The Big Social Issues Debates
The Business Roundtable is hosting the Big Social Issues Debates, with top university debaters competing and debating the big issues.
The heats are from 15 to 18 March at various schools, and then two semi-finals and a final.
The first semi-final is Thursday March 18 5.30 pm at Mac’s Brewery on Taranaki Street, Wellington. The topic is “Our Police Ought to Be Armed”
The second semi-final is Tuesday March 23 5.30 pm at the Gus Fisher Gallery, Shortland Street, Auckland. The topic is “Our Liquor Laws are a Licence to Swill“.
The grand final is Wednesday March 24 5.30 pm at the Academy Galleries on Queens Wharf, Wellington. The topic is “We Should Look to the State for Moral Guidance“.
They should all be top debates, and well worth attending. There is no cost to attend but do RSVP by phone 04 471 8203 or e-mail.
March 15th, 2010 at 11:09 am
I’m going, what a great idea, gonna have a beer or two with mates on the 18th
sent a copy of this to the Head at the kids schools too.
March 15th, 2010 at 11:12 am
“We should look to the state for moral guidance”. Bah. How the fuck can anyone debate that? What, so it’s OK to put your hands into other people’s pockets and steal their money? History has shown that people acting with the power of the state behind them have committed the worst crimes ever.
Sign of the times that this can even be considered a big issue. Bloody dim bulbs.
March 15th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Gutted I’m unable to attend – was lucky enough last
December to see a BRT debate in Wellington re: liquor licencing reforms. Very worthwhile and free booze
March 15th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Also of interest is the “Should NZ become a republic?” debate! It is tonight, featuring university and ex-Vic debaters alongside Keith Locke, Gareth Hughes and Lewis Holden. It will be much the same crowd as at the NZBR debates. It is at 6pm at Rutherford House.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Well I guess losers, bludgers, and %$#@! wont be there then…
Anyway, Mr. Key has never provided reasons for any of his decisions. He never will because he is only a poodle for the right wing nationalists and Western NWO including Israel. He merely relates what’s been passed down first, and the next he informs of the details. No public debate or reasons required. But this comes as a blessing in disguise really for we know the right wing reasoning has filled with filth what’s lacking in intelligence.
I have a feeling that NZ currently might lead the world in suicide among low income earners. Those who can’t access health services also might favour suicide than just waiting to die.
As the modern economic system is now truly Psycho Socialist Economic system, many people will opt for suicide than existing as a means for economic maintenance. NZ will be unbeatable!
The logic of the material market follows that everything has a temporary life and only prolonged and sustained by an upgrade. The cognitive development is also material (cross over) paralleled in temporary spans of material upgrades. Mechanical man cannot progress without the machine and its material elements.
Earth becomes a dumping ground for spare parts and empty humans. While suicide will be a privileged option, only the materially strong and by no means ethics shall rule.
For so-called traditionalists, you won’t be able to preserve anything for future generations as they don’t know the meaning of anything tomorrow. A child is born and immediately owned by state. He/she will compete with his/her parents for survival under the condition of no rules bar – the law of the jungle.
If you want to save your future, teach values in the minds of the children now. It is values that save property, as crooks could learn how to reason. People can live successful happy lives without the economy and the market, but the market and its economy cannot survive without people…. ‘He tangata, he tangata, he tangta’-
Darwin: if there is no light, then who needs eyes?
March 15th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
What a morbid speal Tassman.
Debates should be in Aucks not Welly!
March 15th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
LOL! Too funny!
In a perfect world the State should reflect what is moral, but that just doesn’t happen.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Aucks Nah!
Wellies the place for hot air!
State morality
Ho o Ho!
watch, all the god bothers will come out
March 15th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
LOL, Mike – I doubt there are many people, Christian or not, who would see the State as moral.
Helen certainly wasn’t and I’m not so sure about Jonky either.
March 15th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
I don’t know, Fletch. In a perfect world, there wouldn’t be a need for a state. Even in a near perfect world the state should be too minimal to be concerned with morality.
March 15th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
JiveKitty, true.
March 15th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
As a footnote to the above, I’ll note that I don’t believe the world is anywhere near perfect or ever will be. As such, I am not a believer in a minimal state in all situations. I believe the state should be the size it needs to be to deal with the problems that an imperfect (not ideal) world brings. I think a conflation of the state with morality is probably not a good thing on the whole as it presupposes a greater state “right” to interfere in individual lives.
I will be interested to see the results of the debates.
March 15th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
From a Christian POV, there are many examples of the State legalizing what is not moral, eg, abortion, same-sex union, prostitution, anti-smacking, contraception, and on it goes. Interesting that it was Labour legalized most of these, making it – in my view – one of the least moral governments we’ve ever had.
