Watershed case in NZ to watch
There are actually TWO major principles in play here. The first is the natural right to self defense. The second is even more fundamental: the right to own property in the first place.
You can bet that progressives everywhere are salivating over the prospect of a government win in this case as it sets forth a precedent dangerous to all freedom everywhere.
You can bet that progressives everywhere are salivating over the prospect of a government win in this case as it sets forth a precedent dangerous to all freedom everywhere.
“Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/w...
Only individuals have rights.
That's where the Kiwis have gone wrong.
In modern times, letting women have political power has had the side effect of making the illusion of security a priority over individual liberty.
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?
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.
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."
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.
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.
The usual green left postmodernism is not giving good government as would be expected so she has to create and ride on scares.