I may have to think about retiring in 15 years or so, and I may just have to move to New Zealand. The trends are all going in the right direction.
There has been a sharp rise in the number of New Zealanders with no religious affiliation, new research shows.
In a study by the University, 40 per cent of respondents say they have no religious affiliation compared to 29 per cent 17 years ago.
Just over a third of New Zealanders describe themselves as religious.
Sounds so lovely. Of course, it’s not perfect yet:
Fifty-three per cent say they believe in God (although half of those say they have doubts), 20 per cent believe in some form of higher power and about third say they don’t believe or don’t know.
However, 60 per cent say they would prefer children to have religious education in state primary schools with strongest support for teaching about all faiths.
Get to it, Kiwis — you’ve got about a decade to improve those numbers. I’m sure you can do it.
Certainly better than the US :P
Not to beat the formatting police to the punch, but there’s something funky going on there, methinks.
Will Ichthyic let you and The Trophy Wive crash at his place while you get yourself simulated?
Sounds like they could go all the way!
(I didn’t really have anything more profound than that to say. My main goal was to see what nested, commented comment would look like.)
As lovely as that is, I’d never move to New Zealand. I’ve got a significant other whose career is gunsmithing. That makes NZ a no-go.
I’m trying my hardest to convince my immediate family that the idea of god is ridiculous. Think I’ll have trouble convincing my very catholic grandparents and my uncle who is a priest though.
My grandparents may be dead in 15 years anyway.
Working on it PZ. We’re getting there. You’re welcome any time. ^_^
Unfortunately, I think that the relative ‘sane-ness’ of New Zealand has a lot to do with our smaller population. I suspect we have the same number of kooks per head as other countries, it’s just that since our population is so tiny they can’t manage to gather in strong enough numbers to make a nuisance of themselves as they can overseas.
And we have the giant squid. And giant wetas. However there has been a bit of ‘inter-faith’ mush recently and there is an entrenched creationist subclass out there. But if the US got Ray Comfort (btw check out early Ray material at http://canterburyatheists.blogspot.com/) we would gladly have PZ! Thats the sort of free trade deal we need.
PZ – It is hard to imagine you ever retiring. You seem to really love what you do.
“However, 60 per cent say they would prefer children to have religious education in state primary schools with strongest support for teaching about all faiths.”
I think a lot of the people who said yes to this one would have said so because it sounded like the nice thing to say.
We used to have religious (christian) classes in the two primary schools I went to.
For the first few years anyway. But they got lots of complaints from parents, and most of the teachers knew it was a waste of time so they canned it.
And all but one of my fellow kiwi friends, Who claim to be religious, Aren’t actually when you question them on it.
Again, they just say they are because it seems like
“The nice thing to say”
Nothing wrong with religious education in primary schools! This is one of Dan Dennett’s pet causes and I agree with him.
It becomes a lot harder to think that your own religious tradition has any special access to truth if you’re taught about others on an equal footing at a young age. The program just needs some oversight to make sure overzealous teachers don’t decide to use the opportunity to proselytize.
To bad us Aussie’s are so far behind our mates across the Tasman.
My parents sent me to a christian(very conservative) school in Aus and they refused to teach evolution (they tried to teach short term natural selection whilst making sure we didn’t make the connection to “macroevolution”) and actually made us watch intelligent design video’s in biology class.
I suppose because it was a private school the government had limited control over what was taught in class (at least they didn’t put the facile ID nonsense on our exams or anything), although I’m glad Christianity doesn’t have anything against calculus or that might have got the flick too.
good bargains up this way on real estate, and all the fish you’d care to dissect… and our accent is way funnier.
But we do worship squiddy things. I myself have bowed my head in wonder before the colossal squid. And made my daughters do the same.
Note to self: check earthquake survival kit and keep away from the volcanoes when PZ arrives. Divine retribution imminent.
NZ is my dream home. If only it wasn’t so far away from everyone I know.
Any explanation for this, or is this random?
@Kayla,
The firearms laws here are quite liberal compared to some states in the US. We have very high rates of long gun ownership, but pistol ownership is restricted to sporting use only. So there maybe some business here after all.
Back on track: Now if we can only get the woo under control..
You can’t move there! I want to move there when I retire. If you do there’ll be no room for agnostics.
Don’t they have a lot of lamb in NZ? Mmmmmm. Lamb. Tasty.
The religious followers are often sheep.
“As lovely as that is, I’d never move to New Zealand. I’ve got a significant other whose career is gunsmithing.”