March 15th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
“From a Christian POV, there are many examples of the State legalizing what is not moral, eg, abortion, same-sex union, prostitution, anti-smacking, contraception, and on it goes. Interesting that it was Labour legalized most of these, making it – in my view – one of the least moral governments we’ve ever had.”
Depends on your definition of moral.For those who don’t get their moral code from made up sky faries that get bent out of shape if a kid wanks or someone picks up a stick on the sabbath,legalising prostitution was THE moral thing to do…..its a consentual act and therefore no business of the States to regulate.Ditto abortion,drug use,same sex union,contraception…..all consentual activities, that don’t violate the rights of anyone else, that do not concern the State.
The only aspect of morality that the state does have a legitimate role in…indeed its soul reason for being,is the protection of individual rights ….the violation of which is what is truly,objectivley immoral.We have a seperation of Churh and State for a damm good reason….history shows that when the former can harness the power of the latter to enforce its will upon others tryanny, death and destruction are inevertible…
March 15th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
“Debates should be in Aucks not Welly!”
The semi final is in Auckland:
“The second semi-final is Tuesday March 23 5.30 pm at the Gus Fisher Gallery, Shortland Street, Auckland. The topic is “Our Liquor Laws are a Licence to Swill“
March 15th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Not smacking is immoral?
There is no connection between morals and Christanity except that they can co-exist.
- from L. moralis “proper behavior of a person in society,” lit. “pertaining to manners,” coined by Cicero.
March 15th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Fletch 2:39 pm,
Indeed, Fletch.
While the state SHOULD not legislate FOR morality, but should rather reflect the will of the people (majority) in a democratic society, what we have observed, as you highlighted with the example of the previous Clark led Labour government, is in fact the state legislating FOR IMMORALITY – and going AGAINST the will of the people in almost every law change they instituted.
I thought government was there to represent the will of the MAJORITY; not those minority interest groups (sodomites, Marxists, socialists, Maori, et al) who have an axe to grind and/or a society/culture to overturn.
We need a system of government that is first and foremost responsible to its populace – not the UN, IMF, or minority interest groups as is the case now and in the recent past.
March 15th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
I think the majority of people can accept the need for governments to protect the rights of minorities.
What if the majority of people wanted to ban religious debates because they were boring and futile?
March 15th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
“I have a feeling that NZ currently might lead the world in suicide among low income earners.”
Well said Tassman, nobody cares dude.
March 15th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Kris, that’s a recipe for tyranny of the majority. Much better for the government to protect the basic rights and freedoms of citizens.
I’d better stop being so moral – I don’t want to be arrested
March 15th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Malcolm 5:17 pm
Perhaps – but what we have is ‘tyranny of the minority’ over the majority – and I would argue this is the worse of the two evils. At least with the majority in charge there is some degree of moderation and accountability. When the minority rules we essentially have a dictatorship where the majority are regarded as little more than serf worker units. And democracy without a strong moral base will ALWAYS tend towards either a dictatorship or a Marxist/socialist state IMHO (are we really that far away?).
Stranger things have happened, Malcolm. Heard of pastors being arrested for preaching against homosexuality in their own church? – I have (in Canada). And such things will come here given time (and likely not much). And when it does I think that even you may struggle to see the ‘funny side’.
March 15th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
@Fletch: “From a Christian POV, there are many examples of the State legalizing what is not moral, eg, abortion, same-sex union, prostitution, anti-smacking, contraception, and on it goes. Interesting that it was Labour legalized most of these, making it – in my view – one of the least moral governments we’ve ever had.”
And there’s the conflation of the state with morality. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it is moral. It also doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be legal. Most of these examples, exceptions being the anti-smacking bill and one could argue abortion, involve choices for individuals. With the Christian concept of free-will given by God, people should be able to do these things. As to whether they should, that’s a personal and moral choice. I say arguably abortion because interestingly, in the Bible the penalty for a man causing a woman to miscarry (Ex 21.22) is a fine, instead of the Biblical punishment for murder – execution. Furthermore, the Biblical definition of life is breath, as in when God breathed life into Adam (in Gen 2.7). Embryos don’t breathe, so life begins at birth going from the bible. This implies that abortion is an individual’s choice and the only harm is moral and thus should not explicitly be prohibited.
Furthermore, this is a democratic society. As Pete George said, minorities need protection. How would you feel if say, Muslims were the majority, and their own morality was imposed upon society through the government (Sharia Law)? Involving the government with morality is a poor idea.
March 15th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
“Looking to the State for Moral Guidance is acknowledging more people are turning to spiritual avenues instead of political.
the way the world is today, people are worried more than ever and churches, esp pentecostal, are meeting needs.
Churches are helping and people are responding.
In the future, I can definiitely see the state seeing the church as a threat. Esp the more totalitarian we become politically.
Its already been suggested the govt will move to close free meals and food banks.
