I appreciate your thoughtful response. I don't necessarily agree with all of your points especially in regards to women's voting patterns vs. men's voting patterns. I think men are just as apt to vote "emotionally" as women, but rather than calling it emotional, it is called rationalization.

"...totalitarian state can wipe away our differences, and that one day we will all truly be equal..." Agreed, but what I've mentioned in the past the only place all mankind is truly equal is in the graveyard and totalitarian states have certainly made millions of people "truly equal" before their time. The people advocating socialist/communist policies/governments never seem to remember that part.

The problem with allowing free thinking is that inevitably someone is going to disagree with you. And the "utopianists" can't have that because they are incredibly insecure about their ideas in the first place. I think the first and foremost thing many people disagree with utopianists on is the level of government control necessary in society and who profits from it. In my utopia, leaders do so fully cognizant of their status as equals in the community - not superiors.

Utopian thinkers are inevitably authoritarian, because the thinking always involves the collectivist view that the individual has no right to freedom, and must be subject to the collective will. Plato made this clear in his writings, so it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone after ages of failed attempts at utopian states.

Hobbes, writing in his tome, "Leviathan," championed a strong authoritarian state, but he justified it because, in his view, the individual alone was helpless against threatening forces, and needed the powerful central government to look out for him. This is the present day argument for authoritarian government with absolute rule, subject to no law, acting without challenge. It's for our own good, since we are all victims who must be "rescued" by the state, whether we like it or not.

This is the view and dream of globalist thinkers, that only a dominant, totalitarian state can wipe away our differences, and that one day we will all truly be equal, in every aspect of our lives, That brings to mind a Churchill quote: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

You are correct, but our interpretation is built off the notion ensconced in the Declaration of Independence that the powers of government stem from the rights of individuals. New Zealand - like most other nations around the world - have yet to accept this notion, instead declaring that government is the one who bestows rights and privileges upon the governed. Its a socialist mentality.

Government doesn't have any rights.
Only individuals have rights.
That's where the Kiwis have gone wrong.

"Are you saying that once somebody receives SSN should lose their right to vote?"

Social Security (the retirement program)? No. Social Security Insurance (the welfare program)? Yes. Medicare? Yes. Medicaid? Yes. Food stamps? Yes. WIC? Yes. Why? Because these programs are all drains on the productive of a nation. It's easy to vote for spending programs when someone else is footing the bill. This would also be a tremendous incentive for these individuals to get OFF the dole. (I would add that SSN the pseudo-retirement program should be privatized. The government has no business managing retirement funds - as is shown by their raiding of those funds.)

"Are you also saying that women should have never gotten the right to vote?"

I go back and forth on this one. There is no question that women vote based on their feelings far more than men do. As a result, they can be swayed based on emotional arguments and claims of "expediency." This is incredibly dangerous to the body politic. Does that mean that women outright are inferior to men? No. But in moral principle, we MUST be focused on the long-term principle.

This short-term focus could be likened to some degree to the House of Representatives, where the members are only elected for two-year stints, so they have to be short-term focused. This contrasts with the Senate whose terms are for six years, allowing them to be more thoughtful and long-term focused.

I think the bigger question is:

"Are you also saying that only people who own property should be able to vote?"

My tendency here is to say yes, but I invite thoughtful debate. Why? Again, because one can only tax real property - whether that be in real estate or in income. And what is the biggest indicator of someone who is invested in a positive outcome for their lives and the lives of their children? Property ownership. Putting down roots somewhere puts "skin in the game."

Now, of course the question is going to come up: what about all the people who rent? I would propose that renters who have been in the same place for more than two years then qualify to vote. #1 it helps prevent voter fraud and #2 again goes back to "skin in the game."

Would I campaign on this? No. Would I take away votes to women? No. But would I make voting provisional on being a taxpayer - not a looter? In a heartbeat.

Are you saying that once somebody receives SSN should lose their right to vote?

Are you also saying that women should have never gotten the right to vote?

Are you also saying that only people who own property should be able to vote?

They are doing video game training in parents' basements across America.

See? We need more predators!

Unless you are a brainwashed Greenpeace acolyte.

Cell phones and plentiful food are better than dugouts and clubs with glass shards.

They have been mostly domesticated.

Because New Zealand evidently lacks home invaders among assorted other types of dangerous criminals, me dino encourages all Progressives to move there to live happily forever.
Me? I'd rather keep my dangerous weapons and my freedom too. Well, most of my freedom. Wish me dino could make the IRS go away.
Nothing can be perfect, I reckon.

Maybe the indigenous people can kick them back off the island.

Unfortunately, the parties in NZ control who gets positions of power at the national level. Sort of like here in the US with Trump as the sole likely exception.
In addition (I think) the majority in NZ and Australia are brainwashed to believe that they don't deserve the freedom to protect themselves, and the government can be trusted to do it.

I wonder if New Zealand's people have had enough, and are ready to vote out these idiots.

On the whole range, this Arden is way out.
The usual green left postmodernism is not giving good government as would be expected so she has to create and ride on scares.

👍 I agree.

The Brits have two huge things working against them there: the Chunnel and their immigration policies being dictated by the EU. The second one may change shortly - especially with the effects of the virus and the exit of Britain from the EU.

The Brits are also an island nation that should be able to control their borders but they aren't.
https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/w...

They also have an island nation where they control their own borders - completely.

Possibly. They were far more family-focused and anticipated that voting was really a family-affair with the vote coming from the head of the household. I do think one thing that they got right was a requirement to own property to vote. Why? Because that's what gets taxed. It's very easy to vote for higher taxes... when you're not paying any! That's one reason why I think the welfare state should come with a major caveat - that if you regularly take money from the government (SSI, Medicare, etc.) you do it in exchange for your right to vote.

The media in Australia are effusively praising the NZ dictatorship lock down. And the useful idiots eat it up. The only reasons they have lower virus spread is weather (and lower population density), imo.

If Jefferson had anticipated women's suffrage the constitution would have had more explicit language limiting government.