Is that really an issue with moving to NZ? I mean, we don’t have many handguns, but we have a lot of farmers, and hence a fair number of rifles and shotguns.
A quick search has turned this up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
While our mere 26 guns per 100 people is no where near the USA’s absurd 90 guns per hundred people, we seem to not be lacking in guns.
That being said, guns per capita is just another way in which NZ is beaten by Sweden.
Also, as a Massey student, hooray seeing us mentioned on my favourite blog! Hooray for mention my country being praised!
We’re doing our best. :)
Oh, and Kayla? Weta Workshop is always looking for talented craftspeople.
Will Ichthyic let you and The Trophy Wive crash at his place while you get yourself simulated?
yup, some of us Pharyngulites are way ahead of you, PZ.
There’s a room available at my flat (in Wellington) for visits. Lots of excellent biologists down here too; some from my old grad school, even, and some who’ve done research in the same places I have. Even someone working on white sharks using satellite tags, which brings back memories.
It’s a very small world here, but the whole place is like a a nature theme park. Moreover, it doesn’t snow here (well, except on the tops of the taller mountains), so no more shoveling out the car.
OTOH…
-there’s the parrots who will rape your head.
-sandflies that will strip your flesh away in seconds (think: flying pirhana)
-tribes of cannibals running about
-THE DESTINY CHURCH
-and many more horrors… all of which I will be documenting on my blog starting this week!
I was gonna wait to announce it until I had a few more posts up, but it IS there, at least, and I’ll be putting up pics from all the misadventures and whatnot too.
Boy, have I got some stories to tell.
http://pokeitwithastick-ichthyic.blogspot.com/
I’ll be starting with Auckland, and basically moving my way southward, then back up again. first I have to document the dangers here, so I’ll be putting that up tomorrow, then I’ll start in on Auckland and points south.
Yer all invited to follow along.
Don’t they have a lot of lamb in NZ? Mmmmmm. Lamb. Tasty.
yeah, but it’s more expensive HERE than in the States!
seems the farmers here figured out long ago that they can make more money exporting their sheep to larger markets, which leaves the locals paying top dollar for what’s left over.
It was a bit of a shock to me, as I expected to live on lamb most of my time here!
Ok, so maybe I’m exaggerating a bit on the “living on lamb” stuff…
Damn it! Sometimes my English sucks so much. And it is my only language.
Wow, “Hooray for mention my country being praised!”, I really need to learn to re-read before posting.
Ichthyic (#25)
Maybe if they were like the shepherds in Wales and found other things to do with sheep than eat them (no, not that), they’d be more inclined to keep them local. Mwahaha.
Why not China? The taxes are lower and bible-thumping is a felony.
We’re on the right track, but things are far from perfect.
New Zealand is a land of 40 million sheep, of which 4 million think they are people.
On the other hand, isn’t New Zealand a bit into “alternative” medicine? Or was that Great Britain… mh.
I really enjoyed my time down there. PZ, make sure you don’t go for the West Coast of the South Island if you care fore good weather.
You might go for Christchurch (The murder capital of New Zealand, but their crime numbers are ridiculously low, just the media are desperate for every homicide. I mean, In which American city with more than 100.000 inhabitants is a murder something for the front page?). Wellington also is a charmer. For warmer weather you might try Auckland, but then you live on top of a bunch of volcanoes, hehe.
Only thing I found to suck were the media. Most newspapers lacked a decent “World News” part. Mostly they just copied the dpa agency news.
Another thing I noted: If you go tramping (that’s kiwi for a multi-day walk in the bush) and stay in backcountry huts, you’ll in many cases find a Bible. Once I even found Chick Tracts which I then burnt in the hut’s stove. Maybe the NZ sceptics have to distribute some FSM flyers or such?
@12
Ain’t that the truth! Australia is in a pretty sorry state. Two conservative parties to vote between, no civil unions or recognition at all for same sex couples, and government funding for religious schools that won’t teach a proper science cirriculum. I went to a public primary school and for half an hour on Fridays we were witnessed to by an evangelist telling us all sorts of stories about how awesome Jesus is and making us fill out Christian activity sheets. Of course to us kids we were getting out of work for a while, but now that I’m older I see how biased and unethical the whole affair is.
Good on you NZ for progressively breaking away from ignorance!
Much as I love the idea, because I’m in Aus not far away, you might want to think about these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Brethren) – they spread rumours about the previous PM Helen Clark being gay in attempt to discredit her. pfft. Anyway, they have a decent following in NZ, and pockets in Australia. Plus they just elected a pretty conservative dude for PM recently, so I dunno.
