A life sentence not for murder
September 22nd, 2011 at 11:00 am by David FarrarEdward Gay at the NZ Herald reports:
Christian Clifton was on bail for cooking 10 batches of methamphetamine when police raided a shipping container and found the P cook at it again.
The 48 year-old was sentenced to life in prison with a non-parole period of 10 years at the Auckland District Court today after pleading guilty to 10 charges of manufacturing methamphetamine and other drugs charges.
It is understood that it is the first time that a person has been sentenced to life in prison at the District Courts in New Zealand.
And possibly the first time for drug offences. I checked that this was possible and not a typo and indeed S6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act does allow this. So why did he get life?
It appears he was on parole for previous drug supply crimes, offended while on parole. He got bail, and then offended again while on both parole and bail. I guess at that stage the court realised that if he was not behind bars, he would be offending.
I think it is a good thing that a court has used a maximum sentence. They are there for a reason.
According to the Sensible Sentencing Trust, two others have had life sentences for drug trafficking.
Related posts:
- Three strikes may have prevented this
- Preventative Detention
- United Future Law & Order Policy
- May serve just three years for murder
September 22nd, 2011 at 11:13 am
Interestingly, under the Criminal Procedure Bill, this sort of charge, despite carrying a possible life sentence, will be presumptively heard by a judge alone.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 11:29 am
I recall at least one other life sentence, I think for importation, upheld by the Court of Appeal. Struggling to have much sympathy for the chap – talk about earning a sentence. Subject to recall for life. Ouch.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 11:39 am
I’m not one of the harsher sentence brigade but think this looks like fair enough crown investment – he was repeatedly acting in contempt of the law book so deservedly had it thrown at him.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 11:42 am
Good but should be locked up in the container the arsehole was using, along with his P.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 11:47 am
And I hope the Police are going to apply to seize all his assets, as going some way to funding his incarceration.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 11:49 am
The arsehole probably did kill someone with his drugs.
Where he needs to be – a bullet would be quite appropriate too, but……………………..
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 11:57 am
Fan-bloody-tastic.
The sentence is not as good as the ’15c solution courtesy of Remington’ offered to drug manufacturer and drug pushers in countries such as China and Singapore etc, but life for manufacturing ‘P’ in New Zealand, is great.
Judge Roy Wade should take a bow.
He is clearly one judge in our Court system who is not a soft cock, panty waisted bleeding heart.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 11:59 am
Can we stop the war on drugs please? It is futile. If state enforcement halves supply, price inelasticity of demand causes the price to more than double. This increases the rewards to being a supplier. So you get more suppliers. There’s no way around it. And so you get more violence (that’s how competition is settled when forced outside the legal system), more drug addicts, and more incarcerations. All at massive expense.
The evidence is quite unambiguous: the war on drugs has been a disaster.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Oooh. Does this count as a double strike – this offence and the one when he was paroled?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:04 pm
A really thick slow learner, thats the justice dept and as for the career crim……….
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:11 pm
DaVINCI: Manufacture of P is not a strike offence….despite the majority of submissions to the Select Committee being of the view that it should be…Every senior copy I spoke to has said that Pcan be identified somewhere in the mix of any really nasty violent crime….
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:14 pm
I am not at all sure that District Court Judges should be able to hand down sentences more than 7 years or with a minimum more than 5 years. These should go to the High Court for sentencing. This sentence will invariably be appealed, but IMO the minimum will probably stick.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:18 pm
“Every senior copy I spoke to has said that Pcan be identified somewhere in the mix of any really nasty violent crime….”
So can alcohol, pot and even coffee.
I agree with ben – the war on drugs has been a massive waste of time and money. Remember that most crime is a zero sum game, but P cooks are creating value and adding to the economy. Just like pot growers and other entrepreneurial drug crims.
And nobody forces people to buy or use drugs. Just think of it as nature’s way to combat stupidity.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Pete George said: I’m not one of the harsher sentence brigade but think this looks like fair enough crown investment – he was repeatedly acting in contempt of the law book so deservedly had it thrown at him.
Bang on. Utter contempt.
David G – not a big fan of the three strikes law but is odd that manufacture/supply of class A is not considered worthy of a strike but indecent assault for example (which can be anything from smacking a bottom throught to quite serious misconduct) is.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Newspeak alert………”life in prison with a non parole period of 10 years.” In English that’s 10 years,not life.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:22 pm
15c solution? Hell, where are you getting your ammo from? Can’t even do a reload for that.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Its nice to see that kiwibloggers thing that something that is a consensual crime (that of drug use and manufacture, regardless of your views on it) – is worse than crimes of rape, murder and manslaughter – at least thats the conclusion one has to draw when they are advocating stronger sentances for drug users/suppliers than that or murderers and rapists.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Nett effect on the availability of methamphetamine in this country: zero. A huge waste of everyone’s time and money.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:29 pm
@MikeE
Vote:I think that rapists are murderers should be sentenced more harshly. But that doesn’t stop me from wanting some piece of shit druggy to be locked up for 10 years.
September 22nd, 2011 at 12:30 pm
David Garrett
“Manufacture of P is not a strike offence….”
Sheesh. Importing/distributing likewise presumably?
What was the rationale there having regard to the fact that what appears in the media tends to suggest that drug offending tends to be serial in nature?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:43 pm
peterwn,
They have been handing down much longer sentences for quite some time now, especially in the area of sexual offending. The point is that the DC judges who can hand down such significant sentences are those who hold a jury warrant, which is by no means all of them.
Kowtow,
No, it means life. He can only apply for parole after 10 years. Almost nobody gets parole on the first go, and he will probably serve, as an estimate, about 12-15 years. It could be longer if his attitude is bad. It is possible, although admittedly highly unlikely, that he will never be released. And then, even if he is released, he will be on parole for life, liable for recall if he screws up at any time.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Sentences are all mixed up in this country…
“Two killers will walk free just 2-1/2 years after they were jailed for their part in a fatal bashing.
Wayne Kerry Bray, 26, was attacked by six teenagers after walking past a party in Timaru in February 2008.
The father of three was beaten and had his head stomped on; he died in hospital four days later.”
How bad is that? These youths killed someone just cos he walked past them, and, they get 2 years in jail.
Life is so cheap these days.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:48 pm
“GPT1 (1,711) Says: September 22nd, 2011 at 12:22 pm “15c solution? Hell, where are you getting your ammo from? Can’t even do a reload for that.”
Remington ammo made in Shanghai. Approx CNY15 per box of 20 (approx $NZ2.95) = NZ$0.15 per unit. Only one shot required – it seems to do the business OK (no survivors to date).
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:48 pm
DaVinci: the “rationale” was politics…ACT campaigned on strike offences being serious violent offences only…the Nats “rationalised” our list of offences to include violent offences punishable by seven years or more….sadly the Select Committee process was (at is usually is) a charade…the deal had been done, and it wouldnt have made any difference if 100% of the submitters had been in favour of adding P manufacture to the list….
Incidentally, I have some sympathy for the “banning drugs is pointless” advocates, but the raw reality is there is NOTHING good about P as I understand it….but even ignoring its direct effects, what about the poor kids who are “brought up” in houses where it is cooked? the landlords whose properties are sometimes fit only for demolition after a P lab has been used in it?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Legalize the freakin stuff.
Same number of addicts, no criminals, no dealers.
Money spent on drugs doesn’t end up in the black economy, gangs loose 90% of their revenue.
Evidence from Portugal:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:56 pm
As I understand it they tried this same experiment (with heroin) in Switzerland a few years ago…net result every heroin addict in Europe headed for Switzerland; druggies everywhere, used needles in parks, end of experiment…
but I’d certainly rather see my taxpayer dollars spent on something other than searching the bush or dope plots…mind up that’s a bit out of date these days I think..all done inside now…
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:57 pm
@MikeE – Mike, the cooking of P is only an extremely small part of the impact that it has on society. The amount of crime and violence committed to fund P and as a result of people being on P is why it deserves such harsh sentences.
I suggest doing some googling and reading about the impact of P/crystal-meth…..
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Memo to drug dealers and drug manufacturers: Buckle up! There is at least one DC Judge whos not afraid to send you away.
If you do the crime, then don’t start bleating when you get caught and have to face the consequences. Its as bad as bleating because you were caught by a mufti cop doing 120kph on a clear motorway at 6am on a fine morning – its against the Law and if you break the Law then you need to man up and take the punishment when you’re caught.
This convicted scumbag deserves every single day of his confinement. No bleeding hearts at this end….
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Agree that the “war of drugs” has been a complete failure and should be discontinued. Prohibition supported by criminal sanction as a way of stopping something that is addictive and pleasurable can never work.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 1:03 pm
It’s a pity we don’t follow the Chinese solution of executing criminals like this P cook. To them it’s all about the money and they don’t care about the consequences, so shoot them I say.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 1:21 pm
FE Smith: come on now…what you have outlined is in THEORY… you know better than I do that almost no-one ever stays in jail for life…although I suspect Bell and Burton might…I will be campaigning from my wheelchair if there is ever a proposal to let either one of them out…
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 1:32 pm
wreck1080 (1,813) Says:
September 22nd, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Yeah it seems bullshit doesn’t it.
Why doesn’t everyone get life with a min 10 years who kill like that.
then they can be recalled anytime for life.
Now that makes sense, thought the Remington sentence stops all future risk.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 1:32 pm
DavidG,
of course, that is why I said “possible, although admittedly highly unlikely”.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 1:32 pm
David Garrett – “net result every heroin addict in Europe headed for Switzerland”
Portugal and the Netherlands both have the same problem, but their domestic heroine consumption has decreased, and twice as many Portugese addicts are in rehab programs. In the Netherlands influxes of drug tourists have led to the stricter enforcement of some drug laws owing to pressure by conservative lobby groups (sigh). Wouldn’t happen though if decriminalization was a pan European policy.
New Zealand, not being part of the EU would be less likely to suffer the same fate. But I doubt various vested interests would allow decriminalization, as the only libertarian party we have seems to be socially conservative, (possibly to your frustration).
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Elaycee
Is the war on drugs working?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 1:37 pm
In the USA you can get the DEATH PENALTY for non-murder crimes (including rape of a child) very interesting site this:
Vote:http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
September 22nd, 2011 at 1:38 pm
KevinH – I think it’s always a good idea to stop and pause to think when you start saying things like “follow the Chinese solution”. When you want to start taking lessons from a fascist dictatorship something has gone terribly wrong.
Locking this man up forever is going to achieve absolutely nothing. There is no evidence that government efforts to tackle P with criminal sanctions has had any effect at stopping drug abuse or minimizing the associated harm. The government intercepts only a small fraction of the supply and every supplier who is punished simply makes room for another up and coming criminal to take their place.
You have to start asking yourself who’s more insane: the drug addicts or the lawmakers who do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. At least the drug addicts have an excuse for their stupidity.
We can never truly tackle this problem until we start looking at various harm minimization techniques that have been demonstrated to work and reduce the harm associated with drug abuse.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Tookinator -
No you cannot be put to death in the US for non-murder crimes. The SCOTUS ruled against that when they tried to execute a man for raping a child.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Is the war on drugs working?
Would we have more or less problems if alcohol advertising, sales and sales outlets were completely unrestricted? Tobacco?
At least the drug addicts have an excuse for their stupidity.
They do?
It seems like the criminal who is the subject of this post was addicted to making money off other people’s misery.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 1:43 pm
P cooks = Darwin at work. I’d leave them alone to do whatever they want to do. If they commit a crime because they’ve been tweaking for a week, throw the book at them. Otherwise, they are only harming people that deserve it.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Pete George – “Would we have more or less problems if alcohol advertising, sales and sales outlets were completely unrestricted? Tobacco?”
