The Communist is a Socialist in a violent hurry. --G.W. Gough
Don't mistake our slow moving politicians for anything but patient communists :-)
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. --Karl Marx
Notice how, in defining all parents that might smack their child as criminals, the call goes out that children "aren't the property of parents". Don't they really mean that the state will have more control over our lives when we accept their definition of a family as a mere property transaction? Don't argue on their level.
Communism is the exploitation of the strong by the weak. In communism, inequality springs from placing mediocrity on a level with excellence. --Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (anarchist, socialist, Frenchman)
Whilst some might argue that turnabout is fair play, the result is that the strong are not just exploited, they are destroyed by the weak. Consider the glue of society - trust - is brought down by the weak minded socialist politicians who make laws that whittle away at the trust we need to provide to families.
This law treats smacking as child abuse. It treats parents who might smack as untrustworthy. The result does not save children from abuse, but it does undermine the belief in the average family.
It disproportionately penalizes the groups that make society strong and cohesive. It undermines the family because it undermines our trust in imperfect but good parents. The politicians seem strong because we have allowed them this power.
People in power need to recognise their authority comes from their willingness to serve. Look at a father or a mother, in power over their children, and most effective when in service to their children. Not as a slave to do bidding, but as guardians, protectors, teachers, carers, and mentors.
You only need to look at people in positions of power who do not have this sense of service to understand why we instinctively dislike such people. That goes for abusive parents, mad bureaucrats, meddling socialists and the obvious despots.
In New Zealand, do our politicians have this sense of service?
Look at John Key's response to the 300,000+ referendum.
Look at Helen Clark and how she shelved the referendum. Look at Barnardos and how they seek to undermine the referendum.
Look at the media and how they portray the referendum.
Communists all in their attitude. Socialists in their approach.
Send the government a message and vote NO in the August Referendum. Read the question for yourself, it isn't actually complicated.
It's a question that unfortunately needs to be asked because the laws have set parents up as technically guilty for applying ANY discipline. Laws should not be made this way.
Consider how important TRUST is in our interactions with other people. This law undermines this trust. We become suspicious of outsiders. We become suspicious of motives. We become self conscious lest any minor infringement be interpreted as a major crime. This is what the state wants. They call it "being responsible". It's not.
Don't report an upset mother who might smack a naughty child, go over and offer to help. Say "Hey, I can see you are having one of those days. I know what it's like. Can I help?"
Anyway, enough ranting. Let me finish with a comment about Proudhon, an interesting chap being an original anarchist with Marxist leanings. Other than the quote above, he has a couple of famous quotes credited to him:
In critiquing capitalism, he declared "property is theft". Pretty typical for a socialist.
But then later he goes on to say "property is freedom". I could explain this in my own words, but it's late and I still have work to do, so I'll resort to (ahem) wikipedia:
In asserting that property is freedom, he was referring not only to the product of an individual's labor, but to the peasant or artisan's home and tools of his trade and the income he received by selling his goods. For Proudhon, the only legitimate source of property is labor. What one produces is one's property and anything beyond that is not.
Such an interesting thought, I think. Such thoughts however, lead Proudhon deeper and deeper into the kind of perspective that is the basis for Libertarian Socialism. It becomes merely sophisticated anarchy. It seems a waste of an interesting concept.
So now that I've wandered completely off topic and have run out of time, I'll urge you to what John Key, budding socialist, might consider raw anarchy: Vote NO in the August referendum and at least let him contemplate the nature of power, authority and trust.
Don't mistake our slow moving politicians for anything but patient communists :-)
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. --Karl Marx
Notice how, in defining all parents that might smack their child as criminals, the call goes out that children "aren't the property of parents". Don't they really mean that the state will have more control over our lives when we accept their definition of a family as a mere property transaction? Don't argue on their level.
Communism is the exploitation of the strong by the weak. In communism, inequality springs from placing mediocrity on a level with excellence. --Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (anarchist, socialist, Frenchman)
Whilst some might argue that turnabout is fair play, the result is that the strong are not just exploited, they are destroyed by the weak. Consider the glue of society - trust - is brought down by the weak minded socialist politicians who make laws that whittle away at the trust we need to provide to families.
This law treats smacking as child abuse. It treats parents who might smack as untrustworthy. The result does not save children from abuse, but it does undermine the belief in the average family.
It disproportionately penalizes the groups that make society strong and cohesive. It undermines the family because it undermines our trust in imperfect but good parents. The politicians seem strong because we have allowed them this power.
People in power need to recognise their authority comes from their willingness to serve. Look at a father or a mother, in power over their children, and most effective when in service to their children. Not as a slave to do bidding, but as guardians, protectors, teachers, carers, and mentors.
You only need to look at people in positions of power who do not have this sense of service to understand why we instinctively dislike such people. That goes for abusive parents, mad bureaucrats, meddling socialists and the obvious despots.
In New Zealand, do our politicians have this sense of service?
Look at John Key's response to the 300,000+ referendum.
Look at Helen Clark and how she shelved the referendum. Look at Barnardos and how they seek to undermine the referendum.
Look at the media and how they portray the referendum.
Communists all in their attitude. Socialists in their approach.
Send the government a message and vote NO in the August Referendum. Read the question for yourself, it isn't actually complicated.
It's a question that unfortunately needs to be asked because the laws have set parents up as technically guilty for applying ANY discipline. Laws should not be made this way.
Consider how important TRUST is in our interactions with other people. This law undermines this trust. We become suspicious of outsiders. We become suspicious of motives. We become self conscious lest any minor infringement be interpreted as a major crime. This is what the state wants. They call it "being responsible". It's not.
Don't report an upset mother who might smack a naughty child, go over and offer to help. Say "Hey, I can see you are having one of those days. I know what it's like. Can I help?"
Anyway, enough ranting. Let me finish with a comment about Proudhon, an interesting chap being an original anarchist with Marxist leanings. Other than the quote above, he has a couple of famous quotes credited to him:
In critiquing capitalism, he declared "property is theft". Pretty typical for a socialist.
But then later he goes on to say "property is freedom". I could explain this in my own words, but it's late and I still have work to do, so I'll resort to (ahem) wikipedia:
In asserting that property is freedom, he was referring not only to the product of an individual's labor, but to the peasant or artisan's home and tools of his trade and the income he received by selling his goods. For Proudhon, the only legitimate source of property is labor. What one produces is one's property and anything beyond that is not.
Such an interesting thought, I think. Such thoughts however, lead Proudhon deeper and deeper into the kind of perspective that is the basis for Libertarian Socialism. It becomes merely sophisticated anarchy. It seems a waste of an interesting concept.
So now that I've wandered completely off topic and have run out of time, I'll urge you to what John Key, budding socialist, might consider raw anarchy: Vote NO in the August referendum and at least let him contemplate the nature of power, authority and trust.
"Communists all in their attitude. Socialists in their approach."
ReplyDeleteMakes sense, they way all of them turn out.