Not surprising the way they attacking education. first with Paula bennett, then night classes, now adult education.
A very dangerous domino effect no one sems to be picking up on, most of all the media.
March 15th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
JiveKitty, lets see what the Bible says about the child before it is born..
It says in Psalms 139 -
In Isaiah -
In Jeremiah -
Does that sound like life begins “at birth”? Not to me.
God knows us before we are born. There only one moment when life begins and that is when the egg and sperm are joined, if it weren’t we wouldn’t have to interfere to kill it: if it was left alone and not tampered with then a baby is born.
Actually I have just been reading an article where a guy involved in social science is finding out more and more that what the Church believes is a beneficial way to live, but some people don’t want to hear it.
[...]
March 15th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Ps, I have just been to the Mapping America site, and there on the first page are statistics about the subject we were talking about the other day: number of sexual partners for women. As you can see, the more religious attendance and the more they come from an ‘always intact’ family, the less sexual partners they have over a lifetime.
March 15th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Perhaps so, Fletch. My point re: abortion was to point out that its concept of harm contested even from within Christianity, not to mention from without (because I used the term “arguably” – I wanted to explain why). The passages you cite could all be seen as dealing with God’s omniscience rather than when life begins.
The problem with studies such as this (I’m not saying valid points aren’t made) is that Christianity has had a large influence on what are seen as the cultural norms for the society in which the study is undertaken. This implies that those who fit with the cultural norms are likely to do better than those who do not, typically. I would be interested to see the study over a number of centuries, where norms have changed significantly (I realise this is impossible), and see if the statistics remain the same.
But this is digression, really, as there is no way of proving objective morality to the satisfaction of all or even a majority in all likelihood (there will always be quibbles) and without that the government should not have conflation with morality as it is uncertain and as morality tends to be seen in black and white for those who believe in an objective morality. There is therefore great potential for harm and abuse if government does get involved – particularly towards minorities. (Not everybody who believes in objective morality believes in Christian morality and Christians will not necessarily always be the majority.)
March 15th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
“Looking to the State for Moral Guidance is acknowledging more people are turning to spiritual avenues instead of political.”
Doesn’t it imply the opposite? We have a secular state. If one looks to a secular state for its moral values, does that not mean that one is unlikely/less likely to be looking in the spiritual realm (or considering other avenues as well)?
March 16th, 2010 at 1:47 am
“While the state SHOULD not legislate FOR morality, but should rather reflect the will of the people (majority) in a democratic society, what we have observed, as you highlighted with the example of the previous Clark led Labour government, is in fact the state legislating FOR IMMORALITY – and going AGAINST the will of the people in almost every law change they instituted.”
The State should not heed the will of any “majority” over the rights of the individual.Democracy is just mob rule…%51 dictating to the other %49….no thanks.A just,civil and free society is one where the individual can tell the “majority” to butt out of his/her consentual activities and the State protects their right to do so…Democracy is a “softer” version of Fascism and Communism….the end result is the same….the individual stripped of his rights and enslaved to the “collective”.
The Clark government,while getting a lot wrong by advancing policy that violated peoples individual rights, at least got the legalisation of prostitution pretty right.What is “immoral” about one person offering sexual favours in exchange for money? Who’s rights are violated by such an arrangement? If the answer is no-one then its no business of the States…and never was. The only sticking point is the State makes all of us financially responsible for any fallout if things go wrong and that IS immoral.
March 16th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
James, I’m sorry but prostitution is not the victimless crime you make it out to be. I was disgusted that such a feminist-led government should be promoting and passing a law that protected such abuse toward women. Helen Clark should be well ashamed of herself. We even had (if I recall) feminist groups and people from the U.N begging us not to pass the law.
Many prostitutes are stuck doing this work because they have been hooked on drugs or pressured by their pimps (by the way, the fact that the govt is taking tax from prostitution now makes it a de facto pimp).
Prostitution also fuels the trafficking of young girls for sex.
Norma Ramos, the co-executive director of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, said in a press release in 2008 –
According to a fact sheet by a Dr Melissa Farley –
March 16th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
Irrelavant to the heart of the issue….prostitution at its most basic its still a consentual act and no business of the state…its a vice…not a crime.In a free society people have the right to make poor choices with whats theirs and no one has the right to use force,private or that of the State to stop them.Don’t like it…? Then don’t participate,don’t allow the trade on your property etc…but thats all you have the right to do.You do NOT have the right to use State power to prevent it.To try and do so makes you an authoritarian rights violator and a socialist (of the soul).
Prostitution in essence involves sex and free enterprise…which one do you have the problem with? Whats the difference between a Woman offering her body for money and a professional rugby player (Dan Carter or Richie Macaw) doing the same thing? Its the sexual aspect and the warped effect this has on moral conservatives that causes all the drama.