Is the restriction on advertising of alcohol and tobacco synonymous with the “War On Drugs” Pete?
No.
Personally, I would ban all alcohol and cigarette advertising, and insist on neutral packaging for both, but keep them legal, along with all other drugs.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 2:00 pm
$91,000 a year per prisoner. With legal costs and inflation, the cost of keeping this one easily-replaced meth cook locked up for ten years will be more than a million dollars. Worth it?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Exactly dc. I’ve always thought that dealers, mules, P cooks etc. should be made to ingest whatever they are caught with. After all if it’s as harmless as the pro drug lobby says whats the worry!
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 2:07 pm
weihana,
I know this is off topic, (and I hope DPF will allow me this comment on it) but are you seriously calling the Chinese Communist Party a fascist organisation?
Because I think that they would be surprised to hear themselves described in that way. I know I was. I have always thought of them as being a communist dictatorship.
When did that change?
Or do you have a different meaning for fascist that I am unaware of?
On topic, there is a real argument, in my view, in favour of the Singaporean/Malaysian/Indonesian approach. So long as the offending really has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and there are no elements of duress, what is the problem with the concept of execution for drug dealing/trafficking?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Blair – “only harming people that deserve it.”
If drugs were administered by doctors, the addicts would receive uncut top quality smack, and the whole time cycle of their addiction, to ultimate death or rehabilitation would be safer, and faster. If they want to die, its up to them. If they want to recover, then it would be in our interests to help them.
Best part is no dealers or associated crime.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Jeeze I’m beginning to see you in a new light mi Lordship !
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Methamphetamine – That’s a drug that causes even more social harm than booze isn’t it?
Wait, what am I saying?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 2:18 pm
The call for legalisation is an interesting one.
Shall we do away with the age of consent, pornography restrictions, social support of any shape or form irrespective of the merits of individual cases, public health, superannuation? Personal responsibility starts right here.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 2:27 pm
FES: you dont seriously expect someone under 30 (from her posts that’s my guess) to know the correct definition of “fascist” surely? Even WITH Google half of them have no clue!
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 2:42 pm
DavidG,
I suppose it shows that the 65 years since WW2 ended, the left has very successfully altered the true meaning of the word to something completely unrecognisable from its original form.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 2:42 pm
thedavincimode – “Personal responsibility starts right here.”
I think what you are postulating is philosophical anarchy. In theory, if we were all capable of running our lives and there was no such thing as conflict of interest, then we could do as we pleased.
Government is appointed by us to arbitrate for the greatest good, according to basic moral philosophy. Presumably there is a golden ratio of maximum good, which I suppose is the ideal balance between control and freedom.
For want of a better description, I’d call this “minimal fair government” and that is my ideal state of affairs.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 2:44 pm
I know this is off topic, (and I hope DPF will allow me this comment on it) but are you seriously calling the Chinese Communist Party a fascist organisation?
Because I think that they would be surprised to hear themselves described in that way. I know I was. I have always thought of them as being a communist dictatorship.
When did that change?
Or do you have a different meaning for fascist that I am unaware of?
———————————
I’m sure a distinction between the two systems can be made but the main elements I’m thinking of are excessive state control over people’s lives, pride in country and race, and the prohibition of political opposition. These all seem to apply to China.
Any distinctions between a fascist dictatorship and a communist dictatorship appear very trivial to me in the grand scheme of things.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 2:50 pm
thedavincimode: no.
My view, as expressed above, is that prohibition supported by criminal sanction as a way of stopping something that is addictive and pleasurable can never work. The “war on drugs”, which is based on this very policy, is thus doomed to failure, as we see on a daily basis.
In New Zealand, we have been reasonably successful in reducing the incidence of smoking by a series of policies that don’t do what the “war of drugs” has done, which is create massive financial incentives for law breaking. By imposing regulations and taxation, the cost of smoking to smokers has increased, but there has been no commensurate increase in the returns to providers: if anything, tobacco companies have been rendered less profitable by the regulations imposed.
Compare this to illegal drugs, where the increase in price to users flows almost exclusively to providers, thus insuring that there is a steady stream of people prepared to replace any drug dealer/manufacturer/grower unlucky enough to be caught.
So the solution is not to do as other countries have done, which is to make it easy to get drugs (which only increases demand – hence the influx of addicts into reforming countries noted above) but to make it more expensive to get them (tax them), easier to stop using them (subsidise rehab), but ensure that the returns to supply go to the state, not (illegal) providers.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Weihana: for the deities sake…this site is where (most of) the contributors are of above average intelligence and have some education…
You have just defined “totalitarian” reasonably well…although as FES says “fascist” is now a term applied by the ignorant yoof to any political beliefs (well to anything) they dont agree with, it actually has a precise meaning….and “communist” aint a synonym for it…
Google “the origins of Fascism”, then go to a library (that’s a place where they keep books categorized in an orderly fashion) and READ the damn thing…
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Weihana,
I always view accuracy as being quite important. Describing China as fascist when in fact it is communist is inaccurate. And the distinctions are there, although both are left wing.
But I think you need to read your political history, as “pride in country and race” is fascist but not communist. That is one of the real distinction between the two competing left wing totalitarian (a word that you could use accurately in both instances) forms of government.
Fascism is nationalist socialism and allows private ownership of the means of production but under state control. Communism is internationalist socialism, prefers nationalised ownership of the means of production (with some variations) but again always with state control.
The difference is that many view fascism as being right wing, because of the racial superiority thing (which is really Nazism, not fascism), so to describe totalitarian China as fascist takes it out of the left wing. That would be, I think, an error.
Here endeth the lesson. (Back on topic now, DPF).
EDIT: I see David beat me to it! Oh well, a double up cannot hurt…
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:05 pm
F E Smith,
On topic, there is a real argument, in my view, in favour of the Singaporean/Malaysian/Indonesian approach. So long as the offending really has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and there are no elements of duress, what is the problem with the concept of execution for drug dealing/trafficking?
————————————————–
1. The state should never execute people. Killing is wrong and is only ever justified in self defense and even then I consider it an evil, but the lesser of two evils.
2. Execution is disproportionate to any crime other than murder. A drug dealer/trafficker has violated no one’s rights. They may contribute towards a societal problem but that doesn’t make them directly responsible for the actions of an addict any more than a liquor retailer is responsible for all the drunk drivers out there. For the state to execute such people is a terrible evil.
3. IT DOESN’T WORK. South East Asia, despite its harsh treatment, still has serious drug problems.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Weihana,
1. Disagree completely.
Vote:2. Don’t care, they deserve it.
3. Sure it does, if you are an isolated island group at the bottom of the South Pacific. Not so easy if you are within easy travelling distance of the main sources of production. Two of the reasons that the USA had such a difficult time with prohibition are Canada and Mexico.
September 22nd, 2011 at 3:10 pm
FES: perfect Sir….much better than by off the cuff attempt….not that it will stop her screaming “fascist” at the next person she doesn’t agree with….
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Weihana (473) Says: September 22nd, 2011 at 3:05 pm.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. For sure.
Its just that IMO, these drug manufacturing and drug pushing arsewipes should be taken to the beach at dawn and executed. Let the tide clean up the mess.
Believe it or not, there is no recidivism in Asia. Funny that.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Scott Chris (1,462) Says:
September 22nd, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Do you know what is the cost per addict per year that you are alluding to here?
Vote:I am also interested in what and who you think should finance this and for how long?
September 22nd, 2011 at 3:12 pm
F E Smith,
China does allow private ownership of the means of production, but under state control. Also, China has a strong nationalist feelings. Just ask them about Taiwan.
I don’t think “fascist” is far off the mark.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:13 pm
I shouldn’t have to point this out again, but ACT’s list of “serious violent offences” included smacking, but did not include aggravated robbery or attempted rape. The Sensible Sentencing Trust’s draft didn’t even include attempted murder.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Sadly, I am sure that you are correct. Sometimes I despair of the youth of today…
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Weihana,
I will post a quick response to you in GD, then I am going to try and get some work done!
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Elaycee,
Believe it or not, there is no recidivism in Asia. Funny that.
———————–
But still has problems with drugs and all you’ve done is added state sanctioned murder to the mix.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:21 pm
“drug pushing”
Is a load of shite
Dealers do not need to push. People want to take drugs.
We all work with People who Take drugs and sell drugs even F E Smith.
Drug taking is everywhere.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:23 pm
# F E Smith (1,189) Says:
September 22nd, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Weihana,
1. Disagree completely.
2. Don’t care, they deserve it.
3. Sure it does, if you are an isolated island group at the bottom of the South Pacific. Not so easy if you are within easy travelling distance of the main sources of production. Two of the reasons that the USA had such a difficult time with prohibition are Canada and Mexico.
——————————-
1. Well some people value human life I suppose and some don’t.
2. By what standard do they “deserve” it? If you’re prepared to ignore proportionality then I suppose we can start executing thieves… hell if someone litters to the gas chamber they go!
3. Where is the evidence? Why do these countries still have serious drug problems if it works? I think the detterant effect is marginal and far outweighed by the hideous crime of state sanctioned murder.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:32 pm
David Garrett – Fascism doesn’t actually have a precise meaning. The very fact that you suggest one visit a library and read a book demonstrates that it doesn’t have a precise meaning but rather represents a complex range of ideas that requires a lot of historical context.
It seems to me the most important distinction between Communism and Fascism is that Fascism is anti-Communist. But China is not really a Communist economy anymore and arguably is more comparable to Fascism than to Communism in that regard.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Scott Chris
I’m just a simple fellow as you are well aware, and I tend not to trouble myself with the theory of “good” government, or indeed with that thorny old chestnut: “is any government good government?”.
But it seems to me that ascribing a role of arbitrating for the greatest good according to some basic moral philosophy, or setting a standard of “minimal fair government” is problematic for several reasons. First, my experience is that what constitutes the “greatest good” or a “moral philosophy”, or is “fair” or “minimal” is to be found in the eye of the beholder, as evidenced by the jousting that occurs in this forum. In fact it is those issues of definition and measurement that enable the weaselly inclined, such as the fuckwit Goff, to trundle out the weary catch-phrases such as “the rich not paying their fair share” and justifying more socialist pillaging as “creating a fairer society”. Third, that approach has been tried in Cambodia, China and USSR with unfortunate consequences.
Limited as I am to the Discovery channel as a research tool, I have to confess to a rather more piecemeal approach to deciding what I think is the role of government, but at the same time acknowledging that even the the most diverse elements of good government ought to be consistent with a central threads or principles, and that the ability to interfere in peoples’ lives where there is a perceived justifiable need necessitates the imposition of arbitrary boundaries.
One of those central threads is finding the balance between not interfering in peoples’ lives, and protecting people who are too stupid or otherwise not capable of looking after themselves.
My comment was directed at the notion that if our citizens, young and old, need not be protected from drugs because its their own silly fault and they should suffer the consequences of their own stupidity, then we might equally apply that expectation of personal responsibility to other areas of government interference, such as sex with minors, welfare & breeding subsidies, and pensions. We could save quite a bit of money in the process.
However, I don’t think that we should do this without a plan to deal with the downstream consequences, such as people living in our letterboxes or coming home to find our daughters gang-banging the local chapter of grey power.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Mick Mac – “Do you know what is the cost per addict per year that you are alluding to here? I am also interested in what and who you think should finance this and for how long?”
