Posts by Mikaere Curtis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
just about every non-OECD country that is a major exporter of oil is either in a state of civil war or under an extremely corrupt and repressive dictatorship. it may be peaceful for you, but not for the Nigerians, Iraqis, et al
Perhaps I did not make myself clear,
Murderous criminality is a feature of a narcotics industry based on prohibitionism. It is not true that the same can be said of the petrochemical industry.
I am well aware of the injustices associated with unbridled greed and power. Of course oil is used to fund brutal regimes.
My point was that 100% of you cocaine dollar funds murderous criminal gangs, whereas the same can not be said of oil.
-
Russell, I think you have confused Monbiot's characterisation of the EU proposal as being what he thinks. It isn't. He goes on to say:
The other possible policy is to legalise and regulate the global trade. This would undercut the criminal networks and guarantee unadulterated supplies to consumers. There might even be a market for certified fairtrade cocaine.
The thing about cocaine vs oil is that the invasion of Iraq was a policy choice by people who had different options. The oil trade is largely peaceful.
Prohibition is imposed, and inevitably draws in the more violent criminal elements, especially when the price of the drug is very high. Violence and organised crime are well-documented features of prohibition.
Buying cocaine is directly supporting the murderous criminals who control coca production. Putting petrol in my car is not akin to supporting the US invasion of Iraq.
It's a shame that Metiria's bill didn't make it to committee. I have not heard one objection to it that could not have been addressed at the committee stage.
-
Here's a good example of CD
I would characterise it more as direct democracy since the primary mechanism is voting rather than actual consensus-building. Still, it illustrates your point that there are viable alternatives to Churchill's (implicit) representative democracy.
-
Mainly its about how and when compromise is achieved. While consensus democracy (CD) and representative democracy (RD) are both able to accommodate compromise, CD seeks it in the first instance, whereas RD seeks it as a last resort.
If you have the votes in RD, there is no need to compromise, no matter the impact on the dissident minority.
In CD, even though you may begin discussions with higher levels of support than other parties, this does not give you a mandate to steamroller your opponents. Rather, you enter into (sometimes lengthy) dialogue where you seek to understand the nature of the opposition and attempt to establish compromises. If all goes well, you will end up with full consensus.
Sometimes consensus is not possible, especially in decisions that are discrete (e.g. who to choose as party leader, say, vs what kind of public transport mix would best suit a community). In no consensus can be achieved then you can resort to voting or some other mechanism.
By contrast, RD only compromises when it has to. This results in weaker decisions. e.g. National overturning the ETS. Unlike the S59 repeal, National did not have buy-in, so could simply dump the ETS without even having a replacement. This is hardly good governance on an issue as important as climate change.
-
Mikaere, please point me to that part of Churchill's quote where he said '**representative** democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others which have been tried from time to time'.
Sure, this creature of Westminster democracy was actually talking about something else...
-
The primary weakness of democracy is that there is no consideration for making long term plans, and this was something that particularly concerned me on your blog about your son raising his fist Russell. The illusion of empowerment for individuals is insignificant in a nation where our government can't even make a truly attainable five year plan
Mark, I don't get it. Weren't you supposed to put a sarcasm tag in your post. You're not actually serious, are you?
OK, so where's our plan for peak oil ? Where's our plan for climate change ? These are the two most serious issues facing us, and, apart from the Greens, our democratic representatives are either in denial or are wilfully self-deluded with regards the scale of the action that is required.
I agree with with Mark, Churchill's statement on [representative] democracy is a woeful exercise in vacuous in question-begging.
The big issue with democracy is that it can create disenfranchised minorities. The vast majority of mana whenua land theft occurred AFTER New Zealand had become a democracy. Need any more evidence of how shitty democracies can treat minorities ?
No, representative democracy is NOT the best system. Consensus democracy, such as is practiced by the Greens, is much better at getting good decisions. It is very hard work, and very slow. But it is also produces strong buy-in from the participants - and isn't that the whole point ?
-
Oh RLY? Sorry to tell you this, but you can ignore this CIR and the bill can always be repealed the moment more than half the House gives their assent.
Given that the only MPs you can absolutely rely on to vote against changing the legislation are the Greens, does it not make sense to at least think about how other MPs are going to evaluate the outcome of the referendum ?
If it appears that the electorate at large are supportive of a law change, then that's the direction in which the political winds will blow.
If you want to make a statement against changing the law, the ONLY option is a YES vote. If you want to make a statement against this referendum or other referendums in general by spoiling the ballot, be my guest, but spare any pretence that such action is in any way defending the current law that protects children from violence.
-
For me, what's important is the actual intent behind the referendum. In this case, as Larry Baldock points out on Morning Report, the intention is to reinstate "reasonable force" i.e. restore S59.
To hell with that, I'm voting YES to dilute whatever moral authority these violence-mongers are seeking to obtain.
Does anyone know how much it costs to hold a referenda in conjunction with a general election ? Maybe, in addition to tightening up the wording, the CIR Act should stipulate that they can only coincide with general elections (including a specified cutoff date for the signatures).
-
I really like the idea of owning and upgrading Queens Wharf. I agree with Russell, the Party Central concept is a distraction from the main kaupapa: that we finally have control of a key waterfront asset. The challenge now is to ensure it is developed into a useful public space, not some kind of Westfield on the water.
Sure, as Craig points out, now is not the perfect time to invest in this kind of stuff. However, there are two points I think are salient with regards to the timing:
1) I'd rather pony up now that wait for the never-never. Infrastructure in Auckland has been neglected my entire life, and I'm sick of waiting. The time and opportunity is now , so lets grasp it and cut the whinging.
2) I suspect that the ARC can see the writing on the wall in terms of declining demand for their over-water carpark from said recession.
Oh, and unlike the doomed waterfront stadium ill-conceivance, Queens Wharf will not require close to 2 billion in investment, nor will we be faced with inevitable cost blowouts because the project absolutely has to be finished before the RWC. Unlike a stadium, we can actually go cheap on the nebulous Party Central without the punters being too put out. All we need is a big screen, some bars and some fastfood...
-
Excellent post, David, it's right on the money.
I'm happier with John Key steering the ship than I was with Helen Clark.
Sure he's at the helm, but is he steering or adjusting the wheel in accordance with where the ship is currently lurching ? No compass indeed...
According to Checkpoint, Key's office took no notes from the meeting with Goff where they discussed the first "nuisance" complaint. WTF ? This kind of allegation is very serious, and they don't notes ? Not only that, but then they accept Worth's word at face value.
We've gone from Nanny State to Fanny State - it seems Key's instinctive response to any unplanned event is to fanny-about doing nothing. Why take action when a bit of blokey charm and vagueness will suffice ?
BTW, over at The Standard, they have a transcript of yesterday's interview between Key and Mary Wilson.. What a squirmfest.