What's your opinion on the Internet Party?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › What's your opinion on the Internet Party?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 15

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1071094 20-Jun-2014 16:05

Fred99:

Because social conservatism is a religion.
There's no other rational explanation for why some people would want to impose their conservative values on everybody else, legislated - and therefore able to be legally enforced, if resisted then ultimately through initiating the use of force - without some belief system that they have which grants them the moral right to force others what to do what they tell them to do. They are much the same as hard-line communists - which should also be considered a religion IMO.

I'm not sure that communism has ever really sort to explain the reason for the existence of the universe.

alasta

6688 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1071096 20-Jun-2014 16:07

Fred99: Because social conservatism is a religion.
There's no other rational explanation for why some people would want to impose their conservative values on everybody else, legislated - and therefore able to be legally enforced, if resisted then ultimately through initiating the use of force - without some belief system that they have which grants them the moral right to force others what to do what they tell them to do. They are much the same as hard-line communists - which should also be considered a religion IMO.

I think you are confusing conservatism with authoritarianism. The latter is prevalent across the political spectrum.

I choose to live my life free of sin because I believe that I enjoy better quality of life that way. I certainly don't force my views on others, and don't tolerate them forcing their views on me.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1071097 20-Jun-2014 16:10

Fred99:
alasta:
afe66: The only political party I get nervious about the the Conservatives.

As an aetheist I dont want laws passed on the preferences of one religous group who believe in one brand of sky fairy. (When we know nz gods were Ranginui and Papatuanuku).

Why do people assume that social conservatives are all reglious?

Because social conservatism is a religion.
There's no other rational explanation for why some people would want to impose their conservative values on everybody else, legislated - and therefore able to be legally enforced, if resisted then ultimately through initiating the use of force - without some belief system that they have which grants them the moral right to force others what to do what they tell them to do. They are much the same as hard-line communists - which should also be considered a religion IMO.

One of the risks you take when living in a democracy is that from time to time groups maybe elected to power that you do not agree with and the policies they enact whether you support them or not will affect you.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1071111 20-Jun-2014 16:16

alasta:
Fred99: Because social conservatism is a religion.
There's no other rational explanation for why some people would want to impose their conservative values on everybody else, legislated - and therefore able to be legally enforced, if resisted then ultimately through initiating the use of force - without some belief system that they have which grants them the moral right to force others what to do what they tell them to do. They are much the same as hard-line communists - which should also be considered a religion IMO.

I think you are confusing conservatism with authoritarianism. The latter is prevalent across the political spectrum.

I choose to live my life free of sin because I believe that I enjoy better quality of life that way. I certainly don't force my views on others, and don't tolerate them forcing their views on me.

Oh no I'm not. The only reason why social conservatives want political power is that they want to force their conservative views on you and me. That is authoritarianism.
They're presently free to express their views and try to convince you and me that their value system is something we should choose. But that's not enough for them apparently - they want to use legislative power to force their opinions down our throats. They are evil - through and through. False prophets. I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't have liked them much either.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1071112 20-Jun-2014 16:19

KiwiNZ:
Fred99:
alasta:
afe66: The only political party I get nervious about the the Conservatives.

As an aetheist I dont want laws passed on the preferences of one religous group who believe in one brand of sky fairy. (When we know nz gods were Ranginui and Papatuanuku).

Why do people assume that social conservatives are all reglious?

Because social conservatism is a religion.
There's no other rational explanation for why some people would want to impose their conservative values on everybody else, legislated - and therefore able to be legally enforced, if resisted then ultimately through initiating the use of force - without some belief system that they have which grants them the moral right to force others what to do what they tell them to do. They are much the same as hard-line communists - which should also be considered a religion IMO.

One of the risks you take when living in a democracy is that from time to time groups maybe elected to power that you do not agree with and the policies they enact whether you support them or not will affect you.

That's true. But the less legislation based on "conservative" moral values the better.
Laws which seek to protect our freedoms are the important ones - and it's obviously hard enough for them to get that right.

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1071220 20-Jun-2014 18:05

Fred99:

That's true. But the less legislation based on "conservative" moral values the better.
Laws which seek to protect our freedoms are the important ones - and it's obviously hard enough for them to get that right.

Conservative values aren't always in opposition to freedom. Often "liberal values" are responsible for removing particular rights and freedoms. Liberal societies often believe that particular rights should be invested in the state, rather than the individual. For example the right to kill, the right to own weapons. This may be necessary for civil society but it is still a loss of freedom.

You seem to actually be talking about traditional Christian values.

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1071221 20-Jun-2014 18:09

My two cents worth? They're just another single-issue political group who'll go nowhere.

Whatifthespacekeyhadneverbeeninvented?

Mighty Ape

Shop now on Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1071332 20-Jun-2014 22:21

Glassboy:
Fred99:

That's true. But the less legislation based on "conservative" moral values the better.
Laws which seek to protect our freedoms are the important ones - and it's obviously hard enough for them to get that right.

Conservative values aren't always in opposition to freedom. Often "liberal values" are responsible for removing particular rights and freedoms. Liberal societies often believe that particular rights should be invested in the state, rather than the individual. For example the right to kill, the right to own weapons. This may be necessary for civil society but it is still a loss of freedom.

You seem to actually be talking about traditional Christian values.

One of Colin Craig's cornerstone policies is the US "shootin' for Jesus" lunatic brigade's "upholding the right to self defense and defense of one's property".
On rare occasions, this strikes a chord in a populist kind of way, talkback radio morons, some internet forums/blogs etc.
Liberals don't actually believe in transferring individual rights to the state. They generally believe that initiating the use of force is to be avoided.

Glassboy

850 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1071338 20-Jun-2014 22:33

Fred99:
One of Colin Craig's cornerstone policies is the US "shootin' for Jesus" lunatic brigade's "upholding the right to self defense and defense of one's property".

Also know as an Englishman's home is his castle. It's been a stable of anglo politics for hundreds of years.

On rare occasions, this strikes a chord in a populist kind of way, talkback radio morons, some internet forums/blogs etc.
Liberals don't actually believe in transferring individual rights to the state. They generally believe that initiating the use of force is to be avoided.

That's a hippy not a liberal.

MadEngineer

4246 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1071357 20-Jun-2014 23:07

I think free internet for all is on its way anyway. At a bare minimum all that's required is say a meg or two bits/sec, something that a local free wifi hotspot could easily provide, the number of which is increasing. All it would take is for a council to strike a deal with a WISP to provide "free" wireless (need more data? Click here to buy a plan!) in lower income areas. Your rates would be paying for internet. The other possibility is for the price of mobile data to plummet or provide specially catered plans as everyone has a smartphone these days that can browse the net on its own or be tethered to.

I've seen around the world where you can get free facebook on your phone in return for buying a certain plan. This is in a developing country where they have signs everywhere saying something like "wifi not required" - hinting at how widespread their mobile data is used.

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

Yabanize

2350 posts

Uber Geek

#1071373 20-Jun-2014 23:40

MadEngineer: I think free internet for all is on its way anyway. At a bare minimum all that's required is say a meg or two bits/sec, something that a local free wifi hotspot could easily provide, the number of which is increasing. All it would take is for a council to strike a deal with a WISP to provide "free" wireless (need more data? Click here to buy a plan!) in lower income areas. Your rates would be paying for internet. The other possibility is for the price of mobile data to plummet or provide specially catered plans as everyone has a smartphone these days that can browse the net on its own or be tethered to.

I've seen around the world where you can get free facebook on your phone in return for buying a certain plan. This is in a developing country where they have signs everywhere saying something like "wifi not required" - hinting at how widespread their mobile data is used.

Telecom and 2degrees have 0.facebook.com available to their customers for free

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8770 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1071392 21-Jun-2014 02:28

DarthKermit: My two cents worth? They're just another single-issue political group who'll go nowhere.

Sums it up perfectly.

If I'm considering off-the-wall parties, I would rather lean towards a party with a broader range of policies - like these guys:

http://thecivilianparty.org.nz/full-policy-list/

I am particularly attracted to their policy to "Establish a space program, and become the first nation in Australasia to send a man to the moon; not to explore it, just someone we don’t like." Seems to be in a similar vein to the Internet Party policy. Tough choice.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1071447 21-Jun-2014 09:31

1eStar: As far as I can make out, Dotcom is disruptive and antiestablishment. He has a personal vendetta against John Key and is prepared to spend any amount of $$ to try to topple him. The whole internet party thing is a fancy smoke screen.

And he's not going to achieve this, I don't think he'll even come close. I believe what will happen is the opposite of Dotcom wants - votes will be mostly taken away from Labour putting National in even stronger position than they might otherwise have been. I also believe Hone's weakened the position of his party. Looking at the two parties websites (as they don't seem to have merged them yet, Internet has almost nothing and Mana has a bunch of brush-over statements. Given their appears to be no cohesion between the two, one is left wondering, what would they actually do policy wise if they got into power? Bicker would seem to be the logical answer.

On a lighter note, I'm surprised no-one's posted this little bit of satire from an old tv show yet:

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1071557 21-Jun-2014 11:49

Glassboy:
Fred99:
One of Colin Craig's cornerstone policies is the US "shootin' for Jesus" lunatic brigade's "upholding the right to self defense and defense of one's property".

Also know as an Englishman's home is his castle. It's been a stable of anglo politics for hundreds of years.

On rare occasions, this strikes a chord in a populist kind of way, talkback radio morons, some internet forums/blogs etc.
Liberals don't actually believe in transferring individual rights to the state. They generally believe that initiating the use of force is to be avoided.

That's a hippy not a liberal.

As far as the "home is a castle" myth goes, if you google, then someone has probably put together a list of authorities in NZ who may enter your home without any specific warrant or court order, and you're powerless to stop them. There will be many.
Our trespass laws don't allow you to initiate the use of force, shoot people, set up man-traps etc. I assume by wanting to "increase one's right to self defense", Craig is trying to appeal to populist support for the few cases in NZ where individuals who were either the victims of crime - or were mere witnesses to crime - over-reacted and used potentially deadly force - sometimes when only property crime was involved. Yes the perpetrators were rotten eggs not likely to receive public sympathy - but we don't condone summary execution or brutality by police for good reason. It's bad enough that occasionally police use excessive force - despite being trained to behave appropriately. Condoning vigilantism is nuts. Gun ownership for "personal protection" is nuts. Colin Craig is nuts (and evil IMO).

Not initiating the use of force is fundamental to classic liberal ideology - I think you'd find Jamie Whyte of ACT would agree.
The similarity between a hippy and what I know of Jamie Whyte's philosophy is that both believe that you should be able to sit around smoking dope and dropping acid all day - so long as you don't harm anybody else. The difference is that the hippy probably wants to be paid to do this - by way of a benefit etc. In that case because the money has to come from somewhere, then a classic liberal would consider that as that money has to be extracted against someone else's will (ultimately under threat of use of force - if you refuse to pay tax, then eventually government will use force to throw you in prison and keep you there). Hence classic liberalism is strongly anti-socialist, in practice at the opposite end of the spectrum from hippies.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1071558 21-Jun-2014 11:54

The whole "a mans home is his castle" BS has no place in a modern society.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 15