I don’t have exact figures, just theory. Pure heroine, for instance, would be it’s wholesale price, which is about 0.03% of its street value, so negligible. The cost of administering it would be the equivalent of a doctors visit, which many would be making anyway. The cost of rehabilitation would be high, possibly the same as keeping someone in jail.
The benefits:
90% of gang revenue lost.
No dealers.
No drug related inmates in jail.
No policing of drug taking, manufacturing, growing crime.
No drug related burglaries or robberies.
No drug black market. Money that was spent on drugs enters the real economy.
Fewer cops needed.
Courts and Prisons unclogged.
Well brought up kids will still be well brought up kids, and drugs will still be seen as bad, like cigarettes are now.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Weihana – stop being a panty waisted bleeding heart.
This thread is about the fantastic decision by a DC Judge to send a drug manufacturer and drug pusher away for life. Yay! One more scumbag off the streets. Yay again.
To the persons who (quite rightly) question the cost of keeping these scumbags locked up at ~$90k per year, I have offered a 15 cent solution. Shoot them! Game over. No more problem. No repeat offending.
There is SFA evidence of drugs in Singapore. Go and visit and see for yourself what a great place it is. There are no repeat drug offenders in Singapore either! More great news. The same applies in China – no second offences there either. Brilliant.
Its great that this scumbag has been locked up – just a pity that he isn’t going to be subjected to Chinese punishment.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:42 pm
“Locking this man up forever is going to achieve absolutely nothing.”
Yes it will. He will not be making P anymore. Thats something.
According to the logic used by apologists for drug addiction, we might as well stop arresting people for murder. After all, are not muders still occuring despite centuries of being illegal? Well, thats a failure, lets legalise it, because as we know whenever we legalise anything it magically stops being a problem.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Singapore has the right approach to crime, and as a result very low crime rates. Is there any reason, beyond the bleating and whining of some limp wristed metrosexual liberals, we should not use the Rattan here?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:46 pm
thedavincimode (2,102) Says:
September 22nd, 2011 at 3:33 pm
My comment was directed at the notion that if our citizens, young and old, need not be protected from drugs because its their own silly fault and they should suffer the consequences of their own stupidity, then we might equally apply that expectation of personal responsibility to other areas of government interference, such as sex with minors, welfare & breeding subsidies, and pensions. We could save quite a bit of money in the process.
——————————————-
Good point, which is why a purely libertarian approach to drug law reform is flawed and impractical. The state does have a role in minimizing the harm associated with drugs. The problem has always been that the approach taken has been ideological and not based on what works. The answer is not simply legalization and to promote drug law reform in that manner probably just means you want it legalized so you can use it. Hardly a convincing argument for drug law reform.
The answer is appropriate regulation and increased government control over the drug trade. Prohibition doesn’t achieve this, it achieves the opposite. It removes government from having any ability to control the trade whereas decriminalization and appropriate regulation can effectively minimize the harm and help people recover from the sickness of addiction.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Lee01 says: “According to the logic used by apologists for drug addiction, we might as well stop arresting people for murder. After all, are not murders still occurring despite centuries of being illegal? Well, thats a failure, lets legalise it, because as we know whenever we legalise anything it magically stops being a problem.”
Well written.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Weihana,
“David Garrett – Fascism doesn’t actually have a precise meaning”
Sorry, but yes it does, and China does not qualify. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of the Chinese government, it IS totalitarian. But not fascist.
Fascism was a very specific political ideology based around the Führerprinzip, or leadership principle, in which the state was led by one absolute leader who ruled for life and who’s word was law. Virtually all forms of Fascism in the pre-war and war years followed this principle. China does not.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:54 pm
# Lee01 (813) Says:
September 22nd, 2011 at 3:42 pm
“Locking this man up forever is going to achieve absolutely nothing.”
Yes it will. He will not be making P anymore. Thats something.
According to the logic used by apologists for drug addiction, we might as well stop arresting people for murder. After all, are not muders still occuring despite centuries of being illegal? Well, thats a failure, lets legalise it, because as we know whenever we legalise anything it magically stops being a problem.
—————————————-
But it will not stop OTHERS from making P. Your comparison to murder shows that you just do not get it. The drug problem is driven by consumer demand. Murder is not. Moreover, murder is intrinsically harmful to others. Drug use, dealing and trafficking is not. It is argued to be indirectly responsible for harm committed by others and in fact a significant proportion of this harm (if not the majority of harm) is attributable to prohibition (e.g. inflated price, unregulated quality of product, opportunity for black market activity etc.)
Also I accept your point that just because a crime continues to be committed does not automatically show that efforts to stop it have failed. Indeed we have to look at it in terms of whether things are better or worse, not whether they meet some idealistic scenario. The reality is that drug abuse is still a serious problem in these countries despite the draconians measures taken. It remains a problem because drug addicts are sick. If they could be expected to act sensibly they wouldn’t be addicts in the first place.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Lee01 “Yes it will. He will not be making P anymore. Thats something.” But the point is, there will be someone willing to take his place as long as the laws of New Zealand create a massive financial incentive to supply P and all other illegal drugs.
And “Is there any reason, beyond the bleating and whining of some limp wristed metrosexual liberals, we should not use the Rattan here?” yes; the ends don’t justify the means.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Elaycee,
There is SFA evidence of drugs in Singapore. Go and visit and see for yourself what a great place it is. There are no repeat drug offenders in Singapore either! More great news. The same applies in China – no second offences there either. Brilliant.
——————————-
Nonsense, China has an enormous register of drug addicts and even more who aren’t registered. Singapore doesn’t keep accurate statistics and would find it hard to do so given the stigma and potential consequences for addicts outing themselves. You demonstrate considerable naivity in believing that something doesn’t exist simply because you can’t see it. For a mystic I would have thought you were used to believing in things you can’t see.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Weihana,
“But it will not stop OTHERS from making P.”
Its not supposed to, its supposed to stop THAT person from making P, just as arresting a murderer is supposed to stop that particular murderer from killing again, but nobody believes it will stop all murderers.
“Your comparison to murder shows that you just do not get it.”
No, I think you and some others here do not get it. The point of policing is not to engage in social engineering, the point is to limit the effects of human evil.
“The drug problem is driven by consumer demand. Murder is not.”
Consumer demand is just the demand driven by the evil in peoples hearts, as is murder. ALL crimes, from murder to drug addiction are driven by the same demand, human sin.
“Moreover, murder is intrinsically harmful to others. Drug use, dealing and trafficking is not.”
Yes it is. Drug use is always harmful to the user in one way or another, and often harmful to the users family, especially if they are parents. Whether it is “intrinsic” is neither here nor there, the harm remains.
“The reality is that drug abuse is still a serious problem in these countries despite the draconians measures taken.”
We have not taken “draconian” measures, we have in fact been too soft. For drug peddlars and traffickers (not users note)lets start using Singapore style corporal punishment and hard labour for the first two offenses, and the death penalty for a third. Then we will see how many people want to enter the drug peddling business.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 4:03 pm
90% of gang revenue lost.
Do you think gangs would then say “oh well, that’s our business gone” and turn to macramé?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 4:07 pm
“there will be someone willing to take his place as long as the laws of New Zealand create a massive financial incentive to supply P”
That assumes without evidence that the laws are creating the financial incentive in the first place. There is no evidence that if you legalise it, the financial incentives will not still be there. Supply and demand will remain.
” yes; the ends don’t justify the means.”
True, but in this case I see no problem with the means. Corporal punishment is a just and useful means, as is the death penalty.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Thedavincimode – “I’m just a simple fellow”
Ha, pull the other one.
“minimal fair government” is problematic for several reasons”
I agree. That is where Hobbes and Cant and Smith and Keynes and Marx and Jesus and Rand and co all start prognosticating.
“the rich not paying their fair share”
Heh, I’m one of those too. My idea of fair is 15 to 20% flat tax on up to a million net income per annum. 95% over. Completely arbitrary, I agree.
“good government ought to be consistent with a central threads or principles”
Again, I agree. There is no other way to judge a moral system other than by how it lives up to its own principles in a morally relative world, where all systems of justice are arbitrarily based on assumed premises. That is why I like Ron Paul, even if I don’t agree with all his libertarian economic ideas
“then we might equally apply that expectation of personal responsibility to other areas of government interference, such as sex with minors”
That too is a valid point, and I gathered as much from your original post. This is where moral convention plays a part, as well as arguments about power imbalance (sex with minors), all attempting to *quantify* harm according to what they consider to be harmful. But different measures have different measurable effects. If we legalize drug taking, there is a good chance fewer drugs will be consumed in the long term, with other benefits besides. If we were to legalize paedophilia, the effects would be harmful.
“However, I don’t think that we should do this without a plan to deal with the downstream consequences”
Any policy would, ideally, be rigorously researched and monitored scientifically, and if found not to meet it’s objectives, would be abandoned. Society doesn’t want irresponsible and hedonistic idiots for kids, and any policy would be aimed at preventing this happening *in the most effective way*
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Pete says: “Do you think gangs would then say “oh well, that’s our business gone” and turn to macramé?”
Well said. The argument that gangs and global cartels are just going to willingly shut up shop if drugs are legalised is wishful thinking at its worst.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Regulation based on harm
The least harmful drugs A license to posses or sell and taxed with sale allowed at safe regulated venues. coffee shops, raves etc
For drugs like Heroin, Cocaine, Barbiturates, Street methadone, Alcohol, Amphetamine
prescription only with mandatory health based intervention
Sorry for the dig at drinkers. hehe
We have to have realistic laws around this issue with public health being the priority and any legislation based on facts
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 4:20 pm
By the way, while I think the state should stomp on the trafficking and sale of hard drugs, I do not think it makes sense to imprison users, who should be treated as people with an illness, not as criminals. I’m also not opposed to the state allowing the use of marijuana for medical purposes, espcially for terminal cancer patients. While we need to come down hard on drugs like P, there is room for a more nuanced approach to marijuana.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Pete George
Lee
I should have been clearer. 90% of current gang revenue would be lost. Gangs would be forced to diversify, and there would likely be a rise in other crime. Many would be forced to find honest employment.
However, their economic base would be shattered, and police not embroiled in interminable drug cases could devote more resources to protecting the public.
If you’ve ever met a drug dealer, you’d know how much power they wield, and they inevitably have a group of junkie acolytes who hang around them hoping for the occasional free hit. That is the *heart* of the gang, and that power would be ultimately be denied them if their dealer status were to vanish.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 4:41 pm
# Pete George (11,200) Says:
September 22nd, 2011 at 4:03 pm
90% of gang revenue lost.
Do you think gangs would then say “oh well, that’s our business gone” and turn to macramé?
————————————-
Doesn’t matter what they say. Market forces put enterprises out of business whether they like it or not. Of course gangs will still engage in other activities but the opportunity for other such activities is not increased simply because there is no market for drugs. They cannot artificially increase the demand for stolen cars for instance simply because they lack funds from illicit drugs.
If drugs were legal they would be sold by regulated companies that solve disputes through the courts rather than through violence. Or do you suppose that we are in danger of Heineken putting out a hit on their competitors?
Moreover, with some drugs the government can effectively nationalize distribution to ensure that they control the supply. The gangs would go out of business because a person is much less likely to want to visit a gang house as opposed to a government supplier.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Scott Chris – I disagree that there would be a rise in other crime. The gangs largely rely on market driven criminal activities like stolen goods and drugs and they cannot arbitrarily increase the opportunities available to them. If anything there would likely be a decrease in other crime since profits from drugs are used to fund those other activities.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 4:49 pm
SC – yep, I understand all that. Unfortunately in the main it would probably mean that gangs just shift their profiting from human misery to some other market. It’s been happening for a long time and won’t just go away. There’s a proportion of people amongst us that is quite happy to use and abuse and kill others for power and money.