Come to Aus instead! We have nicer weather! :)
Don’t get too caught up with the Brethen, or the Wingnuts as they are called around here. They will pretty much breed themselves into oblivion.
They are no worse than your average US fundie sect; no TV, no radio, heaps of liquor, sex abuse and brain washing.
Meglet:
Pah! Only if you’re into heat stroke. Wellington was glorious today, cool autumn breeze and warm golden sunlight. You should definitely come to NZ, PZ. Our local fauna isn’t out to poison or maim you, unlike Aus.
John Key, btw comes from a Jewish background but describes himself as “not overtly religious”.
Lots of luck, PZ. You have a better chance of being permitted to immigrate into Mars.
Doesn’t New Zealand have a maritime climate? Wouldn’t that be a bit boring after Minnesota?
Just watch out for the Destiny Church – they’re a pathetic local rip-off of your howling mad red state megachurches, complete with a pastor who calls himself a “bishop”, and who reckons he can turn NZ into a theocracy in 5 years. Crazier than a box of frogs.
Other than that, loony-type religion tends to be confined to recent immigrants like South Africans and Koreans. Their NZ-born kids tend to evolve quickly into normal, relaxed secularists, thank FSM. I think there’s just something about our culture that just slowly wears away religious mania in all but the truly unbalanced.
And Meglet, the new Prime Minister may be a bit more to the right than dear old Helen, but like her he’s openly agnostic. Not something you can imagine a US leader daring to do – yet.
You are welcome to NZ with open arms PZ, although for a laugh check out the quality of religoids we have at http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Threads.aspx?topic=7
Well, yes, in the afternoon it was. Let me tell you that 6am on the Kapiti Coast was bloody freezing.
I assume you’d have to live in Minnesota or Alaska to find NZ’s weather appealing….
it doesn’t snow here (well, except on the tops of the taller mountains)
Methinks you haven’t been in the South Island in winter, Ichthyic… :-) It can & does snow down to sea level in Christchurch, let alone places further south. In fact, it can do that in the summer sometimes. I still remember our last family road trip down south (we live in Hamilton), when we rolled into Dunedin during a southerly storm & all the hills were white. In early January!
Noone here gives a toss for religion really (except, as noted, a couple of the mid sized ethnic groups and for the asian contingent its a business networking club anyway).
Unfortunately however the woo is strong here. Way too strong. Its the hippy/non conformist thing thats very popular here combined with the widespread (endemic even) use of marijuana perhaps. Lots of crystal healers and various other norberts, and we are always first on the train when it comes to believing any anti science stuff about GM food or whatever.
@Kayla
No guns? then what do people use to um euthanase: the Deer and Wapiti? Wild Pigs? Ducks? Goats? (and that’s the tasty ones) as well as vermin like possums? or of course the great, evil scourge that is the bunny?
Speaking of which this is the time of year for the Great Easter Bunny Shoot. To help farmers in Central Otago cope blocks of land are parcelled up and teams compete to shoot as many bunnies as they can. Though one year there was a scandal after one team was found to have brought in pre shot bunnies, they were caught because they hadn’t defrosted them first d’oh!
PZ if you want to emigrate better get yourself and the Trophy Wife (TM) off to the gym. Prospective immigrants have been refused entry or right to stay on health grounds. When you have (partly) socialised medicine you have to take care that immigrants are not going to be become drains on the public purse. Move before you retire, more points.
Ray, we ‘religoids'(?) are a mixed bag, just as you would expect on any message-board anywhere in the world. But I’m sure that you don’t laugh at my comments, surely!
Just for completeness:
As a New Zealander, I can tell you that while religious people aren’t so easy to come by, they will often say that they believe in a ‘higher power’, or that they just don’t care. When they say they’re for religious education in school etc, they just mean it’s the first time they’ve thought about it and can’t think of any objections straight away; but they don’t really care. New Zealanders just…don’t care.
Conversations with New Zealanders aren’t more stimulating; they’re just less enraging.
Good grief, there’s a lot of Kiwis reading Pharyngula. Sadly, I’ve had to move to Australia (husband got his chair; children said, “But Daddy, haven’t we already got lots of chairs”), and lamb does seem to be cheaper here. But it’s Aussie lamb, so it doesn’t taste as good.
Aaron got it right: in NZ, no one much really cares about religion, ‘though if pushed, they might say they believe in some sort of higher power, with lots of hand waving, and embarrassed looks. It’s bad taste to talk about religion in NZ.
