, Castafiore, feel free to confirm that you are not the same person.”
What little self respect you socialists have. So shamelessly lacking in morality.
“JimmySouthgate, what makes you think that we don’t enjoy making Redbaiter angry by requesting that he actually have a debate?”
That’s kind of funny, because if anyones been using words that signify anger its you. ..and who is the “we”. Speaking for the imaginary colective again? ..and you claim you’re not brain damaged… hahahah
“I’m just having one last play with Redbaiter before he changes his handle and brings his style out of the gutter.”
You really are one twisted and arrogant personality. but then to be so besotted with socialism, you’d need to be wouldn’t you? C’mon then.. let’s “play” Benny, let’s “play”….
September 14th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
“if anyones been using words that signify anger its you” hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha-cough, cough, hahahahahahahaha
September 14th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Don’t you ever tire of the self deceit poodle?
September 14th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
RB, you have avoided having to “play” with me lately, have I been too mean?
As Willie said:
******************************
“The point is that there are two kinds of people populating our Parliament.
1. Those who believe its Parliaments job to protect our rights to life liberty and property, and to defend us from those who try to take those away – thugs and foreign threats.
2. Those who believe its Parliaments job to use force to tell people how to live their life, trade away citizens liberty in order to mold their “virtuous/safe/strong/proud/whatever society” and take and redistribute property without compensation.”
************************************************
Easy choice for me, hard choice for a hypocrite like you.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
And still RB doesn’t want his two faces put together
September 14th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Just keep laughing poodle…
September 14th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Oh, I will, I will!
September 14th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
So lame poodle…
September 14th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Those simple questions still too hard for you to answer aye Red?
September 14th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Yap yap yap yap yap yap….
September 14th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
no, it’s Ha Ha Ha…
September 14th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Anyway, as always it’s been fun chatting to you RB, good nite.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
poor rat-biter..
all his nightmares are about to come to pass..
as marx predicted..the capitalist beast will eat itself..(and soon!..)
continual growth is unsustainable..
and we are all about to find that out..?..aren’t we..?
with the triple-hit of the global ‘bubble’ bursting..
the cheap oil running out..
and having to cash our environmental rain-cheques..
yet ratbiter..and many others..
still seem to be deluding themselves/to be in denial..
and pretending that everything will just carry on as before..
he’s in for a few shocks..eh..?
that rat-biter..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 15th, 2007 at 6:09 am
That comment is off topic Phil, however.
If we are heading for collapse with peak oil, global warming, water shortages and excess population all hitting us in combination, the rigidity of government control and the populations expectations that govenment can solve the problem will just make things worse.
For society to get through people will neeed to be less lazy in watching what’s happening in the world around them and learn again how to follow the market in their future employment and production, otherwise it will be like the collapse of the USSR x10.
In the event of a collapse we won’t have the resourses to feed an army of unproductive government pen pushers.
Hey Roger nome, you reading this?
September 16th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Despite your liking for powerful central goverment you might find this interesting RB:
http://www.mises.org/story/2701