I really don’t know what approach would address drug and gang problems the best, all I know is there’s no easy solutions – if there were they would have been tried and proven.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 4:53 pm
# Lee01 (818) Says:
September 22nd, 2011 at 4:20 pm
By the way, while I think the state should stomp on the trafficking and sale of hard drugs, I do not think it makes sense to imprison users, who should be treated as people with an illness, not as criminals. I’m also not opposed to the state allowing the use of marijuana for medical purposes, espcially for terminal cancer patients. While we need to come down hard on drugs like P, there is room for a more nuanced approach to marijuana.
————————————
This is pretty much what Portugal has done, it has decriminalized the possession of all drugs while retaining the illegal status of supplying and trafficking. This is a good first step and has shown considerable benefits (reduction of death due to overdose, reduction of HIV infection, increased uptake of treatment and overall very little effect on drug usage, i.e. some groups up, some groups down).
But I really do believe the most significant benefits will be realized when the trade itself is taken out of the hands of the black market and put into the hands of the government along the lines of what Griff has suggested – regulation for private distributors of some drugs and prescription for the most harmful drugs with mandatory intervention regimes. The harm caused by funnelling so much money to organized crime is considerable and in my view outweighs the harm caused by the drugs themselves.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Weihana-is there a prize for the most liberal/libertarian craziest views on this blog? Because you must be in line for it. Yesterday you were arguing that it is okay for 12-year-olds to have sex. I reckon if you don’t endorse actually paedophilia you are not far away. And now you are arguing for legalisation of drugs.
Vote:Do you have a sensible position on anything? Do you have a job? Do you have a family? Do you have a life?
September 22nd, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Prohibition became a failure in North America and elsewhere, as bootlegging (rum-running) became widespread and organized crime took control of the distribution of alcohol.
Guess what the change from prohibition worked to reduce harm
you all know the history
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Scott,
Meh.
Are you able to debate without lying?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 5:05 pm
PG – “if there were they would have been tried and proven.”
Has legalization been tried? Not to my knowledge. Any politician who dares promote socially liberal ideals is shunned. Look at Ron Paul, for instance. Fox act as if he doesn’t exist. I’d guess a lot of politicians in New Zealand harbour socially liberal attitudes, but know espousing them is political suicide.
In the meantime, this futile war on drugs has a massive fiscal and social cost, and is completely ineffective.
You will find this article on decriminalization in Portugal interesting
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 5:15 pm
I don’t necessarily agree with some of Ron Paul’s ideas but at least he’s consistently small government. The republicans like to talk small government but really they want to take government out of your wallet and put government into your bedroom. In fact they don’t even want to take government out of your pocket, they would just rather spend your money on war rather than giving it to poor people.
It boggles the mind how conservatives rave on and on about small government but rarely do they actually reduce government.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Weihana – “I don’t necessarily agree with some of Ron Paul’s ideas but at least he’s consistent..”
Same. The moral man is he who consistently follows his own principles, in accordance with the philosophical idea of moral relativity. That’s why I like him.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Scott C
“My idea of fair is 15 to 20% flat tax on up to a million net income per annum. 95% over. ”
Off thread I know, but care to explain the underlying economic objectives of that tax policy?
“Many would be forced to find honest employment.”
You infer that like many of the policy solutions that are advanced in this forum, the solution is akin turning off a tap and problem solved.
I don’t share your optimism. Show me the research (peer reviewed of course).
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 5:30 pm
It amuses me that many of the same people who are all for individual freedom also support the ‘war’ on drugs, ie, state force to tell adults what they are not allowed to buy or consume.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 5:32 pm
There is no way that NZ criminal gangs could recover from recreational drugs being decriminalised. Whether you are a businessman or a gang leader, if you are going to make money you have to have something that your prospective customer wants or preferably craves.
It is unlikely to happen in NZ for a couple of reasons. Firstly no political party would have the balls to promote such a policy. Secondly our trading partners, especially the USA, would throw their toys out of the cot if we moved towards decriminalisation.
As such we have the doubtful luxury of knowing that this discussion is theoretical anyway. Wouldn’t the entrepreneurs on this forum gain some mirth from imagining the local chapter of the Black Power being subject to government & local body regulations the same as the rest of us.
Watching the operators of a tinny house trying to comply with all the restrictions to business that the grey shoe brigade can dream up would be delightful.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Weihana – comprehension not your strong point, is it?
I said there is NO repeat offending in China for drug manufacturers and drug pushers. Same for Singapore. None. Why? Because they are executed! So stop trying to paint a picture that simply doesn’t exist. Unfortunately you exhibit the traits of a true bleeding heart – all hiss and wind accompanied by the obligatory porkie. Including the one suggesting Portugal has a great policy re drug liberalisation:
Results of Portugal’s drugs liberalisation policy (between 2001 and 2007):
Lifetime use of illicit drugs increased from 7.8% to 12%
Lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%.
Lifetime use of cocaine more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%
Lifetime use of Ecstacy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%
Lifetime use of heroin increased, from 0.7% to 1.1%
Liberalisation sure worked in Portugal??? Yeah, Right.
Now please stop telling porkies.
And by the way, this Policy didn’t stop trafficking either – Portuguese law enforcement bodies still confiscate several tonnes of cocaine, with a record amount of more than 34.5 tonnes seized in 2006.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Elaycee
Lifetime use ?
between 2001 and 2007 a life time?
How does New Zealand increase in drug use compare?
Did their alcohol usage go down?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 5:48 pm
I note Elaycee has cherry-picked some stats from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
Good points Griff.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 6:02 pm
thedavincimode – “idea of fair is 15 to 20% flat tax on up to a million net income per annum”
Based on the idea of a man’s “intrinsic worth”, about which I had a long debate with Kimble a couple of weeks ago.
Consider the Billionaire. To me, if one were to use a man’s net fiscal worth as one measure, then there is a huge disparity between that and other notions of worth, such as “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” from the US Declaration of Independence.
To me, the billionaire is a freak product of free market capitalism, so I condone the socialist idea of moderate redistribution as a means of balance, whilst retaining the idea of the millionaire as sufficient incentive to succeed.
The free market model isn’t sacred. Human’s refine all their tools. We do mess things up, but our success as a technological species suggests that we do eventually learn from our mistakes.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Elaycee (1,298) Says:
September 22nd, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Weihana – comprehension not your strong point, is it?
I said there is NO repeat offending in China for drug manufacturers and drug pushers. Same for Singapore. None. Why? Because they are executed! So stop trying to paint a picture that simply doesn’t exist.
——————————————–
Your point is noted. However the picture I am painting does exist. These countries still have serious problems with drug abuse regardless of the strictness of the punishments. So while you may execute certain individuals there is precious little evidence that such executions have much overall effect on rates of drug abuse.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 6:12 pm
milkmilo – OK – I could have added the bit that said that the incidences of HIV and Hep transfer dropped in Portugal because of a taxpayer funded ‘free needle’ scheme. But I left it out. Whoop de doo.
But some bleeding hearts come on here and suggest that Portugal is a model for liberalisation – well the numbers above say bollocks to that. Unless your argument is that you want more addicts in society.
Griff – it isn’t my terminology – milkmilo has the link if you want to verify the numbers. If you also want to compare drug abuse to alcohol consumption stats, then do some research if you want.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Davincimode
Another reason I resent billionaires (apart from jealousy of course – who wouldn’t want to be one?)
“100 idiots come up with money making plans, and carry them out. All but one fails. The hundredth idiot, whose plans succeed through pure luck, is immediately convinced he’s a genius.”
Iain M Banks
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Elaycee,
“Liberalisation sure worked in Portugal??? Yeah, Right.”
As mikenmild has correctly pointed out your stats are cherry picked. Indeed drug use amongst the youngest age group dropped which is significant.
“The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group)”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz1YexwPzYu
But personally I wouldn’t attribute this to drug liberalisation. What people like you fail to appreciate is that the decision to use drugs is not necessarily determined by the drug’s legal status. Such decisions involve far more complex factors such as culture, trends, the effects of the drug etc. To automatically attribute usage rates to the drug’s legal status is overly simplistic.
Moreover, usage rates are not necessarily good indicators of actual harm whereas statistics on overdoses, HIV infection etc. are direct indicators of harm associated with usage and notably these have decreased significantly since the introduction of the new policy.
So no Elaycee, it isn’t porkies to say that Portugal has made progress. An honest appraisal of the data shows considerable reductions in harm.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 6:29 pm
According to that wikipedia article the policy was effectively forced on Portugal by the EU to combat HIV infection – that’s directing the policy squarely at reducing harm.
Legalising all substance use has so many apparent benefits that I’m sure it will command serious attention eventually as other strategies lose credibility.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 6:36 pm
“But some bleeding hearts come on here and suggest that Portugal is a model for liberalisation – well the numbers above say bollocks to that. Unless your argument is that you want more addicts in society.”
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080
I recommend you read this paper from Cato (that organization for bleeding hearts)
“The data show that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization frame-work has been a resounding success. Within thissuccess lie self-evident lessons that should guidedrug policy debates around the world.”
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 6:37 pm
mikenmild,
“Legalising all substance use has so many apparent benefits that I’m sure it will command serious attention eventually as other strategies lose credibility.”
Ha! You jest surely. Since when did facts have anything to do with public opinion?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Scott C
“Based on the idea of a man’s “intrinsic worth”, about which I had a long debate with Kimble a couple of weeks ago. ”
I missed that discussion. It must have been very interesting. Was there any convergence between your theory of intrinsic worth and the actual creation of wealth?
BTW, you didn’t answer my question which was directed at what, precisely, your economic objectives would be in implementing such a policy. It wasn’t directed at envy or notions of what you consider to be fair.
“Consider the Billionaire”
Later perhaps, when you have answered my question about your economic goals in taxing income in excess of $1m at 95%. Or is your policy directed only at billionaires who are earning $1m plus pa?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 7:32 pm
thedavincimode – “economic goals in taxing income in excess of $1m at 95%”
I don’t argue that such a taxation regime would have much economic benefit, but I contend that it wouldn’t be harmful either. Most of the upper middle class would enjoy relatively low taxation. The 95% income tax rate wouldn’t affect 99% of the population, and still provides plenty of incentive to strive to succeed. Capital investment would continue unhindered by institutions rather than individuals, and wealth disparity would be mitigated to some degree.
*My argument relies primarily on arbitrary notions of fairness.*
A second consideration is that large concentrations of wealth place too much power in the hands of the few. Rupert Murdoch for instance. That is dangerous in my opinion.
“Show me the research”
I’m just making it up as I go along. Chances are that in a year or so, the idea will have evolved, or someone may have shown me a better, more refined model. Human kind refine their tools. Why shouldn’t we tamper with free market capitalism, simply because we haven’t managed to get it right yet?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 7:35 pm
What a pity we cannot simply inject Christian Clifton with a lethal cocktail of drugs and be done with the piece of shit.
Just remember that the Greens want to legalise all drugs, they are happy to have people like Clifton walking free.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Funny old world.
When prohibition is finally condemned to history, after ruining entire societies and millions of lives, this man will be entirely innocent and free to go about his business. Yet today he’s locked up for life.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Good call wat.
Let them out of jail and make room for real criminals.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 7:45 pm
big bruv,
I’m happy to have him walking free. He is no danger to me. I don’t care how much meth he cooks I won’t be sampling it. Do you feel tempted?