Those Bibles in tramping (hiking / bush walking) huts/ Excellent for toilet paper. Very kind of the local god squad to supply them.
Sweden legalised gay marriage today. Probably jealous of NZ getting their own thread of praise on pharyngula
Doesn’t sound so bad. I consider myself an atheist but don’t think of humans as being the highest “power”. I’m sure that if a giant asteroid could think, it would disagree with such a statement.
Also, I think teaching about all faiths is a good idea: that’s what turned me into an agnostic and started me on my way to completely doffing celestial boogymen.
@GMacs #50
Yep, comparative religions courses are like a fast-track to deism (which is more tolerable than most religions) or atheism. Why do you think the fundies oppose them in our good ol’ U.S. of A whenever they’re proposed as a compromise between christianity classes and no religious education?
I, personally, quite enjoy studying religions in a historical and comparative sense. Having a course in HS would have been cool, but I doubt it would be taught correctly (They’d probably stick a sports coach in there like they did for history and economics, bleh.)
Is there a particular problem with religious education in state primary schools? I went to primary school in the UK and as I recall our “religious studies” were bizarrely secular – we made decorations and food for christmas, diwali and hanukkah (and most other festivals) indiscriminately and without any discussion of the actual doctrine. It was more a cultural than a religious education and to be honest I’m quite glad I went through it, especially having transferred to a private school later where religious studies were purely Christianity-based and unpleasantly biased (our teacher was extremely pro-life and liked to lecture us accordingly in supposed “ethics” lessons, as well as pasting up posters from anti-abortion groups all round the classroom).
At least a state religious education (in the UK, at least, this might well differ in the US and elsewhere) has to offer some sense of balance, which as Jason (#10) said, might well lead students towards rejecting religion in the end anyway.
Maybe you can retire early or make a lot of money. From here:
Is there a maximum age limit for people wanting to apply for immigration?
As the Principal Applicant under the General Skills category you must be aged 55 years or younger while Principal Applicants in the Investor category may be 84 years or younger to apply.
NZ used to have a rep as a really difficult place to get laid. Hopefully that has changed as well.
How about Sweden? You’d we very welcome here.
And doesn’t qualifying for the Investor category require something on the order of $1m/person, give or take?
PZ, my own trophy wife (why, yes, she is brilliant, too, thanks) and I visited NZ in 2002 and fell in love with it. The South Island has the rep as the scenic one, but the North is beautiful, too, with never-ending beaches, kauri forests, beautiful lakes and some nice little towns along with two very cosmopolitan cities. The South Island is spectacular–no other word for it. We did the Abel Tasman Trail and the Routeburn trek. And Nelson looked like the sort of town I’d love to disappear into.
Only problem: It’s nearly bloody impossible to imigrate there. Alas and alack, you have to either have a critical skill or build a fricking factory. Oh well.
I’m a kiwi, an ex-pat, living in the US (as my nick shows obviously) … and I’m going home. I’ve lived overseas for years and years now, and it’s just time, but also I’m going home for the reasons including this.
I mean, NZ has its faults … kiwis are so apathetic it’s an unofficial national sport (except, of course, when it comes to the actual official national sport … rugby), it’s REALLY provincial, and there’s an insecurity complex a mile wide (seriously, if anyone remotely famous, anywhere in the world, mentions NZ, it literally makes the national news … seriously, it’s like a labrador retriever pleading for praise). Not to mention tall-poppy syndrome (culturally enforced and highly sanctioned humility), which while quite nice admittedly, is taken to an extreme often.
But kiwis are wonderfully laid back, private, and just simply nice. Discussing in interviews the different positions I am applying for back there I was just reminded how EASY being around other kiwis are. The living is easy; we don’t need to move at a million miles an hour like Americans feel the need to do 24/7.
A big part of the religion, or lack thereof, in NZ is that it is considered a really personal private thing that you don’t discuss. It’s considered quite rude to ask the beliefs of a person, and public displays of religiosity are consider gauche and of really poor taste. A kiwi that will gladly tell you the details of their income amount and financial breakdown after meeting you at a party will shy away dramatically if you ask them about religion. It was to my surprise back when arriving in the US that I discovered that it was the complete opposite here.
I have to admit, I am really looking forward to having that back.
Personally I would hate that. I enjoy open and frank discussion of religious and political matters. As far as I’m concerned, financial and sexual matters are private; politics and religion should be freely discussed in the open, and all ideas aired.
