Forms of government for New Zealand

Forums › Off topic › Forms of government for New Zealand

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

MikeB4
18814 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12850

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1029652 23-Apr-2014 10:23

sir1963:

Did you not read "we would find work......"

That has been "promised" by every government for decades, its right up there with Miss World contestants wanting "World Peace"

Economics demands there be unemployment, without a pool of employed wages get pushed up, the unemployed are there to keep wages down.

I don't mean Governments I meant I worked for an organisation that found positions for released prisoners and have them not turn up for the job. It took a lot of convincing an employer to take them on and they just refused to go to work
and invariably end back inside.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

JimmyH

2899 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#1030031 23-Apr-2014 19:13

sir1963:

Economics demands there be unemployment, without a pool of employed wages get pushed up, the unemployed are there to keep wages down.

I'm prepared to call cobblers on that tired old nonsense as well.

There is no iron law of economics which demands unemployment, and I doubt you will find governments simply deliberately creating unemployment to keep wages down.

Most economists and governments aim to reduce unemployment and raise prosperity over time. That's the whole point of economic growth.

There are difficult trade-offs that need to be made - growth vs equality, short-term vs long-term, resource use vs conservation - and they are hard and complex. There are also disagreements over causality, and the right balances to strike. But excluding North Korea, I doubt you will find a government anywhere that schemes to do its utmost to have ever higher unemployment and lower wages as an objective.

sir1963

3436 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3789

Subscriber

#1030099 23-Apr-2014 20:55

JimmyH:
sir1963:

Economics demands there be unemployment, without a pool of employed wages get pushed up, the unemployed are there to keep wages down.

I'm prepared to call cobblers on that tired old nonsense as well.

There is no iron law of economics which demands unemployment, and I doubt you will find governments simply deliberately creating unemployment to keep wages down.

Most economists and governments aim to reduce unemployment and raise prosperity over time. That's the whole point of economic growth.

There are difficult trade-offs that need to be made - growth vs equality, short-term vs long-term, resource use vs conservation - and they are hard and complex. There are also disagreements over causality, and the right balances to strike. But excluding North Korea, I doubt you will find a government anywhere that schemes to do its utmost to have ever higher unemployment and lower wages as an objective.

Its called "supply and demand", when demand out strips supply, prices rise.

Most governments aim to keep unemployment within certain bounds, too low wages rise, to high and welfare costs spiral.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18814 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12850

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1030104 23-Apr-2014 20:57

sir1963:
JimmyH:
sir1963:

Economics demands there be unemployment, without a pool of employed wages get pushed up, the unemployed are there to keep wages down.

I'm prepared to call cobblers on that tired old nonsense as well.

There is no iron law of economics which demands unemployment, and I doubt you will find governments simply deliberately creating unemployment to keep wages down.

Most economists and governments aim to reduce unemployment and raise prosperity over time. That's the whole point of economic growth.

There are difficult trade-offs that need to be made - growth vs equality, short-term vs long-term, resource use vs conservation - and they are hard and complex. There are also disagreements over causality, and the right balances to strike. But excluding North Korea, I doubt you will find a government anywhere that schemes to do its utmost to have ever higher unemployment and lower wages as an objective.

Its called "supply and demand", when demand out strips supply, prices rise.

Most governments aim to keep unemployment within certain bounds, too low wages rise, to high and welfare costs spiral.

Government do not need to aim for it, there will always be a level of unemployment even in times deemed to be full employment.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Geektastic

18021 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8480

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1030342 24-Apr-2014 09:29

sir1963:
Geektastic:
Fred99:
Geektastic:
Fred99: The system (prison) doesn't seem to work very well in NZ (deterrent to crime, and rehabilitation).
NZ has a relatively high rate of incarceration - and a poor performance with recidivism.

It doesn't work very well because

(a) we don't use it much - only 2% of burglary charges resulted in a prison sentence last year
(b) we don't put the perps in there long enough and we make it far too pleasant when we do.

