GCSB Protest March

Forums › Off topic › GCSB Protest March

1 | ... | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#880575 18-Aug-2013 15:19

JimmyH:
KiwiNZ:

universal suffrage is a basic human right.

Cobblers. No country has universal suffrage, including ours. In NZ there is an age test, a prison test (most incarcerated prisoners can't vote) and a citizenship/residency test. Only if you meet all of these can you vote.

Maybe we should turn the American maxim of "no taxation without representation" on it's head. Define the level of tax that (say) someone on the minimum wage working 25 hours per week would be paying. Then, on the basis that if you arne't paying your "fair share" of tax you don't have a legitimate right to decide how those taxes are spent, only count the votes of people paying at least that much tax in the previous year?

Not too dissimilar to how local body voting used to work - you have to own property (=pay rates) in a locality to get to vote for council.

Slightly off-topic - can we please dial back on the amount of nested quoting in this thread n- it's getting ridiculous.

Universal suffrage granted in New Zealand 1893

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#880682 18-Aug-2013 18:51

Klipspringer:
Geektastic:

Your bigotry is incredible.

Well, if ad hominem name calling is the best defence of your position that you can muster....

Name calling doesn't inspire serious debate.
KiwiNZ/PaulBags: how about coming up with counter arguments?

Excuse me, who am I calling names?

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#880686 18-Aug-2013 18:56

PaulBags:
Klipspringer:
Geektastic:

Your bigotry is incredible.

Well, if ad hominem name calling is the best defence of your position that you can muster....

Name calling doesn't inspire serious debate.
KiwiNZ/PaulBags: how about coming up with counter arguments?

Excuse me, who am I calling names?

Did not say you calling names. KiwiNZ started with the name calling.

Not sure what was up with your huge amount of annoying quotes...? Maybe you thought it was funny?

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#880691 18-Aug-2013 19:09

KiwiNZ:
JimmyH:
KiwiNZ:

universal suffrage is a basic human right.

Cobblers. No country has universal suffrage, including ours. In NZ there is an age test, a prison test (most incarcerated prisoners can't vote) and a citizenship/residency test. Only if you meet all of these can you vote.

Maybe we should turn the American maxim of "no taxation without representation" on it's head. Define the level of tax that (say) someone on the minimum wage working 25 hours per week would be paying. Then, on the basis that if you arne't paying your "fair share" of tax you don't have a legitimate right to decide how those taxes are spent, only count the votes of people paying at least that much tax in the previous year?

Not too dissimilar to how local body voting used to work - you have to own property (=pay rates) in a locality to get to vote for council.

Slightly off-topic - can we please dial back on the amount of nested quoting in this thread n- it's getting ridiculous.

Universal suffrage granted in New Zealand 1893

You need to read context more closely.

1893 was when voting eligibility was extended to women. The discussion I replied to was about whether grounds such as IQ could be used to restrict voting, and a reply claiming that it couldn't because NZ's suffrage was "universal". Despite that name being used in connection with granting women the vote, NZ's suffrage isn't, and never has been, "universal". As in it doesn't extend to all adults living here. Suffrage isn't universal in that adults are excluded from enrolling to vote if they:

haven't been in NZ within the last three years

are in prison

have been in a psychiatric hospital for more than three years after being charged with a criminal offence

are detained in a hospital under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992

have been found by a court or a Judge to be unfit to stand trial within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003

is subject to, and has for a period exceeding 3 years been subject to, a compulsory treatment order made following an application under section 45(2) of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992

Hence the point that excluding someone because of a low IQ isn't automatically impossible because of some inalienable right of "universal suffrage". In fact, it's sort of analogous to s80(1)(c)(i) of the Electoral Act 1993 which provides for the disqualification of someone found mentally unfit by a judge/court. Suffrage has never been truly universal - despite the 1983 changes you refer.

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#880713 18-Aug-2013 20:11

Klipspringer:

[snip]

Not sure what was up with your huge amount of annoying quotes...? Maybe you thought it was funny?

Mostly making a point, but yes.

Woolly

119 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#880749 18-Aug-2013 22:19

If some entity can you give you a right then that same entity can take away that right.

Voting is not a right it's a benefit.

For example when you voluntarily buy shares or join a club your voting rights should be explained in the memorandum of understanding and is a benefit of joining.

If your value of life and happiness depends on a dubious IQ score, good for you, I wish you all the best.

One company where I played, there was great interest in joining MENSA. It is a non-profit organization open to people who score at the 98th percentile or higher on a standardized, supervised IQ or other approved intelligence test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International

What I found very amusing, was the people joining this organization had nicknames like charlie and snowy (think of a well known soft drink brand and you should get the picture).

When a company in NZ was launched with the same nickname as one of the above, I laughed.

I have no problem with what people put into their bodies, when it starts to affect other people you need to stop and have a look at yourself.

So how is the above connected to the GCSB bill?

For those who want to consent to being spied upon.
You should have full disclosure of what your signing up to:
- Cost
- Pros
- Cons

Unilateral contracts can only be enforced with force. For example a unilateral contract that says a neighbor has to pay $10 a week to him and family for 10 years for having a man with an IQ close to 140 living in their proximity. The only way to enforce this rule is violence or deception.

