14 ms·
This sounds suspiciously like a government that works for its people.
by sage_joch 13y ago
This sounds suspiciously like a government that works for its people.
- te_chris 13y ago[partisan alert] I wouldn't go too far on that. If you're poor and unemployed here you probably don't feel like the govt. are working for you all that much.
- lvxn0va 13y agoExcept when you need to head for the hospital, no?
- lancewiggs 13y agoI'm continuously amazed by all of the major political parties here in New Zealand who keep using logic and facts instead of merely political stances. Our process of making laws is open, listens to the people as well as lobbyists, and yet allows room for policy differences.
- SeanDav 13y agoNZ makes some great laws (this is one of them) but it makes a few dodgy ones as well - like trying to give Chimpanzees human rights. Sorry I brought that one up but is one of those laws that has always just made me say - "What the fuuuuuc....."
- holloway 13y agoGreat Ape personhood, or at least granting them the right to not have cruel tests done, has been done by several other nations not just New Zealand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood I can't remember the exact wording but one provision was about how they couldn't be exported unless it was in their best interests. E.g. you can't sell them a circus overseas in which they would likely receive cruel treatment. So it's not about calling them people, it's about giving them some rights because they have sentience.
- SeanDav 13y agoI don't agree with the label, I do agree with the principle. Many animals show signs of sentience and even if they don't, they should not be allowed to undergo cruel testing. To try to only apply this to great apes shows a lack of understanding of the issues involved. It is often human nature to be guilty of anthropomorphizing. The intentions are noble, but the focus is too narrow and the label is quite frankly, ridiculous.
- holloway 13y agoThe label is a bit weird, I agree, but personhood is an established legal concept with clear interpretations and case law so I just think of it as lawyer speak. Extremely disabled people may lack clear communication and yet a person who makes decisions on their behalf is guided by similar principles. The argument in favour of personhood is that the benefits of that legal history outweigh the superficial qualms by using a slightly wrong title. While other animals have sentience too this is about the thin edge of the wedge, and what's achievable in politics. You go for the creatures that are nearest to human and then increase it as is appropriate. It's important to establish precedent and not to go too far at once or else the first step will fail and politicians won't touch it again for a long time. I see it more as practical political expediency rather than a lack of understanding of how non-apes may be sentient too.
- ekianjo 13y agoSure, we all know since Descartes that animals are robot-like objects, have no feelings and no emotion and should be treated as such. So, let's make sure the Law does not take in account any of the discoveries related to emotion and pain in animals, and let's keep business as usual and feel good about it. Sums up your position ?
- LatvjuAvs 13y agoSo sheep is stupid meat on 4 sticks :D
- SeanDav 13y agoWow, over-reaction, much? Look, I could go on and make several well reasoned arguments about how animals are not human but clearly it would be wasted on you. Just a quick question, but once you have given Chimps human rights and said Chimps go on and kill and eat other apes/monkeys, as they commonly do in the wild - would you have them up for murder and cannibalism charges with appropriate punishments?
- ekianjo 13y agoOK, maybe I took your comment the wrong way. Sorry about that. The way you wrote your comment gave me the impression that you were saying animals are not worthy of compassion, but if that's not the case then it's all good.
- sigzero 13y agoCompassion...sure. Human rights? No.
- chris_wot 13y agoWhy?
- afreak 13y agoI would argue that if we are to give chimpanzees human rights then we may as well start enforcing building codes for beavers and ants. What is unnatural (law) does not necessarily work for those the animal kingdom. It should not be forgotten that animals have a certain level of rights to coexist with us on Earth but at the same time it does a disservice to humanity to treat them as our equals.
- ajuc 13y agoAnd what's wrong with that?
- sigzero 13y agoThey are not human. I agree there should be some for of animal rights for them...but they are not human so they do not get "human rights".
- cpursley 13y agoThis is why I love HN. This conversation went from NZ software patents to the legal status of apes in NZ in no time.
- drharris 13y agoIf it were reddit, we'd already be on the subject of throwing feces.
- ajuc 13y agoThis is still net benefit. Call the law FooBarBuzz if you prefer, I don't care as long as it is a good law.
- grecy 13y ago> but it makes a few dodgy ones as well - like trying to give Chimpanzees human rights. Hilariously, everyone replying to you has missed the point. NZ has so many things fundamentally right they actually have time and money to debate and discuss giving more thought to the treatment of animals. Meanwhile, America is stuck bickering about basic healthcare, gay rights, gun control, abortion and education for HUMANS.
- jamiepenney 13y agoExcept for the "we made a mistake, now we are retrofitting the law so that we did not make a mistake" laws that have been passed over the last few years. The Search and Surveillance Bill, as well as the upcoming changes to the GCSB spring to mind. At least these are just the government covering it's own ass, rather than out and out corruption.
- ppog 13y agoOur process of making laws mostly listens to the people, but it it is contingent on the government's willingness to listen. The problem is the lack of rules around urgency (http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/parliaments-urgency-provision-being-abused-cw-104826 http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/parliaments-urgency-provision-b...). For non-Kiwis, urgency allows a government to force through a bill in a hurry and without consultation. The loophole is that urgency doesn't require a supermajority and there are no limits on the kind of bills that can be passed this way: if the government decides to bypass the normal legislative process, there's not much anyone can do to stop it. The result is that governments have used urgency as a way to pass major and controversial laws without full consultation or debate. Examples include 'three strikes' (http://boingboing.net/2011/04/15/new-zealands-3-strik.html http://boingboing.net/2011/04/15/new-zealands-3-strik.html), the 'Hobbit Act' (http://www.3news.co.nz/Hobbit-bill-becomes-law/tabid/419/articleID/183735/Default.aspx http://www.3news.co.nz/Hobbit-bill-becomes-law/tabid/419/art...) and the GCSB (spy) bill (http://parliamenttoday.co.nz/2013/05/house-goes-into-urgency-for-gcsb-bill/ http://parliamenttoday.co.nz/2013/05/house-goes-into-urgency...). Whether you agree or disagree on the merits of the bills, I do think it's fair to say that all deserved more debate and consultation than they got. And I'd argue that all of these examples were driven by lobbying (from the media industry, the Hobbit producers and the espionage agencies). Our process of making laws is generally healthy and open, but it does have dangerous blind spots.
- hpagey 13y agoYes, I believe it is easier to listen to 4M people than 300 M people.
- ekianjo 13y agoWelfare-society-partisan I guess? The best thing a government can do is not run into debt and avoid charging massive taxes to employees and companies working in their country. That way, business can thrive better and jobs get created in larger number, so it should be a good thing if you are poor and unemployed. Countries ridden with welfare are not doing TOO well currently. Most countries in Europe, US, Japan. All deep to their neck in public debt, always at the verge of bankruptcy. This can't be good for anyone in the end, poor included.
- nikatwork 13y agoAustralia is "ridden" with welfare and we're doing just fine economically, thanks. We also get to walk around our cities without constant fear of violent robbery by the extreme poor. Nice huh?
- ekianjo 13y agoYeah, lets not forget the huge advantage of natural resources in Australia. Just like Russia can survive on its gaz business alone. ANd thanks for the cliche that poor = robber/criminal, I am sure many honest poor people appreciate your point of view.
- alexsb92 13y agoOk, then what would be your response to Canada?
- jebeng 13y agoMaple Syrup.
- ekianjo 13y agoGrowing public debt from one year to another. And quite fast, too. "Canada’s federal debt grew steadily between 5% and 10% per year until 1975. For the next 12 years it grew on average over 20% per year. It surpassed $100 billion in 1981, $200 billion in 1985, $300 billion in 1988, $400 billion in 1992, and $500 billion in 1994. It peaked at $563 billion in 1997. The debt then declined to $458 billion by 2008. With the recession, the federal debt grew by $5.8 billion in 2008-09 and is expected to grow by $55.9 billion in 2009-10. November 2012 Canadian debt surpassed the $600 billion mark" Canada certainly look like Maple Red in this map of worldwide public debt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dette_publique2011.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dette_publique2011.jpg You better check your sources before commenting. Or maybe you are one of those to think that federal debt is not an issue and that you never need to pay it back. You are in for a big surprise.
- rjd 13y agoI found this extremely humorous (John Stewart Show on gun violence and politician motives): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TYbY45rHj8w http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T... @ 2:00 it speaks volumes about US politics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TYbY45rHj8w#t=121s http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T...)
- narcissus 13y agoOff topic, but thanks for that link: while I'm not going to go into the politics, those clips make me want to go back home now, just because of those scenes from Australia...
- loceng 13y agoYou should get rid of all patents if that's the case. Patents slow down innovation period. And software patents can be non-obvious, just like hardware patents -- software and hardware innovations can be just as equally obvious to anyone who starts to work on a problem.
- lostlogin 13y agoDon't be fooled - we're selling off our assets as you speak. But hey, we can buy shares in them, so the thing I partly owned I can pay money for and partly own it again.