Also you have misrepresented the Greens platform on drug policy. Their policy is to make drug abuse a health issue rather than a criminal issue. This is not the same as simple legalization and presumably would involve considerable regulation. The Greens do love regulation remember.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Scott Chris,
The 95% income tax rate wouldn’t affect 99% of the population, and still provides plenty of incentive to strive to succeed. Capital investment would continue unhindered by institutions rather than individuals, and wealth disparity would be mitigated to some degree.
—————————–
Can’t agree with that. You would reduce incentive for any production of value by one individual in excess of 1 million dollars. Once they reach the threshold they would likely stop. Why produce more when there is no reward?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Scott Chris,
“A second consideration is that large concentrations of wealth place too much power in the hands of the few. Rupert Murdoch for instance. That is dangerous in my opinion.”
I agree excessive wealth disparity should be avoided but the best means for this are, in my view, the tried and tested, e.g. state funded education & health care, social safety nets, regulation against anti-competitive behaviour and corruption etc. The existence of super wealthy individuals does not necessarily mean that society overall suffers from too much inequality.
I don’t really see the problem with Rupert Murdoch either. He’s very influential due to his wealth but is that a crime? So he’s rich and gets to push an agenda through his various media outlets and business interests. I don’t really see what is wrong with that. It’s not like he has a ray gun that zaps people’s brains to obey his every command. Or does he?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Weihana – “You would reduce incentive for any production of value by one individual in excess of 1 million dollars”
Hmm. Interesting point. Perhaps 50% over a million, 70% over 10 million and 95% over 100 million. How about that?
edit – “I don’t really see the problem with Rupert Murdoch either”
Many would contend that his control of the British media was instrumental in Tony Blairs reign as PM
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Weihana
I do not feel tempted at all, however one of your kids might, or somebody I care for might.
As for the Greens, we both know that the Greens want to legalise drugs, indeed, they want to push our kids toward drugs and then they want me to pay for the rehab of every drop kick who becomes addicted.
Those of you who advocate more liberal drug laws always forget to mention just how much it will cost the tax payer in rehab costs.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:10 pm
nasska,
Not really true. They can quite easily survive on prostution, gambling and stolen property if they have to.
But it would lessen their revenue stream for a wee while.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:15 pm
What part of what I said is a lie Weihana? You are a crazy liberal. Liberalise everything-sex,drugs-all good.
However I admit you may not be the most crazy liberal. Scott Chris is right up there. A partner in liberalism. Liberalise everything,other people’s behaviour and especially your own.
Having said that- Wat Dabney- “Funny old world.When prohibition is finally condemned to history, after ruining entire societies and millions of lives, this man will be entirely innocent and free to go about his business. Yet today he’s locked up for life.”
He has got to be another contender for craziest liberal on this blog? Just legalise everything eh Wat? All good.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:16 pm
big bruv- is that you? That was a really sensible post! Well done that man.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:27 pm
All drugs are legal
Televisions are legal
Cars are legal.
No one steals TVs do they?, no one steals cars do they?
Crime exits because we have a section who are too fucking lazy to work, so they steal.so they can party that’s all.Legalize drugs and do you truly believe others wont steal and kill for free drugs and then sell them themselves. Fucking brain deads. The strong will prey on the weak because we are talking about drugs
I have said before anyone that advocates the legalization of any class A drug is so spectacularly stupid that they should hand in their life card because the gene pool doesnt need them.. You can bang on about stats of this and that in Portugal blah blah, -but stop reading stats and go spend some time with IV users, a great life. No crime there .
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:33 pm
F E Smith – “They can quite easily survive on prostution, gambling and stolen property”
The latter maybe, but as for the first two, they’d be competing with legal institutions, so their market share would be subject to market forces. Gambling in particular, they’d get out competed by Sky City, who work on a 53% chance margin with high volume. Punters simply wouldn’t use the gangs. They’re not *that* dumb.
Stolen property will be harder and harder to offload in the future as everything gets micro-tagged, and with the cops freed up to fight real crime, criminals may be forced to earn their money legitimately, or spend their lives playing computer games, high on acid, if that’s what they want.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Scott Chris
Wrong You need money to gamble at Sky City, – there is no credit gambling there, but in the drinking clubs in Auckland you can gamble on credit – the broken leg syndrome for recalciant payers is not a TV fiction.
I am presuming your second paragraph is ironic to the nth degree , so good one, otherwise, school boyish and drivel would be included in anything else I typed.
Have you ever met a career criminal, not someone who smokes a joint on Saturday night but someone who makes his living from crime, big crime?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:39 pm
eastbay
Sorry old thing, this is all about theory. Practical experience and dealing with reality is really fab and all that, but what really counts is the ability to lean back in your comfy armchair and pontificate about what might be in the eyes of the pontificator. If you can blow smoke rings while you do that, well, that’s even better.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Pauleastbay
Why steal something that isn’t worth much? Who’s going to buy it? That’s the whole point. Disincentivizing selling drugs by making them cheap. Well brought up kids aren’t going to suddenly take up drugs, just as they won’t become alkies either.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Pauleastbay
I know there are some real bad asses out there, and maybe I’ve met one or two. Best to get them off the street one way or another, or give’em enough smack to kill them. Who cares?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Scott Chris- “That’s the whole point. Disincentivizing selling drugs by making them cheap. Well brought up kids aren’t going to suddenly take up drugs, just as they won’t become alkies either.”
You really are crazy??! Like cheap drugs. Excellent for the druggies. Are you sure that no one will be influenced by the avalanche of cheap and legal drugs? More druggies,more lives wasted and destroyed. Yeah good one Chris.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Alcohol should be a class A drug
People who drink alcohol should pay the cost and be locked up
Instead they are Bringing up kids who go on to drink
Piss heads are less than human
Better yet we should shoot them
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Scott Chris
If you get something for nothing and then sell it for a dollar, you are a dollar better off.
If something costs $5 and you can sell it to me for $1 then I am $4 better off and you are is $1 better off. Everyone in that column wins, so you will always have crime because you will always have someone who wants a dollar for nothing and you will always have someone who wants to save $4.
Its called a criminal enterprise. The commodity does not matter its ” all about the benjamins, baby”.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:47 pm
thedavincimode
Not sure if anyone is pontificating here. Just proposing ideas, and subjecting them to rational/irrational analysis. Come up with a better idea, and I’m all ears.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Pauleastbay
There is no margin in legal drugs. You can’t sell enough. If a gram of P is $1 and not $80, the gang member would be better off selling hotdogs or coffee which you can make for 50c and sell for $3. That’s legal enterprise, if you pay tax.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:52 pm
@big bruv 8:10 pm
Stop telling porkies, bruv.
The Green drugs policy is about decriminalisation of personal use, not about legalisation. Big difference. And under Green policy any supply of drugs to anyone under 18 would be subject to stricter penalties than currently exist. And any supply for profit would still be subject to severe criminal sanction.
The flood of meth in our communities is clear evidence that the current policy is not working. Take away the profit motive, allow those with dependencies to seek help without fear of being banged up in jail, and we might make some progress.
Sorry, bruv, but the War on Drugs has been lost – the dealers have won. Time to consider Plan B.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Scott
Drugs including alcohol would be given the global warming treatment. Bad, Bad, Bad. You wouldn’t see them advertised or sold, as advertising would be banned, and packaging neutral. Kids would be properly educated as to their risks. The rate of use may go up among users, but those who don’t use now, won’t if drugs are legal. Why would they. They’re freely available now from the gangs.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Scott Chris
Currently 20 tailor made cigarettes cost the tobacco companies about .90 cents to make. they sell for $10.00 per packet. the government takes $7.50 in tax straight off as soon as that pack arrives in the country. Out of the remaining $1.60 the retailer, has to make a quid.Blah blah
Tobacco is legal, do people steal cigarettes Scott?
A gallon of beer cost .50c to make , its sells for.? I have no idea anymore but I would think about $40 wholesale, the govt takes $38 in tax.
Alcohol is legal, do people steal alcohol Scott?
Are there professional gangs involved in the theft of alcohol and tobacco in New Zealand Scott.?
Do you think that the govt will provide cheap drugs and not use them as a revenue stream in the fantasy you live in?
Now its head out of arse time and think things through, wheres there shit theres money.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 9:04 pm
F E Smith: “what is the problem with the concept of execution for drug dealing/trafficking?”
So you will happily execute pharmacists? No, only those who deal in particular drugs? Or just any illegal ones? Or just dealing illegally in any drugs? You will execute those who deal in cannabis illegally but not alcohol?
Seems to me you have some serious problems of both irrationality and relativity.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Ahh..the Green party alert system seems to be working well.
“The Green drugs policy is about decriminalisation of personal use, not about legalisation”
Bullshit Toad, you might be able to con reporters from the Waikato times but you will not con me. The Greens have always wanted to legalise all drugs, what’s worse is that you want to push your bullshit “dope is not bad for you” crap onto our kids.
The war on drugs has not been lost Toad, is has been obstructed at every turn by bleeding heart liberals like you who think that taking drugs is a good idea and having me pay for the rehab is even better.
Mind you, not sure why I am even talking about it, drugs will NEVER be legalised in NZ irrepsetive of how many blatant lies the Greens tell.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Oh and Toad….care to comment about the Greens candidate who was caught telling blatant lies?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Pauleastbay – “Tobacco is legal, do people steal cigarettes Scott?”
Come on Paul, you know that booze and tobacco are two of the most commonly stolen commodities. Make em more expensive, you make em more attractive.
“Are there professional gangs involved in the theft of alcohol and tobacco in New Zealand Scott.?”
To a certain extent, but the profit margin in illegal drugs is so much higher, and you only have to grow or import them, you don’t have to steal them. Certainly if drugs were legalised, booze and fags would be targeted more, so you’d have to make them cheap too.
I’m just proposing an idea, no matter how outlandish it seems to you. That’s all it is. An idea. Give it a chance.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 9:16 pm
Today’s anti drug lobby seems to jump up and down, have tantrums, swear, lie, and rant a lot.
Is that because they have such a sane and rational view point?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 9:19 pm
@big bruv 9:11 pm
Bullshit. The Greens maintain a drug free lifestyle is the healthiest lifestyle. It should be a medical issue, rather than a legal one.
As for me personally, I haven’t used any illegal drugs since 1986, so I don’t have a personal stake in this debate.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 9:25 pm
No Chris, remarkably stupid idea, and I’m not adding a sorry, just plain stupid.
i>…………………..but the margin in illegal drugs is so much higher, and you only have to grow or import them, you don’t have to steal them
Have you never heard of wholesale ,retail?, drugs are just a commodity, everyone takes a wedge, its not some hippy yippee gig
Ever heard of SPQR (Small Profit Quick Return) (great eatery by the way)
Bath time now- beating ones head against a brick wall is futile and I must stop.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 9:33 pm
# big bruv (9,386) Says:
September 22nd, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Weihana
I do not feel tempted at all, however one of your kids might, or somebody I care for might.
As for the Greens, we both know that the Greens want to legalise drugs, indeed, they want to push our kids toward drugs and then they want me to pay for the rehab of every drop kick who becomes addicted.
Those of you who advocate more liberal drug laws always forget to mention just how much it will cost the tax payer in rehab costs.
———————
It would cost a lot less than flying helicopters over bush looking for plantations, paying cops to investigate drugs rather than real crime, paying to incarcerate those who are convicted of drug crimes, and paying lawyers, judges and others to manage a backed up justice system while justice is delayed for actual victims. It’s laughable that liberalization is touted as the expensive option.