Statutes (Opinions of others) != Law

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79295 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#880769 18-Aug-2013 23:19

So wrong. Voting is always a right in this context.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Woolly

119 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#880786 19-Aug-2013 01:56

Rights.

Dragons below plus some strong language. 9 minutes.
George Carlin on rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E
X

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#880809 19-Aug-2013 08:38

Geektastic:I'm merely suggesting that it should be a qualified right to prevent those too stupid to exercise it properly from ruining economies with their stupidity.

I don't agree with taking the rights of votes away from the stupid. Everybody in this country (baring the underage and prisoners) have the right to vote, and that's how it should stay.

If the majority are stupid, and they not allowed to vote. We end up with a government that does not represent them at all. And that means bigger problems.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#880830 19-Aug-2013 09:35

JimmyH:
KiwiNZ:
JimmyH:
KiwiNZ:

universal suffrage is a basic human right.

Cobblers. No country has universal suffrage, including ours. In NZ there is an age test, a prison test (most incarcerated prisoners can't vote) and a citizenship/residency test. Only if you meet all of these can you vote.

Maybe we should turn the American maxim of "no taxation without representation" on it's head. Define the level of tax that (say) someone on the minimum wage working 25 hours per week would be paying. Then, on the basis that if you arne't paying your "fair share" of tax you don't have a legitimate right to decide how those taxes are spent, only count the votes of people paying at least that much tax in the previous year?

Not too dissimilar to how local body voting used to work - you have to own property (=pay rates) in a locality to get to vote for council.

Slightly off-topic - can we please dial back on the amount of nested quoting in this thread n- it's getting ridiculous.

Universal suffrage granted in New Zealand 1893

You need to read context more closely.

1893 was when voting eligibility was extended to women. The discussion I replied to was about whether grounds such as IQ could be used to restrict voting, and a reply claiming that it couldn't because NZ's suffrage was "universal". Despite that name being used in connection with granting women the vote, NZ's suffrage isn't, and never has been, "universal". As in it doesn't extend to all adults living here. Suffrage isn't universal in that adults are excluded from enrolling to vote if they:

haven't been in NZ within the last three years

are in prison

have been in a psychiatric hospital for more than three years after being charged with a criminal offence

are detained in a hospital under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992

have been found by a court or a Judge to be unfit to stand trial within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003

is subject to, and has for a period exceeding 3 years been subject to, a compulsory treatment order made following an application under section 45(2) of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992

Hence the point that excluding someone because of a low IQ isn't automatically impossible because of some inalienable right of "universal suffrage". In fact, it's sort of analogous to s80(1)(c)(i) of the Electoral Act 1993 which provides for the disqualification of someone found mentally unfit by a judge/court. Suffrage has never been truly universal - despite the 1983 changes you refer.

No, what was passed in New Zealand was more than Women's Suffrage it was one person one vote irrespective of... Gender, Race, Health, property ownership status, it was Universal Suffrage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage

My argument with regards to the "Intelligence test" is that it would against a corner stone of our "democracy" and would be against the Bill of right, the United Nations declaration and absolutely abhorrent.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#880831 19-Aug-2013 09:38

Klipspringer:
Geektastic:I'm merely suggesting that it should be a qualified right to prevent those too stupid to exercise it properly from ruining economies with their stupidity.

I don't agree with taking the rights of votes away from the stupid. Everybody in this country (baring the underage and prisoners) have the right to vote, and that's how it should stay.

If the majority are stupid, and they not allowed to vote. We end up with a government that does not represent them at all. And that means bigger problems.

Sorry but I have to disagree.

I see no reason why rights cannot be altered to reflect reality - in 1900 I had the 'right' to take opium and own unrestricted firearms. That right was curtailed. The expression 'rule of thumb' comes from a time when I had the right to beat my wife with a stick as long as it was no thicker than my thumb. Again, that right was curtailed.

Modern economies and the success of nations are too critical to be guided by those who are not intellectually adequate to grasp at least the reasonable basics of how things work. The cost of fixing possible mistakes is too great. I am not suggesting that you need to be a Mensa member in order to vote - merely that you should need to pass an exam to demonstrate a level of understanding.

We expect people to pass tests to drive, fly, be accountants, be doctors, be policemen and so on. I suggest that for a properly functioning democracy, passing a test to show you understand what you are doing when you exercise your right to vote is perfectly logical.

Rights are not some sort of religious thing handed down by a deity to be left unchanged for aeons: they are a modern construct that should have the flexibility to be altered to reflect current reality.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#880837 19-Aug-2013 09:47

freitasm: So wrong. Voting is always a right in this context.

But it is not, is it?

Otherwise the mentally ill and prisoners would be able to do it. Since we accept that those people do not have that right, it is already not universal.