Put me in charge and you'd have a minimum 5 year sentence for any offence rising to life with no parole fairly quickly and they'd be working in orange jumpsuits clearing rubbish in chain gangs, mending roads, working as unpaid builder's labour, breaking rocks to road metal by hammer and so on and so forth. With armed guards, who have orders to shoot to kill after a single warning if they try to escape.

I doubt all but the insane would want to suffer that twice.

Before getting into such knee-jerk reaction - no doubt brought to the fore in NZ by the comments by Jamie Whyte from the ACT Party, please take a look at some statistics:

There are two things which are very apparent:

"Resolution rate" is extremely poor at <14%.
The rate of recorded burglary has been falling significantly over the past 20 years - it's almost halved!

Of course it's still too much - but hardly cause for hand-wringing despair. The solution will not be found by implementing more harsh penalties. The thing that would reduce petty crime is to instill the belief that in carrying out such crime, there's a high probability of being caught, and (of course) that the penalty will be unpleasant (but that doesn't mean public floggings etc). Of the 14% "resolved", no doubt many or most are cases of stupid burglars, and no doubt some better organised burglars can get away with repeat offending knowing from "career experience" that the chance that they'll be caught is close to nil.
Chucking people in prison for property offences is pretty dumb - prisons as we run them are "criminal schools" - not by design perhaps, but definitely by statistics. It should be the last resort, reserved for violent offenders from whom society needs to be protected, and for people convicted of lesser offences who refuse to comply with other - more appropriate and hopefully rehabilitative - punishments imposed by the courts.

Thanks to talkback radio, disingenuous electioneering, and bad journalism, it always seems to get back to harsher penalties being "the answer". Where do you stop - with public de-limbing in city squares?
It's politically unpalatable to suggest the obvious answer which will work - more funding to the police to enable them to investigate and prosecute property crime.

I disagree. People in prison cannot commit crimes. Just keep them there longer each time until they are never allowed to leave. Sooner or later you should end up with those of us who do not commit crime left on the outside.

Well lets be fair about it.
We have a vote. Those for longer sentences, those against.
We then baseline the cost of the prison service.

ANYTHING above that baseline (inflation adjusted) gets paid by those who vote for longer sentences through higher taxes.

If YOU are right there will be fewer criminals because of the deterrent so there should be no cost increase.

Me, I vote no, I understand that history shows that more punitive sentences increases resentment, does not reduce crime. The US has significantly more punitive sentences tha NZ and has a MUCH bigger crime issue. Guns there have not solved crime, you are still more likely to suffer crime, suffer rape, be murdered in the USA than here (per 100,000 people)

Gun control is a whole other animal: in the UK, it's extremely hard even to own a shotgun for wingshooting or pest control or clay shooting, but since they banned handguns etc and heavily restricted rifles, gun us in commission of crime has in fact gone up. This is mainly due to the obvious truism that banning things which were licenced only affects those who were law abiding enough to apply for a licence...

The ideal position is restriction of gun ownership to those who are unlikely to commit crime and the introduction of Castle Doctrine which permits those in possession of legal firearms to kill those committing crime on their property. Dead criminals do not commit further crimes.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#1030458 24-Apr-2014 10:55

Geektastic:
Gun control is a whole other animal: in the UK, it's extremely hard even to own a shotgun for wingshooting or pest control or clay shooting, but since they banned handguns etc and heavily restricted rifles, gun us in commission of crime has in fact gone up. This is mainly due to the obvious truism that banning things which were licenced only affects those who were law abiding enough to apply for a licence...

The ideal position is restriction of gun ownership to those who are unlikely to commit crime and the introduction of Castle Doctrine which permits those in possession of legal firearms to kill those committing crime on their property. Dead criminals do not commit further crimes.

I'm sorry, in what world is that the ideal position? I can think of no worse thing than to implement such a draconian position. In fact, the only time it should be even permitted to consider killing another is in defense of your life. Under no circumstances should it be legal to shoot someone simply for trying to take off with your TV, and I pray to anything that will listen that people with your viewpoint are not ever allowed anywhere near a position of power.