Indeed, I would have thought that atheists and agnostics would be keen on moving away from the idea that religion is a “personal matter” which shouldn’t be discussed. Opening the more irrational religious beliefs to discussion and rational scrutiny is something which is extremely beneficial, IMO. Reality is not an individual choice; it’s objective, and a belief either corresponds to objective reality or it doesn’t. I strongly believe, therefore, that people should be willing to discuss their religion in public.
Virginia #54 –
NZ used to have a rep as a really difficult place to get laid. Hopefully that has changed as well.
*snort* really?
I have to say, I’m a pretty usual kiwi chick (aside from being gay, but again, that’s not really that big a deal back home), in her early 30’s … and I was shocked at how puritanical American women were about the amount of sexual partners they had had, and how low the numbers were.
I mean, I know I’m not that different from most kiwi women, and I’ve lost count of all my sexual partners. So long as you understand that in NZ women are supposed to be as sexually aggressive as the guys, you should be fine.
Although, I will say one thing … we don’t date like Americans do. Like the dating multiple people to get to know them and then eventually move on to solely dating one person. In NZ by the time you get to the point of asking someone out on a date, the act of asking them out on that date is a statement of you being interested in something kinda one-on-one with them … ie, you’ve already gotten to know them well enough that you know you like them.
And also, the egalitarian nature of kiwi women and men is that guys aren’t expect to buy the drinks as they are here in the states (as a gay woman that totally gets taken as straight all the time I’ve experienced this here). I’m not saying things are totally equal yet, but there is WAY more going dutch on dates and the like.
Walton siad
As far as I’m concerned, financial and sexual matters are private; That’s because you are kind of a prig and also a member of an party which represents the interests of those who most benefit if workers have reduced information about the wage market.
Which is why no country should have socialised medicine, partly or otherwise.
The ideal, towards which we should be working, would be to have universal open borders, with free movement of goods, capital and labour. This would compel all nations to cut taxes (particularly corporate taxes) in order to bring in jobs and productive labour, and to pare back their social welfare infrastructure in order to stop large numbers of public dependants immigrating there. We would have a much more libertarian world.
I reject both nationalism and socialism. I don’t believe a country owes anything in particular to its citizens, or that someone fortunate enough to be born in one country should be privileged over someone born in another. No person has a “right” to receive healthcare or other benefits at their neighbour’s expense simply because they happened to be born in country A instead of country B. Nor do they have a “right” to a job, to a house, or anything else. They should have to compete in a global free market with everyone else in the world.
Which is why no country should have socialised medicine, partly or otherwise.
*snort* … I’d like to introduce the rest of the civilised western world to an example of a unique, and utterly useless, American creation; the North American Libertarian.
They’re a defenceless, in part because their coping strategy to deal with reality is to ignore it and pretend it is something completely other than what it is. In fact, such characteristics are only eclipsed by fundamentalists in their ability to ignore what is right in front of them. Unfortunately, that defencelessness is accompanied by a distinct lack of intellectual thought that results in getting the others around them into complete and utter shite (eg see 2009 global economic recession). They are recognisable as being nearly universally white, male, and with a huge amount of privilege and expectation shoved up their arses.
In all seriousness, though, you can keep your Ayn-Rand-fellating-love of selfishness … I’ll take my home country’s sense of caring for fellow human beings, treating health care as a basic human right, and a strong sense of egalitarian social responsibility. Social-Democracies are the most successful form of political form on the planet, and I’ll take my proven civilised socialism any day of the week, and twice on sundays.
Actually, I’m British. But I’m hoping to move to the US when I can afford it.
Oh, NOW you’ve done it. Wasn’t our reputation in the rest of the world already low enough already without calling their attention to THAT? ;)
I remind you that a libertarian state has never been tried. But believers in freedom did save “social democracy” from itself in the 1980s. The policies implemented in most countries post-WWII were unsustainable, and deprived citizens of their basic economic freedom. Reagan and Thatcher – who deserve to be recognised as the greatest heroes of the twentieth century, IMO – put a stop to that. But they didn’t go far enough.
And as to socialism being “civilised”… tell that to the denizens of the late unlamented USSR. Or to those who suffered under food rationing in Britain in the 1950s.
Actually, I’m British. But I’m hoping to move to the US when I can afford it.
lol, I didn’t say YOU were American … I said the personality type was … Reading Comprehension; it’s not just for us geeks anymore :)
Walton #59 wrote:
I agree — particularly in areas where people pride themselves on their religious belief, and take them seriously. One of the books on my Amazon Wish List is Austin Dacey’s The Secular Conscious, where he argues for this very point. Sam Harris reviews it by saying it “reveals how simplistic notions of privacy, tolerance, and freedom keep dangerous ideas sheltered from public debate.”