And no, the Greens do not want to push kids towards drugs. You’ve just got your partisan blinkers on there.
Also I don’t know about you but I know a fair number of people who have tried the drug and while it is far from healthy I do not accept that the person who cooked the drug for them is responsible for their choice to use the drug. Supplying a child is another matter and I do think a person who supplies a child with meth should be imprisoned. Of course with prohibition the chances of children being supplied is increased due to the unregulated nature of organized criminal enterprises.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 9:40 pm
# F E Smith (1,191) Says:
September 22nd, 2011 at 8:10 pm
nasska,
There is no way that NZ criminal gangs could recover from recreational drugs being decriminalised.
Not really true. They can quite easily survive on prostution, gambling and stolen property if they have to.
But it would lessen their revenue stream for a wee while.
——————————————
Note the word “survive”. There’s a big difference between mere survival and enjoying a boom time under prohibition. No one’s suggesting criminal gangs will be history but their influence and impact on society will be much reduced. The revenue from drugs is enormous.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 9:41 pm
“Bullshit. The Greens maintain a drug free lifestyle is the healthiest lifestyle.”
Utter rubbish, the Greens have always pushed to legalise drugs.
Name (and provide proof because it is now clear that we cannot trust anything the Greens have to say given the number of times you lot have been caught telling blatant lies) one Green MP who has stood up in the house and said that taking drugs is a bad thing?
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Scott Chris
“I don’t argue that such a taxation regime would have much economic benefit”
That does not answer my question, nor indeed the others:
1. Was there any convergence between your theory of intrinsic worth and the actual creation of wealth?
2. What, precisely, are your economic objectives in implementing such a policy? If it is purely envy-based with no economic foundation then perhaps you could just underscore that fact so that we might put your opinion in perspective.
3. Is your policy directed only at billionaires who are earning $1m plus pa?
And some additional questions in light of further insights that you have shared:
“I contend that it wouldn’t be harmful either. Most of the upper middle class would enjoy relatively low taxation. The 95% income tax rate wouldn’t affect 99% of the population, and still provides plenty of incentive to strive to succeed.”
Accepting that your stats are accurate (no doubt you would never make broad brush assumptions) -
4. Do you mean “harmful” in a productive/economic sense, or “harmful” in societal/egalitarian sense?
5. Do the 1% of the population not count? What would happen they didn’t like your policy and decided to leave. Presumably, if your policy is envy-based and does not reflect some economic goal that wouldn’t matter.
“Capital investment would continue unhindered by institutions rather than individuals, and wealth disparity would be mitigated to some degree.
6. Really? (I’m assuming that the individuals to whom you refer are the entrepeneurs who created the ideas that created the wealth). Does this mean that you favour entrepeneurship by fund managers?
*My argument relies primarily on arbitrary notions of fairness.*
7. I’m not sure whether you have an argument at this point, or just an expression of envy. Are you saying that there is absolutely no economic rationale for your 95% policy. And is your equity boundary $1m pa? Is it fair that 99% get to subsidise themselves at the expense of the 1%?
“A second consideration is that large concentrations of wealth place too much power in the hands of the few. Rupert Murdoch for instance.”
8. Do you subscribe to the ‘one rotten apple ferments the barrel’ theory?
“I’m just making it up as I go along.”
9. Really?
“Chances are that in a year or so … someone may have shown me a better, more refined model.”
Be sure to leave your contact details so that they know where to send it and pass it on when you’ve knocked the rough edges off it.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 9:52 pm
PaulEastBay,
I have said before anyone that advocates the legalization of any class A drug is so spectacularly stupid that they should hand in their life card because the gene pool doesnt need them.. You can bang on about stats of this and that in Portugal blah blah, -but stop reading stats and go spend some time with IV users, a great life. No crime there .
————————————–
That’s about the only argument you have: “You’re stupid”. Maybe you don’t care about facts but rational people do. Facts form the basis of rational argument.
I have a fair bit of experience with people who use drugs so to suggest that my opinion is not based on experience is an ignorant assumption on your part. I know first hand what drugs like meth can do to people. But the harm of the drug does not diminish the foolishness of prohibition.
You really demonstrate you’ve lost all sense with this statement:
“do you truly believe others wont steal and kill for free drugs and then sell them themselves. ”
If drugs are “free” how the hell would anyone steal them and who would they sell them to given that they are available for free? You talk of others being brain dead I suggest you think next time before putting finger to keyboard.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Well guys, theory is nice but Pauleastbay’s 8.37pm comment is right on the money, so to speak. Criminal organisations don’t adhere to theory, they do things differently in a number of ways, as Paul points out.
While your theories are good, I have no faith in them working when it comes to crime.
Alan Wilkinson, don’t be obtuse. You know exactly what I meant.
Weihana, survive means continue to carry on as if nothing changed after a short period of consolidation.
But on that, would the drug liberalisers here legalise P? If so, then you are happy to release an terrible drug on the general populace, one that lead people to commit serious crimes while under its influence. If not, then you have left an opening for criminal organisations.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Weihana, drugs are never free. Someone has to pay for them, whether it is the taxpayer or the consumer. In one way or another, if drugs are legalised the taxpayer will be the one who ends up paying.
That is especially true if you try to tax drugs that people can grow themselves.
And don’t be so nasty in your comments. Those sorts of attacks are uncalled for. Paul is right on the money, as far as I am concerned, but then, of course, he and I merely have experience in dealing with the after effects of drug use, don’t we- so what do we know?
EDIT: just on that, can anyone tell my why we are trying to make it more difficult and unattractive to smoke tobacco, but on the other hand wanting to legalise drugs? That doesn’t make sense.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Pauleastbay,
“If you get something for nothing and then sell it for a dollar, you are a dollar better off.”
To whom will you sell something which otherwise costs nothing?
“If something costs $5 and you can sell it to me for $1 then I am $4 better off and you are is $1 better off.”
And what is the market like for stolen goods worth 5 dollars? Think about it, there isn’t a big market in stolen goods which are cheap. You started off talking about cars and TVs but suddenly we’re talking about things worth 5 dollars. You seem to have missed the fact that that is exactly the problem with the war on drugs. It pushes the price of drugs up so they cost as much as TVs thus creating incentive for crime. Legalization pushes the price down to something like the cost of a six pack. Do we have a big market in stolen alcohol? Of course not. People may steal alcohol, just as they may steal anything but the cheap cost of alcohol means there is no market for trading in stolen alcohol.
Looks like you’ve scored an own goal with that argument.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Weihana
“I know first hand what drugs like meth can do to people. But the harm of the drug does not diminish the foolishness of prohibition.”
I reckon I’m going to have to sleep on that one to get my head around it. Or take some.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 10:09 pm
F E Smith, I know drugs aren’t free I was following PaulEastBay’s line of argument to its logical conclusion. Also I accept taxpayers will inevitably have to pay, but it will be a damn sight less than what we are paying now.
On the point of nastiness did you actually read PaulEastBay’s original comment?
“I have said before anyone that advocates the legalization of any class A drug is so spectacularly stupid that they should hand in their life card because the gene pool doesnt need them.”
You don’t have to mention names to know that is a personal remark on myself and a few others here. Not that I’m bothered by it. I’m sure there will be another thread where he’ll say something I agree with and I’ll be talking like he’s my hero. I don’t mind people strongly criticizing others, even saying their argument or they are stupid or crazy. I do have a problem with people like Scott though who flat out lie and misrepresent what others are saying. Anyway… back to the never ending pointless discussion we are having…
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 10:14 pm
F E Smith,
Tobacco is a very harmful drug right up there with some of the most harmful illegal drugs. Visit a hospital some time. It kills those who consume the product as intended. All tobacco should be sold by the government in plain white packets and all advertising should be banned in my view.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 10:28 pm
F E Smith,
But on that, would the drug liberalisers here legalise P? If so, then you are happy to release an terrible drug on the general populace, one that lead people to commit serious crimes while under its influence. If not, then you have left an opening for criminal organisations.
—————
The drug is already out there! You argue from the false premise that prohibition keeps it under wraps which it doesn’t. It doesn’t matter how many people you arrest because that only increases the opportunity for others to make a profit. Why does the political right suddenly lose all sense of economics when it comes to drugs?
Anyway, the term legalize is an oversimplification. It has to be regulated and more so than, say, alcohol. No advertising should be permitted and no private distributor should be able to supply it as it is a dangerous and unhealthy drug.
But while I don’t want to diminish how bad it is, you really do need to have some perspective. A lot of people use or have used this drug and the vast majority do not commit serious crimes under its influence. It is simply untrue to portray the drug as if it anyone who uses it will become psychopathic. Given the widespread prevalence of this drug and the relatively smaller number of people who commit serious violent crimes while on the drug, clearly it is a small minority of people who experience the worst this drug has to offer whilst most abusers limit the destructiveness to themselves.
It is my view, based on what I consider a reasonable amount of experience of the drug and its users, that government supply of this drug would reduce the harm by enabling the authorities to target users with treatment and by virtually eliminating the need for addicts to commit crime to finance their fix.
Vote:September 22nd, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Big Bruv,
“Mind you, not sure why I am even talking about it, drugs will NEVER be legalised in NZ irrepsetive of how many blatant lies the Greens tell.”
Drugs already are legal… just depends what drug you are talking about.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 3:42 am
tinny houses are a conduit for criminal gangs a easy place to sell buy stolen goods and hard drugs.
they are also serve as a recruitment ground for the next generation of gangstas.
Alcohol is a dangerous drug.
Vote:any one who thinks it is not should go to a&e or the police watchtower on a Friday nite.
prohibition of alchol caused the rise of criminal gangs in the USA.
once prohibition ended this but the gangs into decline.
the cost of prohibition was greater than the gain.
most of those posting anti drug views drink and refuse to admit the harm alcohol does.
less harmful drugs than alcohol are available. we should legalize and contain the harm done in a rational way for all drugs.
Not differentiate because ones drug of choice is legal yet should not be and others are illegal
September 23rd, 2011 at 8:07 am
thedavincimode – “That does not answer my question, nor indeed the others:”
Actually, I did. The envy quip was to diffuse the boring accusation of envy, so is largely irrelevant.
Firstly, I stated that my targeting of billionaires is an ethical measure, not an economic one:
*”My argument relies primarily on arbitrary notions of fairness”*
I went on to content that such a tax regime wouldn’t hinder incentive to strive to succeed or capital investment flow.
Weihana then pointed out an obvious flaw in my idea, so I amended it to 50% tax on net income over 1kk, a70% over 10kk and 95% over 100kk.
The point is, I’m simply trying to apply an arbitrary ethical idea to a model which is largely based on natural selection. One could equate this with modern medical intervention interfering in the natural selection in humans.
My only concern with the economics of the model, is that I don’t fuck it up. The only possible output improvement I can see is based on the idea of “a happy worker is a productive worker”, which would be of secondary benefit to my objective.
You can argue from an economic perspective, but only to critique my proposal that the tax regime will do the current model no harm, as Weihana did.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 8:21 am
Jeez – the panty waists (busy trying to justify their illegal drug liberalisation ideas) always revert to type: as soon as the heat goes on about illegal drugs, they suddenly inject the use of alcohol into the debate. WTF? Chalk / cheese. Illegal / Legal.
This post was supposed to be about the excellent decision by a DC Judge in sending this drug manufacturing and drug pushing toe rag away for life.