The ideal position is restricted gun ownership, and the government addressing the actual cause of crimes rather than just sticking people in jail over and over again. And no, implementing reason after reason for which to cut off people's access to social security (benefit stand-downs, benefit terminations, etc) is not addressing anything except Serco not having enough prisoners (yes, I'm implying that the government is actually creating crime through its draconian social security policies).

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#1030740 24-Apr-2014 17:31

legislation is more likely to be followed by those who are 'law abiding' yes but there are those who don't simply 'choose' to live a life of poverty and desperation but they lose hope through their upbringing and their perception of a scoiety that often incorrectly percieves them for being scruffy toe rags, crime is most certainly related to poverty for a multitude of reasons, Northland for example, yet it also sports some of the best examples of communities caring and sharing that I have ever seen.

I you gave every criminal a job you would make a truly significant and long term impact on society, if you gave every man with a house a gun you will turn NZ into South Africa in five seconds flat. You wont solve this with a wooden hammer, a gun or divisive and bigoted views. Long term constructive planning by those without agendas and positive attitudes instilled into parents and education systems just might

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1030745 24-Apr-2014 17:54

Geektastic: “Bang”

Policeman: “Hey, You! Yes - You There!” “Did you just shoot this guy?”

Geektastic: “Well..um Yes.. but he's a Maori bloke, and wearing a hoodie! I thought he was going to rob me..”

Policeman: “Oh.. I see. Alright then... carry on”

Geektastic: “Bang” .. “Bang Bang”..

sir1963

3436 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3789

Subscriber

#1030763 24-Apr-2014 18:35

Geektastic:
sir1963:
Geektastic:
Fred99:
Geektastic:
Fred99: The system (prison) doesn't seem to work very well in NZ (deterrent to crime, and rehabilitation).
NZ has a relatively high rate of incarceration - and a poor performance with recidivism.

It doesn't work very well because

(a) we don't use it much - only 2% of burglary charges resulted in a prison sentence last year
(b) we don't put the perps in there long enough and we make it far too pleasant when we do.

Put me in charge and you'd have a minimum 5 year sentence for any offence rising to life with no parole fairly quickly and they'd be working in orange jumpsuits clearing rubbish in chain gangs, mending roads, working as unpaid builder's labour, breaking rocks to road metal by hammer and so on and so forth. With armed guards, who have orders to shoot to kill after a single warning if they try to escape.

I doubt all but the insane would want to suffer that twice.

Before getting into such knee-jerk reaction - no doubt brought to the fore in NZ by the comments by Jamie Whyte from the ACT Party, please take a look at some statistics:

There are two things which are very apparent:

"Resolution rate" is extremely poor at <14%.
The rate of recorded burglary has been falling significantly over the past 20 years - it's almost halved!

Of course it's still too much - but hardly cause for hand-wringing despair. The solution will not be found by implementing more harsh penalties. The thing that would reduce petty crime is to instill the belief that in carrying out such crime, there's a high probability of being caught, and (of course) that the penalty will be unpleasant (but that doesn't mean public floggings etc). Of the 14% "resolved", no doubt many or most are cases of stupid burglars, and no doubt some better organised burglars can get away with repeat offending knowing from "career experience" that the chance that they'll be caught is close to nil.
Chucking people in prison for property offences is pretty dumb - prisons as we run them are "criminal schools" - not by design perhaps, but definitely by statistics. It should be the last resort, reserved for violent offenders from whom society needs to be protected, and for people convicted of lesser offences who refuse to comply with other - more appropriate and hopefully rehabilitative - punishments imposed by the courts.

Thanks to talkback radio, disingenuous electioneering, and bad journalism, it always seems to get back to harsher penalties being "the answer". Where do you stop - with public de-limbing in city squares?
It's politically unpalatable to suggest the obvious answer which will work - more funding to the police to enable them to investigate and prosecute property crime.

