Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Lucia EFB a bit of a wake up call for NZ

I'm not going to comment on the details on the EFB as a number of other bloggers (and the media) are doing a brilliant job already. The only thing I want to say is that after the anti-smacking bill, this one has to be a real wake up call for New Zealanders. The anti-smacking bill was not just a blip. What we are seeing is a democratic consolidation of power by the ruling party.

While Lindsay Perigo is talking coup (as pointed out by AJ Chesswas) - I don't think we are at that stage - yet. Everyone needs to stay calm and see if the bill passes. If you pray, pray for NZ. If you never have prayed before in your life, now would be a good time to start. I don't think it will be enough, but it's worth a try.

No, the real test is, will NZ vote the current lot back into power next year? And if NZ doesn't, will the new lot repeal not only the EFB, but also the anti-smacking law? And my personal bugbear, is the Care of Children Act which redefines parents into caregivers - people with only responsibility towards their children, but no rights. That's the bill that made me sit up and take notice of politics in this country when I came back with my family from Australia four years ago.

Time to hang on for the ride.

18 comment(s):

Dave said...

Yeah in terms of bad bills (Acts) I`d put
1.EFB
2.Care of Children bill
3.Anti smacking legislatin
4.Resource Management Act.

fugley said...

The worst act was the Trojan Horse Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act.

Greg B said...

Do coups readily occur where the population is free to emigrate as they please?

ZenTiger said...

That's called "flying the coup"

KG said...

Of course they do Greg--the trick is to export most of the potential opposition first.
At roughly 10% of the population, I'd say the Dissident Export Program is right on track.

Sus said...

Excuse me? Critical of this govt's legislation now, are we?

On this very blog I remember *pointing out the hypocrisy of criticising the govt when it imposed legislation of which you opposed, whilst applauding it for imposing that which you supported, a la the Paid Parental Leave piece of shameful vote-buying.

*Politely, of course, as is my wont!. :)

You cannot have it both ways, People. Blasted conservatives! :)

Lucyna said...

Sus, what are you talking about?

This post on Paid parental leave is a stupid idea?

Sus said...

Hi Lucyna, my apologies; wrong post indeed.

For the life of me I can't remember the topic. The anti-smoking bill? Right to roam? (Nah, too long ago, those two). Civil unions? Banning smacking? Decriminalising prostitution? Don't know.

I can remember coming in to bat for James I think it was, & warning not to grizzle the next time the state imposed something you didn't like ...

Put my loss of memory down to being too muggy! It'll keep! :)

dad4justice said...

I asked the Chairman of the Select Committee hearing submissions regarding the Care of Children Bill , Tim Barnett , if Labour was going to help fathers get a fair deal within the systems claiming to act in the child's best interests ? He said, no .

A homosexual activist in charge of Children's legislation ? Rainbow Labour , pommy queers rule !!! Look Helen Klark and her sinister minority agenda cohorts should be in prison for large scale child abuse . They are responsible for negligence and malfeasances . No wonder child abuse is soaring at record levels . This country is one big appalling cess -pit for children .

James said...

I can remember coming in to bat for James I think it was, & warning not to grizzle the next time the state imposed something you didn't like ..."

It might have been the breast feeding in cafes issue Sus...property rights under attack....

Sus said...

Ah, now that rings a bell, James. Attacking property rights is a favourite hobby of Clark & co.

What disgusts me further is the rate at which how quickly others join the state-bullying bandwagon, eg Telecom (of which I'm not a customer) and the broadband travesty.

ZenTiger said...

Excuse me? Critical of this govt's legislation now, are we?

You act surprised, as this is a one-off. We've obviously been critical of a lot of the government's legislation.

And you, of course, are critical too. Do you think you have a higher moral ground because you think you argue more 'consistently' perhaps?

Property rights are not so cut and dried as to do what one likes on one's property when it conflicts with other types of rights (the property rights of others for example) - correct?

Our previous argument was not necessarily about the state making impositions (as it generally does, such is the poor quality of politician) but ensuring that people's rights are fairly protected.

I don't buy the argument that one can always boycott a cafe (or sue them) because they ignored hygiene standards, which caused a member of their family to die from food poisoning, for example.

Sus said...

Don't split hairs, Zen. Property rights are either entirely respected or they're compromised.

I repeat: You cannot grizzle about the state imposing legislation with which you are opposed, if you then turn around & applaud its using force against others just because you (or I) happen to agree with that viewpoint.

You cannot have it both ways. Coercion is not synonymous with liberty.

Call it drawing a line in the sand if you like.

ZenTiger said...

Hi Sus.

Property rights are either entirely respected or they're compromised.

Since when has the government entirely respected property rights? Since when are property rights ever crystal clear? It can be very hard to marry up moral, legal and economic views on property rights.

Invariably, a good government is going to have to arbitrate. You'll need to explain to me why you think rights issues are so crystal that we don't need to have the government enforce them with the degree of justice we expect.

Could you explain your position on this situation for example?

Some-one builds a new airport next to my house. They fly planes in 24 hours a day. Are my property rights re sound control etc being infringed?

Ruth said...

ZEN - Also you could argue that libertarians should favor zero emissions because of property rights.

Mind you Sus thinks I should put my full name etc on every blog post instead of a pseudonym.

I disagree cuz I don't support the EFB. I REALLY don't support it - not just lip-service like some.

ZenTiger said...

Coercion is not synonymous with liberty.

But does enforcement of property rights sometimes require force?

I repeat: You cannot grizzle about the state imposing legislation with which you are opposed, if you then turn around & applaud its using force against others

If I can't ask the government to enforce my property rights, then who do I ask? (Self-defence aside)

Sus said...

Hi Zen .. several issues here .. let me keep it as brief as possible as a matter of courtesy on another's blog.

1. Initial point was simply one of consistency. I believe it's inconsistent to, for example, think it's ok to force people to close their shops on Easter Sunday if the latter wish to trade and then grizzle if the same govt says you cannot discipline your children as you see fit.

2. No argument from me that no govt in my living memory has fully respected property rights! That *is* the problem!

3. Of course I expect any govt to enforce property rights. That's one of the (few) essential functions of govt in my opinion. That they don't do it speaks volumes.

4. Re the airport-next-to-your-home example. It's a fair question and simply answered via history. A good example of that sort of issue would be the creation of the American railroad system whereby options were purchased. The owners had several routes and settled upon that whereby agreement was reached with all relevant landowners. In other words, if the price was right, people took the money on offer. If not, the developers went elsewhere.

Don't make the mistake of expecting the state to legislate perfection. It's not going to happen .. sure as hell hasn't to date.

Best to leave people alone to develop their own naturally-derived solutions, don't you think? Safe in the knowledge that the state is there to protect their rights and property, rather than dictate to them.

FYI: The "Cue Card" to Libertarianism series from the 1990's routinely answer these sorts of questions.

Cheers.

Sus said...

Well, hi Ruth! Fancy running into you, here. :)

Yep, it's a funny old thing. Call me old-fashioned Possum, but I do think if you have something to say, it's decent to put your name to it. To not do so just seems gutless. Go on ... have the courage of your convictions!

Having said that, let me wish you a very Merry Christmas & great '08.

Cheers!

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.