Well, I support the sentence handed down by this Judge – 100%. If it means my tax dollars are spent keeping this prick off the streets, then so be it. Its a better spend of tax dollars than dishing it out to career bludgers.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 8:29 am
Davincimode – “Accepting that your stats are accurate (no doubt you would never make broad brush assumptions)”
You give me way too much credit. These *are* broad brush assumptions. As I said to Kimble, I’m not writing a thesis here. I’m having a chat on Kiwiblog. Even if I were to start the laborious process of plugging numbers into xyz’s elaborate economic model of the free market economy, the results would be just as contentious, so what’s the point?
“Do you mean “harmful” in a productive/economic sense”
Yes.
“Do you subscribe to the ‘one rotten apple ferments the barrel’ theory”
Yes and no. In Murdoch’ case, maybe, in that what he gets away with sets a precedent. I’m not one for baseless conspiracy theories, but my guess is that a lot of subtle manipulation goes on behind the scenes, possibly to preserve the status quo. Pure guess.
“I’m just making it up as I go along”
As do we all, including Feynman and Einstein and Phil Goff and Charles Manson and Ghandi and you and me.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 8:31 am
Elaycee – “Jeez – the panty waists”
Why does everything you have to say start with a sneer Elaycee? You must be a real barrel of laughs to live with.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 8:37 am
Scott Chris – I’m able to be highly selective in the company I keep, so it can safely be said that you’ll never find out.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 8:41 am
Elaycee – “I’m able to be highly selective in the company”
My guess is seven cats and an axolotl.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 8:46 am
Elaycee
David nutt and the idiot loop
“One problem is that sometimes you get into what I think of as an illegality–logic loop. This is an example of a conversation I’ve had many times with many people, some of them politicians:
MP “You can’t compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one.”
Professor Nutt “Why not?”
MP “Because one’s illegal.”
Professor Nutt “Why is it illegal?”
MP “Because it’s harmful.”
Professor Nutt “Don’t we need to compare harms to determine if it should be illegal?”
MP “You can’t compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one.”
I have been surprised how difficult this concept is to get across to some people, whether they are politicians, fellow scientists or members of the general public.”
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 9:21 am
Weihana,
just a small point of clarificaion. Ron Paul can best be described as a conservative Paleo-Libertarian. So while he is in favour of small government, your claim about the state and peoples bedrroms is not entirely accurate. Paul is in favour of individual states deciding the issue of gay marriage one way or another, and he is totally opposed to abortion and would criminalise it throughout the US. He’s also opposed to mass immigration and would seriously tighten up in that area. For these reasons some liberal libertarians claim he’s not a libertarian at all.
Personally I like him and would not mind seeing him as Pres, though his strict isolationist defense policy is unrealistic in today’s world.
I would argue that the Libertarian and Traditionalist-Conservative approach to small government is different. Most Libertarians would simply reduce it-end of story, and they want to do so because they believe in radical individualism, while Conservatives want less government than Liberals/Progressives, but also believe that a genuinely free society can only work within a traditional family-centered moral framework. It is not therefore inconsistent for Conservatives to argue for less government than we have now, but also to argue for the state protecting traditional marriage and banning abortion.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 9:25 am
Scott C
I don’t recall raising the issue of envy. You referred to resentment of billionaires and in response in my 7:05 I made it quite clear that I was interested in your economic objectives. My question as to whether your policy was envy-based was at 9:48, subsequent to your clever deflection of your perceived but non-existent boring envy accusation. Perhaps you were psychic and this was a pre-emptive quip, and the presence of a microwave in your immediate vacinity confused the signal leading you to think that what, in the circs, was going to be a serious and legitimate question in light of what went before, would in fact be a boring accusation. Or perhaps in the heat of revising your income tax policy, you misunderstood what I was getting at.
You also haven’t in fact answered all my questions, but no need now as I think your position is becoming clearer.
Can we sum up as follows then?
1. You don’t like billionaires because you think Rupert Murdoch is bad.
2. You express no like or dislike for people earning $1m or more, unless they happen to be billionaires. Your personal income tax policy for those taxpayers is directed at your own notions of ethics and a values system that suggests, for reasons that I am unclear on, that earning such sums of money is bad. Whatever those reasons are, it has absolutely nothing to do with envy or those individuals being required to “pay their fair share”.
3. Your concern with the economic consequences of your tax policy is limited to ensuring that you don’t “fuck it up” and your system produces happy workers. This policy drives off an expectation that high earners and high net wealth individuals won’t mind or won’t respond to this policy, or if they do, they won’t respond in such a way that would give rise to a “fuckup”. They would of course have several options available to them if they didn’t like your tax policy and you are no doubt aware of them. One might be to not work as hard or alternatively, stop doing what ever it is that enables them to command that level of earnings in a free-market economy. The other might be to go away.
Interestingly, I can recall seeing a view expressed (I think in the context of barriers to migration by high net wealth individuals and by a tax policy advocate) that personal income tax ought to be capped at $1m of tax on the basis that when you’ve paid $1m of tax, you’ve probably done your bit.
As I think I said at the outside, ethics are in the eye of the beholder.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 9:34 am
F E Smith, nope, I don’t know what you meant. Usually you make a lot of sense but none at all in this thread.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 9:34 am
“The drug is already out there! You argue from the false premise that prohibition keeps it under wraps which it doesn’t.”
However it can be argued that it limits the number of people using it to some degree. SOME decriminalisation and regulation of marijuana use is justified, but drugs like P must remain illegal. The harm that methamphetine drugs do to their users and to society simply cannot be tolerated. Government decriminalisation and regulation of such drugs would be evil.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 9:44 am
genuinely “free” society can only work within a traditional family-centered moral framework
Here is another take on free (if we are disusing political ideologies)from What should be the goals of the criminal justice system? http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus399.html
1996 book, Political Liberalism, Rawls outlined what he considered to be the necessary institutional arrangements that would allow citizens genuinely to exercise their freedoms within a liberal democratic context (1996: lvi-lvii). In summary these were:
Public financing of elections and the provision of genuinely impartial and independent information on policies to the electorate;
Equality of opportunity to ensure that all citizens can partake of and contribute to public debate;
A `decent’ distribution of income and wealth to ensure that all citizens can partake of basic liberal freedoms;
Society as employer of last resort, to ensure that all citizens have the opportunity for meaningful work;
Basic health care for all.
`To anyone familiar with contemporary political conditions in liberal capitalist societies such as the United States and Britain,’ the political philosopher Alex Callinicos has observed in relation to Rawls’ list, `these requirements will seem wildly utopian’. But as Callinicos goes on to point out, this recognition should be a spur for critical reflection, rather than for dispirited acquiescence. In particular, it requires us to offer `some account… of the relationship between abstract norms and the historical conditions of their realization’
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 9:46 am
I fixed that for you, Lee01
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 9:52 am
RRM,
the difference is that some people can drink alcohol sensibly, and alcohol in and of itself, used in moderation, is not harmful.
P on the other hand is ALWAYS harmful no matter how much is taken, and cannot be used safely in moderation. Its use always leads to social harm, crime and violence. This is true of all methamphetimines.
The failure to distinguish such basic obvious realities is one of the reasons I do not take the pro-legalisation crown remotely seriously.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 10:09 am
Elaycee,
“This post was supposed to be about the excellent decision by a DC Judge in sending this drug manufacturing and drug pushing toe rag away for life. ”
You do know that the judge actually gave this guy the better of two options available to him? “Life” means he’s inside for at least 10 years. A finite sentence would have had him in for longer. But in any case, even though I’m a “crazy liberal” I can’t fault the judge for his decision.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 10:20 am
Lee01,
It is not therefore inconsistent for Conservatives to argue for less government than we have now, but also to argue for the state protecting traditional marriage and banning abortion.
—————
I think it is false to characterize Republicans as supporting “less government”. Less government means reducing the size of government, not just shifting its focus to other areas of our lives and whether or not Republicans actually support less government depends on the particular issue. Some issues they support less government and many others they support more government.
And actually in a very broad sense I don’t think that’s a bad thing. We shouldn’t oversimplify matters such that “less government” is inherently good and more government is inherently bad. It may be good or it may be bad. If “protecting traditional marriage” or banning abortion is good it has nothing to do with whether it means less or more government it is good or bad depending on the merits of the idea itself. But Republicans like to generalize and portray themselves as supporting less government simply because that message resonates with the voters when in actual fact it is a lie in general.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 10:21 am
Not necessarily Weihana. As I understand it, a life sentence is for a minimum of ten years and then parole for life, with the possibility of recall. Parole is not automatic at ten years. A fixed term of, say 14 years, would see eligibility for parole much earlier, and that parole would have a fixed end date.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 10:26 am
# Lee01 (827) Says:
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:34 am
“The drug is already out there! You argue from the false premise that prohibition keeps it under wraps which it doesn’t.”
However it can be argued that it limits the number of people using it to some degree. SOME decriminalisation and regulation of marijuana use is justified, but drugs like P must remain illegal. The harm that methamphetine drugs do to their users and to society simply cannot be tolerated. Government decriminalisation and regulation of such drugs would be evil.
—————————————
Anything can be argued but that argument cannot be advocated very convincingly. There is precious little evidence that prohibition limits drug use to any significant extent. Moreover decriminalization or legalization does not imply tolerance of harm. The argument for decriminalization and/or legalization is based on the idea that harm would be reduced and there is considerable evidence to support that idea.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 10:33 am
mikenmild – I understand the judge would have been considering a sentence of about 21 years.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 10:45 am
“I think it is false to characterize Republicans as supporting “less government”. ”
I didin’t. I was talking about Traditionalist Conservatives. Not all Republicans are such, though some like Ron Paul are. The Republican party is a very broad and large tent, like the Democrats.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 10:47 am
Thedavincimode
“I don’t recall raising the issue of envy”
I never said you did. I said, “The envy quip was to diffuse the boring accusation of envy”
It was an antecedent, in anticipation of a common accusation aimed at those who have the temerity to criticize *the idea* of the mega-rich. (Not Murdoch and co personally. I suspect most of them are as nice as me.)
Perhaps you think I am being deliberately obtuse in sticking to the moral argument line. I’m not. That is the whole thrust of my argument. Your summary of my resentment of Billionaires is simplistic and not reflective of my actual argument, so I’ll ignore that part.
My assumptions are:
Free market capitalism in its purest form is the economic equivalent of Natural Law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
Natural Law is amoral, and free market capitalism is amoral. Note amoral, not immoral.
Humans are required to be moral in order to best resolve conflict of interest, *assuming they wish to generate the maximum self-interest for all* (one philosophical definition of “good”)
Therefore, we will moralize our chosen economic system, as it is merely a tool that is reflective of us.
Finally, I propose that the mega rich are immoral, according to my arbitrary notion of fairness, and I argue that constraining wide wealth disparity will not have a negative impact on product function of the economic model. It may even have a positive effect when *the right balance is struck*
To use an analogy. I own a pine plantation. I started with 900 stems per hectare, as is common practice, in order to achieve vertical, non tapering growth. After 10 years, I thinned my trees to 400 stems per hectare whilst simultaneously carrying out 3 pruning lifts, to produce knot free, high quality timber.
Had I left the plantation to Natural Law once established, it would only be good for firewood and fenceposts, and practically worthless.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 10:54 am
“Natural Law is amoral, and free market capitalism is amoral.”
Correct.
Here is a moral alternative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
“According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (plutarchic capitalism).”
http://distributistreview.com/mag/
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 10:59 am
# Lee01 (828) Says:
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:52 am
RRM,
the difference is that some people can drink alcohol sensibly, and alcohol in and of itself, used in moderation, is not harmful.