I disagree. People in prison cannot commit crimes. Just keep them there longer each time until they are never allowed to leave. Sooner or later you should end up with those of us who do not commit crime left on the outside.

Well lets be fair about it.
We have a vote. Those for longer sentences, those against.
We then baseline the cost of the prison service.

ANYTHING above that baseline (inflation adjusted) gets paid by those who vote for longer sentences through higher taxes.

If YOU are right there will be fewer criminals because of the deterrent so there should be no cost increase.

Me, I vote no, I understand that history shows that more punitive sentences increases resentment, does not reduce crime. The US has significantly more punitive sentences tha NZ and has a MUCH bigger crime issue. Guns there have not solved crime, you are still more likely to suffer crime, suffer rape, be murdered in the USA than here (per 100,000 people)

Gun control is a whole other animal: in the UK, it's extremely hard even to own a shotgun for wingshooting or pest control or clay shooting, but since they banned handguns etc and heavily restricted rifles, gun us in commission of crime has in fact gone up. This is mainly due to the obvious truism that banning things which were licenced only affects those who were law abiding enough to apply for a licence...

The ideal position is restriction of gun ownership to those who are unlikely to commit crime and the introduction of Castle Doctrine which permits those in possession of legal firearms to kill those committing crime on their property. Dead criminals do not commit further crimes.

http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gun-crime

Firearm Crime Statistics

Provisional figures show that 6,285 firearm offences were recorded by the police in the year to September 2011, accounting for 0.2% of all recorded crime. There was a 19% fall in firearm offences in the year to September 2011, compared to the previous year.

In England and Wales firearms were reportedly used in 11,227 offences, 0.3% of all recorded crimes.
There were 7,024 offences in England and Wales in which firearms, excluding air weapons, were reportedly used, a 13% decrease on the previous year, continuing the general decline since 2005/06.
There were 4,203 recorded crimes in which air weapons were reportedly used during 2010/11, a fall of 15% compared with the previous year and 70% below the peak recorded in 2002/03.
In Scotland the police recorded 643 offences which involved the alleged use of a firearm, a 24% decrease on 2009/10. The number of offences has fallen in each of the last four years.
A non-air weapon was alleged to have been used in 410 offences, marginally lower than in 2009/10, while there were 233 alleged air-weapon offences, 45% lower than the previous year.

"70% below the peak recorded in 2002/03." wow, a 70% decrease , the police would love more failures like that.

SaltyNZ

9062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10065

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1030764 24-Apr-2014 18:37

Sidestep: Geektastic: “Bang”

Policeman: “Hey, You! Yes - You There!” “Did you just shoot this guy?”

Geektastic: “Well..um Yes.. but he's a Maori bloke, and wearing a hoodie! I thought he was going to rob me..”

Policeman: “Oh.. I see. Alright then... carry on”

Geektastic: “Bang” .. “Bang Bang”..

Oh, be fair, ever since they started banning doomsday weapons, Farns^H^H^H^H^HGeektastic has been finding it increasingly difficult to be properly feared.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

gzt

19006 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8101

Lifetime subscriber

#1030833 24-Apr-2014 21:36

Sidestep: Geektastic: “Bang”

Policeman: “Hey, You! Yes - You There!” “Did you just shoot this guy?”

Geektastic: “Well..um Yes.. but he's a Maori bloke, and wearing a hoodie! I thought he was going to rob me..”

Policeman: “Oh.. I see. Alright then... carry on”

Geektastic: “Bang” .. “Bang Bang”..

Personally I did not find that funny in the slightest. At the same time, no one could take that as a serious contribution. It is close to an ad-hominum and does not address a point at all. Personally I'd rather see that removed than see more of the same thing. It appears you are calling Geektastic a racist, and without any cause or evidence.

I think you will reconsider this and I'm sure the mods will be happy to remove the original (and posts quoting it), at your request.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

Geektastic

18021 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8480

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1030933 25-Apr-2014 09:41

I prefer this principle:

"A castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any legally-occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend themselves against an intruder, free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of many states."

