Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48
13560 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6358

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 880575 18-Aug-2013 15:19
Send private message

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  










Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


810 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 191
Inactive user


  Reply # 880682 18-Aug-2013 18:51
Send private message

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?

 
 
 
 


2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 880686 18-Aug-2013 18:56
Send private message

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?





2584 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1237


  Reply # 880691 18-Aug-2013 19:09
2 people support this post
Send private message

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.





810 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 191
Inactive user


  Reply # 880713 18-Aug-2013 20:11
Send private message

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.

119 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 22
Inactive user


  Reply # 880749 18-Aug-2013 22:19
Send private message

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






BDFL - Memuneh
61746 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12407

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

119 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 22
Inactive user


  Reply # 880786 19-Aug-2013 01:56
Send private message

Rights.

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

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 880809 19-Aug-2013 08:38
Send private message

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.

13560 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6358

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 880830 19-Aug-2013 09:35
Send private message

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.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


12131 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3947

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 880831 19-Aug-2013 09:38
Send private message

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.





12131 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3947

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 880837 19-Aug-2013 09:47
Send private message

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?





13560 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6358

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 880840 19-Aug-2013 09:54
Send private message

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.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 880841 19-Aug-2013 09:55
Send private message

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.

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user


  Reply # 880858 19-Aug-2013 10:22
Send private message

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 | ... | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.