Passing an exam that shows you can exercise it with reasonable understanding is perfectly logical. More logical in fact that the reverse. Everyone has a 'right' to try and be a commercial pilot. Not everyone has the skills to pass the tests required to become one. How can making decisions about the economy of a nation be less important than flying a plane? Or even driving a car?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#880840 19-Aug-2013 09:54

Geektastic:
Klipspringer:
Geektastic:I'm merely suggesting that it should be a qualified right to prevent those too stupid to exercise it properly from ruining economies with their stupidity.

I don't agree with taking the rights of votes away from the stupid. Everybody in this country (baring the underage and prisoners) have the right to vote, and that's how it should stay.

If the majority are stupid, and they not allowed to vote. We end up with a government that does not represent them at all. And that means bigger problems.

Sorry but I have to disagree.

I see no reason why rights cannot be altered to reflect reality - in 1900 I had the 'right' to take opium and own unrestricted firearms. That right was curtailed. The expression 'rule of thumb' comes from a time when I had the right to beat my wife with a stick as long as it was no thicker than my thumb. Again, that right was curtailed.

Modern economies and the success of nations are too critical to be guided by those who are not intellectually adequate to grasp at least the reasonable basics of how things work. The cost of fixing possible mistakes is too great. I am not suggesting that you need to be a Mensa member in order to vote - merely that you should need to pass an exam to demonstrate a level of understanding.

We expect people to pass tests to drive, fly, be accountants, be doctors, be policemen and so on. I suggest that for a properly functioning democracy, passing a test to show you understand what you are doing when you exercise your right to vote is perfectly logical.

Rights are not some sort of religious thing handed down by a deity to be left unchanged for aeons: they are a modern construct that should have the flexibility to be altered to reflect current reality.

Thankfully common sense will prevail and NZ would not consider that along with any nation that has freedom as part of it's foundations.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#880841 19-Aug-2013 09:55

Geektastic:
Klipspringer:
Geektastic:I'm merely suggesting that it should be a qualified right to prevent those too stupid to exercise it properly from ruining economies with their stupidity.

I don't agree with taking the rights of votes away from the stupid. Everybody in this country (baring the underage and prisoners) have the right to vote, and that's how it should stay.

If the majority are stupid, and they not allowed to vote. We end up with a government that does not represent them at all. And that means bigger problems.

Sorry but I have to disagree.

I see no reason why rights cannot be altered to reflect reality - in 1900 I had the 'right' to take opium and own unrestricted firearms. That right was curtailed. The expression 'rule of thumb' comes from a time when I had the right to beat my wife with a stick as long as it was no thicker than my thumb. Again, that right was curtailed.

Modern economies and the success of nations are too critical to be guided by those who are not intellectually adequate to grasp at least the reasonable basics of how things work. The cost of fixing possible mistakes is too great. I am not suggesting that you need to be a Mensa member in order to vote - merely that you should need to pass an exam to demonstrate a level of understanding.

We expect people to pass tests to drive, fly, be accountants, be doctors, be policemen and so on. I suggest that for a properly functioning democracy, passing a test to show you understand what you are doing when you exercise your right to vote is perfectly logical.

Rights are not some sort of religious thing handed down by a deity to be left unchanged for aeons: they are a modern construct that should have the flexibility to be altered to reflect current reality.

Your view is centered around government being in control of the economy.

That should not be the case, and its why I am perfectly OK for privatizing the entire economy and selling off all state owned businesses and assets.

Government should not control the economy and that control should rest in the people, and businesses themselves (like most capitalist countries). As you say, we expect people to pass tests to drive, fly etc .. Well then this can still happen, because we then employ people with certain skills to run the economy, without taking away anybody’s basic right to vote.

As long as NZ remains a socialist country, its not going to change. Our government is too involved in our economy. Its forever waisting our taxpayer money, bailing out failing insurance companies, meddling with who can/cannot get homeloans, owning public transport, owning and profiting on state owned assets etc .. Instead goverment should be regulating our economy, not running it.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#880858 19-Aug-2013 10:22

Geektastic:
freitasm: So wrong. Voting is always a right in this context.

But it is not, is it?

Otherwise the mentally ill and prisoners would be able to do it. Since we accept that those people do not have that right, it is already not universal.

Passing an exam that shows you can exercise it with reasonable understanding is perfectly logical. More logical in fact that the reverse. Everyone has a 'right' to try and be a commercial pilot. Not everyone has the skills to pass the tests required to become one. How can making decisions about the economy of a nation be less important than flying a plane? Or even driving a car?

You saying the mentally ill can't vote in NZ? I did not know that.

While I agree partially with what you are saying, voting should never be limited to only certain groups.

But you raise an interesting point about denying the right for prisoners to vote. What if the majority of the country was in prison? Or just a far greater proportion which could sway the outcome of the elections. Ie, they (the prisoners) form, or somebody else forms a party to represent them? And that party promises no more prisons. Its still democratic right? Who are we as a minority (in a case like this) to deny them this right?

Democracy can and will eventually lead to mob rule if we have a large undereducated/stupid population. Democracy works well in western countries where the majority of the people are educated. It works worst (and shows its true failure of a system) in countries where the undereducated/stupid are a majority. We need to educate, and keep educating

Now I'm finding myself agreeing with you ..... I'm on the fence with this one.

1 | ... | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48