P on the other hand is ALWAYS harmful no matter how much is taken, and cannot be used safely in moderation. Its use always leads to social harm, crime and violence. This is true of all methamphetimines.
The failure to distinguish such basic obvious realities is one of the reasons I do not take the pro-legalisation crown remotely seriously.
——————————————–
I don’t think that is entirely accurate.
Let me start by saying P is a terrible drug, very addictive and with serious health consequences if one continues to use it. However, there are many people who have used it without causing harm to others or committing crime. That’s not to deny that if one doesn’t recognize the signs of addiction and quit they will likely end up in a place they don’t want to be, but it is not true that it generally turns people into psychopaths who can’t help but commit crime.
If a person uses it once, or twice, or three times there is very little chance that it will incite them to commit crime (other than the fact of consuming the drug). The problem is sooner or later addiction will start to take hold of a person who continues to use the drug and will seriously affect their health. But to say that harm will “always” occur no matter how much is used is simply false and we can’t have a sensible discussion while people are ill-informed and over-zealous in their opposition to drugs like this. It isn’t even true of heroin to say that any use “always” causes social harm.
Perhaps the only drugs I would say this is true of are those that produce delirium as a normal consequence of use such as datura. However, drugs like datura aren’t used very widely precisely because they invariably cause harm due to the effects of the drug. The thing about P is that at first it does not cause significant harm which is why it is dangerous. They deceive people by appearing to be just good fun when in actual fact they are gradually changing the way a person’s brain works to become dependent on the drug.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 11:06 am
# Lee01 (828) Says:
September 23rd, 2011 at 9:52 am
RRM,
the difference is that some people can drink alcohol sensibly, and alcohol in and of itself, used in moderation, is not harmful.
—————————————–
Furthermore, there are plenty of drugs which people can use sensibly, including Cannabis, LSD, E and some others. And by sensibly I mean the risks and harm associated with these drugs are comparable or less than alcohol on an objective basis. Or at least this is the opinion of experts who have researched the effects of these drugs.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 11:10 am
Scott Chris,
Sorry I haven’t really been following all the context of your discussion, but I don’t agree that free market capitalism is amoral. Morality is any prescriptive action and free market capitalism clearly implies prescriptive action such as “the government should not regulate market activity” and “individuals should have a right to own property” etc. These are moral statements.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 11:18 am
I also think the concept of natural law is flawed though useful. It is flawed because nature does not dictate morality. The only laws of nature are the laws of science (e.g. physics, mathematics, logic etc.) and they can be harnessed towards “bad” purposes as well as “good” purposes.
In my view what “natural law” actually represents is the fact that humans, whether by nature or coincidence, tend to share similar values and on the basis of those shared values objective moral truths can be discovered. But there is no inherent reason why a person cannot have different values, such as not being afraid to die, and as such the normal rules don’t apply to them. Suicide bombers for instance. There’s no universal law which says they are wrong, it’s just that we don’t desire them to fly planes into buildings killing us. The immorality of their actions is based on our subjective values which, thankfully, most people share.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 11:23 am
@Weihana / milkmilo:
Re a ‘life sentence,’ F E Smith wrote at 12.42pm yesterday (in response to another query:
No, it [life] means life. He can only apply for parole after 10 years. Almost nobody gets parole on the first go, and he will probably serve, as an estimate, about 12-15 years. It could be longer if his attitude is bad. It is possible, although admittedly highly unlikely, that he will never be released. And then, even if he is released, he will be on parole for life, liable for recall if he screws up at any time.
Good one, eh?
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 11:30 am
Good regime for some murderers perhaps. I wonder if the costs of parole for life are justified by the benefits in many cases of released murderers. Your typical murderer probably kills only once, usually a girlfriend or family member and probably doesn’t kill or seriously offend again.
Back to drugs though. I still say let out the drug ‘criminals’ and make room for real offenders – finance company executives, mine operators, electoral law infringers, etc, etc…
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 11:31 am
Scott C
I’m not much concerned with Wikileaks definitions, just as you don’t appear overly concerned at the economic consequences of the policy that you advocate. I’ve dealt with a number of wealthy entrepeneurs and like all of us, have observed the responses of entrepeneurs to NZ’s tax system as well as tax systems in other jurisdictions. Billions of dollars of wealth have left NZ as a consequence of our tax system and there are well publicised names of those who have done so. I don’t think that is a good thing. I’m not suggesting they are necessarily all saints, but from the perspective of requiring capital raising elsewhere in the world, I don’t think that is a good thing.
Taxation is a proven loser in terms of being used to influence investment in one sector of the economy as distinct from another. In light of dealings that I have had with entrepeneurs, the mobility of capital and people, and human nature being what it is, I expect it would be a bigger loser as a framework to impose notions of morality on others. The tax sustem is there to raise revenue.
I think you are being very naive and see little distinction between what you and Liabore advocate, aside from nomenclature.
I am sure that without exception, the wealthy entrepeneurs that I have dealt with would take strong exception to being labelled in some perjorative way by people who rationalise tax as being a tool by which to institutionalise the morality of those who haven’t actually been through the grind or been suffuiciently innovative to create wealth and put everything on the line in the process, particularly where they have created jobs. If they aren’t wanted, its very easy for them to fuck off somewhere else.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 11:36 am
Weihana – “free market capitalism clearly implies prescriptive action such as “the government should not regulate market activity””
You are assuming the government exists. Free market capitalism is a description of a process which would occur regardless of the presence of government, as it is analogous to natural law which requires no prescription.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 11:39 am
thedavincimode
We are discussing theory. In my theory, the whole world adopts this tax regime, so there can be no flight of capital.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 11:39 am
milkmilo – “Back to drugs though. I still say let out the drug ‘criminals’ and make room for real offenders… ”
Put your paddle away…..
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 11:44 am
Weihana – “I also think the concept of natural law is flawed”
I own a small patch of mature native bush. I stand inside it, and I see natural law, as it has been written for 4 billion years.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 11:46 am
Elaycee,
I don’t have a problem with this guy being locked up. But I don’t think the overall approach to drugs is helpful. Locking him up will only provide an opportunity for other cooks to make more money.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 11:49 am
# Scott Chris (1,491) Says:
September 23rd, 2011 at 11:36 am
Weihana – “free market capitalism clearly implies prescriptive action such as “the government should not regulate market activity””
You are assuming the government exists. Free market capitalism is a description of a process which would occur regardless of the presence of government, as it is analogous to natural law which requires no prescription.
——————————-
Government is merely people and people do exist otherwise the entire question is meaningless. Free market capitalism entails certain conditions the flipside of which is that it requires certain things not to be done. Market capitalism doesn’t evolve on its own it exists because humans institute the conditions necessary for it to exist (e.g. private property, regulation against force and fraud etc.).
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 11:50 am
Davincimode – “I’m not much concerned with Wikileaks definitions”
The link contains a concise objective summary of Natural Law, one of the premises of my argument. My argument is derived from philosophical first principles.
This is an essential component of rational discourse, not some foolish attempt by me to patronize you.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 11:51 am
# Scott Chris (1,491) Says:
September 23rd, 2011 at 11:44 am
Weihana – “I also think the concept of natural law is flawed”
I own a small patch of mature native bush. I stand inside it, and I see natural law, as it has been written for 4 billion years.
————————————
But that’s not natural law as I understand it, that’s science which is amoral. Natural law, as I understand it, is the idea that there are universal moral truths determined by nature. The evolution of life is not a moral truth, it is simply the consequence of the laws of nature. The existence of life does not imply that it is either “good” or “bad” just that it “is”.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 11:52 am
Weihana – “Government is merely people”
Government is a descriptive societal construct. Natural Law only relies on constructive analysis, not pre-existing constructs.
Anarchy is a description of governmentless society, and is identical to Natural Law
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 11:58 am
mikenmild,
“Back to drugs though. I still say let out the drug ‘criminals’ and make room for real offenders – finance company executives, mine operators, electoral law infringers, etc, etc…”
I wouldn’t let out all drug criminals. Those who cook meth have demonstrated a willingness to put others at risk and to destroy property. I’m not talking about the fact that they are producing drugs but rather that the process of cooking meth is extremely dangerous. Even if the law is reformed to take away production and distribution from the black market I still favour incarceration and rehabilitation for people who have demonstrated a willingness to commit such dangerous acts. The stupidity of prohibition does not excuse such actions.
Also traffickers should be punished because they have violated the integrity of our borders. Perhaps I wouldn’t punish them to the same extent but there is a principle to be upheld that Immigration New Zealand has a right to regulate our borders and we do not get to make up our own minds about what materials we can and cannot transport through customs.
But of course this wouldn’t be such a problem if we didn’t have the war on drugs and instead adopted a sensible approach to harm minimization.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 12:21 pm
“The basis of our current “abnormal” is an inflated and unnatural understanding of man as an individual, free to “create” his own “value system,” which, to a certain extent, means to “create his own world.” Liberalism, in its economic and political manifestations, has created a situation in which the ancient psychological, social, economic, and political tapestry of human societies has been unraveled. By upholding an ethereal concept of “choice,” it has robbed us of our honor, our personal security, and our heritage.”
Dr. Peter Chojnowski
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Davincimode – “I think you are being very naive and see little distinction between what you and Liabore advocate”
Wrong. Completely. What I pass off as whimsy has been worked out from principles which hark back to our very existence, in search of *truth*
Whilst I must rely on a few assumptions, my reasoning is far from superficial, and is NOT aligned with any prescriptive notions of politics or economics.
How thoroughly have you considered *your* assumptions might I ask, or was political indoctrination enough for you?
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Lee01,
In other words, gay men playing pass the salami is going to destroy civilization as we know it.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Scott
You are starting to sound very silly. A bit like YesWeDid but with a bigger hanky.
Human behaviour doesn’t dance to the tune of rational discourse. Wealthy entrepeneurs don’t respond to: “Hello cunt – you’re immoral and you need to pay more”, which is the message conveyed by your tax policy. There are lots of other ways that their assistance might be enlisted to make this a better country, most of which don’t involve raping and pillaging their pockets.
Theorise about your perfect world if you like, but don’t expect it to mirror reality, and don’t expect it to result in a tax system that will advance collective goals. And bear in mind that just because it is your perfect world, it won’t necessarily be the next guy’s. That’s what living in a democracy is all about.
Lots of people choose to sit around holding hands and eating mung bean souffles and that’s their choice. I have no problem with that as long as I’m not paying them to do it.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 3:32 pm
thedavincimode – “You are starting to sound very silly” “you are being very naive” “A bit like YesWeDid but with a bigger hanky”
Wrong. Read it again. It makes perfect sense. Ask yourself: Who is sillier: The person who resorts to invective, or the person who attempts to address the issue?
“Human behaviour doesn’t dance to the tune of rational discourse”
It does. What do you think the science of psychology is about?
“Wealthy entrepeneurs don’t respond to…”
So? They’re as self interested as the rest of us.
“Theorise about your perfect world if you like”
It is more likely that the economy will enter a post-scarcity phase before global government makes my ideas possible, so its just a thought experiment. Nothing more.
“Lots of people choose to sit around holding hands and eating mung bean souffles”
You haven’t understood a word of what I’ve said if that’s the idea you think I’ve been promoting.
Over and out.
Vote:September 23rd, 2011 at 4:02 pm
“Over and out.”
Fine Scott. Just lean back in that armchair and blow a few more smoke rings. I think I know where you stand on this issue, as will everyone who has read your comments.
BTW, noted the try on morphing your tax policy into a thought experiment. Mark that “close approximation”.
Vote: