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

blakamin:

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

There goes my "I'm digging a moat" plan.

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

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? The Conservative Party is a secular conservative movement in the same way that NZ First is.

In fact, Colin Craig hasn't been to church for years and Christine Rankin has openly stated that she would not be involved with the party if it had a religious agenda.

Grant777:

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? The Conservative Party is a secular conservative movement in the same way that NZ First is.

In fact, Colin Craig hasn't been to church for years and Christine Rankin has openly stated that she would not be involved with the party if it had a religious agenda.

Yes, it's always interesting that an aetheist fears a conservative type group or political party when they are actually very strong on religious freedom.  It's one of the foundation stones in the USA, almost to point where it's scary with the rise of extreme Islamic movements.  Laws and the enforcement of those are always held in a state of getting the balance right to protect the very citizens that vote them in without encroaching on the wishes/beliefs of minorities etc.  The very foundation & principals of the western worlds justice system is based the Judeo/Christian ethic, primarily the 10 commandments & the detailed laws that would still be relevant today......ahhh but of course this is what the modern liberals would say is wrong with the world, we need to get rid of all this.  The world "liberal" has a new meaning today, was originally used by what we would call Conservatives of today I think.

One of the Conservative Party's Principles:
"A belief in a decent society that values life, individual privacy, the freedom of the individual (including freedom of speech, conscience, worship and assembly), the right to defend one's self and property, the importance of family and the role of civil society"

Grant777: the freedom of the individual (including freedom of speech <snip>

oxnsox:

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

And that is why the Police used helicopters

Fred99:

Grant777: the freedom of the individual (including freedom of speech <snip>

Why sure he does...

When politicians start threatening satirical publications, you can be sure that if they campaign with "freedom of speech" as part of their platform, then they're speaking with forked tongues.

oxnsox:

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

And that is why the Police used helicopters

Grant777:

Fred99:

Grant777: the freedom of the individual (including freedom of speech <snip>

Why sure he does...

When politicians start threatening satirical publications, you can be sure that if they campaign with "freedom of speech" as part of their platform, then they're speaking with forked tongues.

In the context of all the media rubbish about what Colin Craig believes, it was probably warranted given they make it seem like a real quote.  This is part of Colin's right/freedom to pursue that and the case against the Green party leader.  Given it's hard for them to get any mainstream media coverage on real issues, what else can he do?  I think it's an interesting tack for him to take to make an issue about keeping politicians more truthful, not sure if it's going to work to be quite honest.

 

1. He's too thick to recognise satire on a satirical website.
2. He's an aspiring megalomaniac - who won't tolerate criticism of any kind.
3. He's a hypocrite
4. He's too weak to be of any use in the debating chamber
5. A combination of the above.
   

Fred99: 

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.

Glassboy:

Fred99: 

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.

The burden of proof for that claim for you to substantiate.  Most jobs that I know of outside of the three emergency services require a warrant.  My point was actually that Craig is not playing a purely American script.

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).

As the other end of the political spectrum backs Tama Iti's [supposed] right to play Rambo it becomes a valid space for the fringe parties to play in.  

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.

It's classical liberalism.  You also seem to be using it as a strawman.  Beliefs on when you initiate the use of force is not the same as what rights are surrendered to the state, and it is different to beliefs of use of force between individuals, individuals vs the state, and the state vs. other states.

Fred99: As for me - I don't care if you or anybody else want to marry your cat.  It's none of my business - and should certainly not be any business of government.