A number of countries in addition to the USA (including Germany and Australia) have express laws for this rather than simply relying on woolly case law and common law. Offenders should know that their are consequences to their actions - which anyone reading papers or watching NZ police shows will know is rarely true in NZ.

SaltyNZ

9062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10065

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1030937 25-Apr-2014 09:47

Geektastic:

A number of countries in addition to the USA (including Germany and Australia) have express laws for this

Except as far as I can remember - unless it changed very recently - the express law for Australia is that it is NOT lawful to shoot someone just because they are on your property. In addition, murder is a state crime, not a federal crime, so there is not in the strictest sense an 'Australian' law against it. There is a NSW law, a Victorian law, etc.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1030940 25-Apr-2014 10:00

gzt:
Personally I did not find that funny in the slightest. At the same time, no one could take that as a serious contribution. It is close to an ad-hominum and does not address a point at all. Personally I'd rather see that removed than see more of the same thing. It appears you are calling Geektastic a racist, and without any cause or evidence.

I think you will reconsider this and I'm sure the mods will be happy to remove the original (and posts quoting it), at your request.

Nor is it supposed to be funny, and I don't see how it could be construed as ad-hominum.
I painted a picture, a valid circumstantial argument, of how Geektastic's idea would play out in this country.

He specifically mentions “Castle doctrine” - a doctrine which I do have some limited experience with, having lived in states with Castle Laws.

If introduced in New Zealand they'd open a Pandora's Box of armed vendetta, vigilante justice and summary executions, the detrimental and far-reaching consequences of which would destroy the social fabric of our country.

And Racist? - Don't be afraid to call a spade a spade.

Maori - as a race, and a people, are massively over represented in crimes of violence, property crime and in our prisons.

The cost of Castle doctrine here would be borne by young, male Maori.

In Florida not long ago George Zimmerman was aquitted of shooting to death a a young black man - Trayvon Martin, wearing a hoodie, who walked through his neighbourhood.
It struck a chord and was well publicised in the US, as there, young black males overwhelmingly suffer from the “stand your ground” laws which were invoked in his defense.

Those laws play to fear, and racism - not social justice.

Edit – I own firearms here – and overseas. I've nothing against guns per se, just believe they should not be used to kill humans. Ever.

sir1963

3436 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3789

Subscriber

#1031070 25-Apr-2014 13:20

Geektastic: I prefer this principle:

"A castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any legally-occupied place [e.g., a vehicle or workplace]) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend themselves against an intruder, free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of many states."

A number of countries in addition to the USA (including Germany and Australia) have express laws for this rather than simply relying on woolly case law and common law. Offenders should know that their are consequences to their actions - which anyone reading papers or watching NZ police shows will know is rarely true in NZ.

So, if you want to kill someone, invite them to your house, put a bullet in them and then one in the ceiling.

Castle laws are stupid and dangerous. They also DONT work.

Keel Hauling did not work
Flogging did not work
Witch dunking did not work
Public Hanging did not work.
Firing squads for soldiers who were suffering from PTSD and shot for "Cowardice" or "Lack or moral Fibre" did not work.
Beating animals to force them to "obey" does not work

Brutality does NOT work.

As for "reading the papers" they have a deliberate need to sensationalise things to sell more papers.

However here are some facts
http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/publications-archived/2000/international-comparisons-of-recorded-violent-crime-rates-for-2000/new-zealand-compared-to-usa-violent-crime

So with guns, punitive sentencing, death penalty etc you are
Over 3 times more likely to be murdered in the USA
Over 3 time more likely to be robbed
Over 3 time more likely to be raped
Over 4 times more likely to be assaulted
and about 4 times more likely to be a victim of crime.

The US has had punitive sentences for generations, if it has not made the USA safer by now, it is a failure.

If you need a gun and brutality to make yourself feel safe then something is wrong with your society and yourself.

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13