Two things struck me tonight as I watched the TV news.
First, the story about youth suicide with the clear message that if the community doesn’t, can’t, talk about it, then it will keep happening. Common sense to me.
Second, the Wikileaks story. The TV3 piece wasn’t a particularly definitive story. But the message seems clear.
If social democracy can provide leadership and guidance in how humans interact, then could we be more open, less afraid and cut out a lot of the bullshit. I might get moderated. I might be naive.
There’s too much cynicism about politics. It’s a sickness.
Today’s ODT editorial was good. Mostly. But I disagree that the world will be less safe by being more open.
People want open-ness. They don’t want spin, they want to be to be told what’s what. No matter who they are and where they live.
It might hurt. It might mean arguments. But it’s more honest.
If diplomacy means whispering about each other behind closed doors, I’m over it.
Could we redefine democracy. People?
Please note my comment at 3.58pm was put in instant moderation, for those who consider they are being victimised or oppressed this may serve as evidence that you are neither being victimised or oppressed but picked up by certain words or pharses…
My comment went into the spam, would like it fished out please as it replies to tracey
Your comment isn’t in moderation or in spam Spud. Clare
Hey, I just realised that the mod / spam function flies in the face of “openess” , ha ha?
That’s very strange?
Maybe it was a net glitch. 
I find it interesting how some bods still enjoy using the US as the epitome of western civilisation.
Lets see how well that goes with another 2 years of deadlock in Washington. Then there’s the US’s emergency fiscal activities funded primarily by communist China, former foe Japan and Islamic petrostates sympathetic to anti-US groups.
Perhaps there is a lesson hiding in there somewhere lads?
The US has been in gridlock for about 250 years, it is how it was designed, no one is supposed to trust each other or have too much power… In general hamstringing politicians is genius…
@CV, the question between the right and the left essentially all boils down to the question, “Do I own my life?”… If you answer “yes” to this question individual rights and freedoms are the rational, practical and moral conclusion…
JMH
How does a parents’ “right” to hit a child answer the question for the child “Do I own my own life?”
I’m going to answer this too. Children are moochers Tracey. They don’t pay for anything and expect to get everything. Plus they really are like glorified monkeys!
Just check them out at the park! 
Hitting them ust gives the parents some peace for a while 
We need to take em back to pre industrial Europe, that’d sort them out!
Look dude, I am sure this is an idea and a conclusion you have basically just come up with yourself. Its not a foundation of western civilisation like you claimed. At best its a very recent ideology which is barely older than Elvis frakin Presley.
Further, starting any political-economic philosophy with the individual (instead of the community), when human beings have never ever been able to survive as individuals in nature, is stupid. Is totally back-asswards.
BTW I know you’ve sourced your personal philosophy heavily from Ayn Rand libertarianism and I really wouldn’t if I were you.
@Jeremy to wade into your debate both left and right believe people own their own lives. However Western Society as we like to consider it is built on the notion of a social contract that we give up our rights in order to live in a civilized society. In fact we already begin to lose our rights from the fact or being human as this limits the extent we may exercise our rights and then from other humans existing because every action we take also affects others and thus impinges their rights. Left and right is distinguished by the right thinking the solution to our problems can happen on its own or that its not a problem the state should deal with neither of which particularly happen to do with the individual having some ultimate right to liberty. If society wanted ultimate liberty they would vote for it but they don’t they vote for centrist parties who they feel exercise the right balance of rights and control.
All ideologies believe in limitations, it’s the extent on the limitations that they differ on.
For example libertarians think we should waste money on having a fully equipped functioning, money sucking defence force.
They also believe in a police force and a Court system (which historically has favoured the white and monied)
Equally they believe children dont own their lives “yet” and perhaps they have a magical number where children do own their own lives?
How about the government NOT opening up others’ private business with this creepy search and surveillance thing?!
And it’ll be rushed through under, “urgency” , just to add insult to injury!
!
I can’t think of anyone who supports parents “hitting” children…
Ha ha, not at all… You think I’m the first person to ask myself “do I own my own life?” and if so “how does that mean I should live my life?”… It leads to further questions such as, “if others own their own lives, is it moral of me to force them to live as I see fit as long as a majority voted for me?”, “is any force moral?”, “if I own my own life what inherent rights do I (and all others in society have)?”, “who am I responsible for and who is responsible for me”… So no I didn’t come up with the principles of the right wing but I’m flattered you think I’m that smart or powerful enough to spread the ideas around the Earth…
Not at all, she more a Darwinian than anything and had an almost pathological hatred for the weak which drove her “philosophy”…
My major influence is Thomas Jefferson, I’ve always found his writings to be amazing, although there are other influences, Locke for one…
Nonsense, Western Society is built on the notion that we as citizens and individuals have certain natural and rational rights that government can infringe under no circumstances…
This is sole reason for the existence of Civil Courts, but the point is as long as we don’t impinge on others we should be free to do as we please – in many cases we aren’t…
No right wing person thinks problems will magically happen on it’s own, that is classic left wing thinking, i.e. “the right are against state X and Y, therefore they are against X and Y”, right wing people think individuals and groups of self organised willing individuals must solve problems, I’m against the state provision of most things becuase I want people (in particular lower socio economic people) to get better services and have a higher standard of living, it’s a red herring so the left can claim the moral high ground and t doesn’t mean I support neo-liberalism… As an English conservative columnist paraphasing and translating Bastiat said recently:
The mindset that right wing people are greedy, uncaring, conspiratorial sods is untrue…
That’s true, many people have forgotten the principles of liberty and I certainly accept I need to convince people rather than use force or any form of deception…
Could you please direct me to an essay or letter of his that you found particularly pertinent to our times and circumstances in NZ.
*No right wing person thinks problems will magically solve itself on it’s own
Yeah but I’m still waiting for your sources and you have none except the magna carta, the US constitution and a bunch of other docs which don’t say anything about people owning their own lives, so I’m still assuming you came up with it yourself.
You probably think free markets will do it.
But free markets are extremely poor at solving certain problems. e.g. ones to do with externalities, ones to do with societal values, ones to do with irrational behaviour.
Sigh, if you want to know what I think open your eyes and read it in the post:
Well some of my favourite writings cover current issues well:
Covers the GFC and the broken monetary system…
This is pertinent today because freedom is the realisation that it is better to tolerate other people’s self expression and annoyances rather than have the government messily and inefficiently interfere… Our lives are being interfered with; PCness, over 2,000 statute laws on the central government books alone…
I.e. cut the deficits and cut it hard instead of stealing from our kids…
And my favourite:
I thought about this quote a lot when the CERRA was passed…
There are thousands, almost all relevant today, you may want to start with the Declaration of Independence…
Are you sure you wrote this? That groups of self-organised, willing individuals must work together to solve major problems?
You mean like groups of willing people who, without the need for a narrow hierarchy of command and control authority, decide to work with each other to collectively organise themselves. To collectively co-ordinate with each other and communally agree on how things like who does what and how to proceed to work out the challenges faced? All without the need for a few people at the top of a hierarchy telling them what to do and how to do it?
Perhaps we should have a serious talk because this because it is common ground. Could be very fruitful.
How the advantage is perceived for the individual or his/her kin or clan against what is perceived for the whole of society having responsibility for the collective welfare.
The barriers you hold for responsibility towards others. and how much energy you will direct towards common good as opposed to competitive success.
Trading your chance of survival alone for cooperative survival.
The degree of acceptance of the master / servant relationship.
Nice dodge JMH but that you dont know any that condone hitting children speaks volumes about the circles you move in, or did you mean to suggest that smacking is “less than” hitting?
How does smacking a child fit within a child’s right to “own their own life”.
The harm principle holds that each individual has the right to act as he wants, so long as these actions do not harm others. If the action is self-regarding, that is, if it only directly affects the person undertaking the action, then society has no right to intervene, even if it feels the actor is harming himself. He does argue, however, that individuals are prevented from doing lasting, serious harm to themselves or their property by the harm principle. Because no-one exists in isolation, harm done to oneself also harms others, and destroying property deprives the community as well as oneself.[11] Mill excuses those who are “incapable of self-government” from this principle, such as young children or those living in “backward states of society”…
and in that innocuous and seemingly easily define phrase
“incapable”
arises the discord between the intention or purity of the theory and its practice.
Of course I did, I’ve mentioned before my support of Co-ops, charities, NGOs, etc… I like them because they achieve positive results for society usually without force and are voluntary, they generally use persuation and a result based record to get private individuals support…
@Tracey, yes I believe smacking (depending on how it is defined) is less than hitting… All societies define a period of “childhood” where their parents are responsible for them, you’ll find even hard right Libertarians generally support a period of life where one’s right to liberty and property is held in trust by one’s parents…