One of the most frustrating positions to be in is to have a viewpoint which is scorned, vilified, and misunderstood — but be told that the worst thing someone with this viewpoint can do is try to explain it to people and defend it. That’s considered “shrill” or “pushy” or “disrespectful of others’ views.” Everybody either believes in God, or should believe in God, and the case is closed right there as long as nobody argues in public. They hate your side, but they don’t want the entire issue talked about, and thus the majority wins automatically by default. They then try to call this tolerance.
Of course, in New Zealand it doesn’t seem as if they consider believing in God — or being religious or spiritual in some way — to be absolutely vital, a critical part of a person’s character. That changes the situation a bit, perhaps. Makes it more like knitting.
I remind you that a libertarian state has never been tried.
Um, yes it has … the closest it came was the post turn-of-the-century into the 20th C here in the US, and you know the result? Yeah, that would be the great depression … libertarianism only ever works in really small, homogeneous, static tribal groups … modern, diverse, complex societies are about the antithesis of such.
And as to socialism being “civilised”… tell that to the denizens of the late unlamented USSR.
Awwwwm looky, it thinks it has a thought … sooo cute … USSR was totalitarian communism … NOT socialism. Thanks ever so much for playing though … and here’s a lovely parting gift: a Sociology 101 textbook.
Can we divert this conversation towards the great potential of the strong nylon cord in circulars for garroting people?
Yes, great – redefine “socialism” to mean what you want it to mean. And no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
In Marxist theory, “communism” is the ideal endstate where the State withers away and property is held in common. Though the USSR and its satellite states were governed by the “Communist Party”, they referred to the state of affairs under their rule as “socialism”.
Yes, I appreciate that there is a big difference, ideologically, between Soviet-style totalitarian socialism and the “democratic socialism” which modern Western leftists advocate. But it’s a myth to think that a country can sustain political freedom without economic freedom. Friedman tackles this point very well in Capitalism and Freedom, as does Hayek in The Road to Serfdom. Statism is statism; it’s hopelessly naive to think that you can have coercive collectivism in the economic sphere without losing, in the long run, political liberty.
And I’d appreciate it if you would cease patronising me.
Bullshit. As Friedman highlights, the Great Depression, as well as the current recession, is a product of monetary policy and the errors of central banks. Everything we’ve gone through is perfectly explained by Austrian School theory. It’s not the free market that’s to blame; it’s the discretion we allow to reserve banks (who are central planners) to make choices about monetary policy.
Only in a world completely populated by people straight out of glibertarian fantasies. Freedom of movement would mean nations couldn’t offer wide-spread public services by right to all residents because of free-loaders, but if they want to attract workers decent infrastructure and public services are exactly what they will need. People won’t go to emigrate to a place were the schools suck, where the angry poor want to mug them and there is no usable transport; not if somewhere not like that will take them. And workers(however highly skilled) often have families; they won’t take a job which if they lose will mean either uprooting their family across the world or starvation if another country is offering a decent safety net. Social-democratic, mixed economies will beat purely capitalistic ones in the free market.
suffered under food rationing in Britain
Quite how stupid are you? There was food rationing in Britain during and immediately after the war because otherwise there would not have been enough to go round. Rationing prevented huge numbers of people from sufferng hunger or malnourishment.
And I’d appreciate it if you would cease patronising me.
I am eminently sure you would … *grin* I’ll file that information under the “useless information” heading.
And I’m not redefining anything, I’m giving the ACTUAL definition of socialism, which is not what the USSR was. Hybrid socialist democratic countries with regulated capitalism are the most stable form of society around, and are the most successful, given they constitute pretty much every single western developed country out there aside from the US.
But hey, don’t let facts get in your way … keep on trucking with your blinkered bad self!
And lol, quoting Friedman … that’s what we call the “insanity card” … please, do pull another … go on!
It’s hopelessly naive to believe you can remove all forms of coercion acting on the rich and powerful without them taking for themselves the coercive role currently held by the state and instigating tyrannies.
Left-wing anarchists are usually able offer at least some kind of plan for how state coercion could be abolished without unleashing the primative tyranny of the strong over the weak. Right-wing libertarians consistently ignore the question.
It’s not the free market that’s to blame; it’s the discretion we allow to reserve banks (who are central planners) to make choices about monetary policy.
So, the answer to the deregulation-caused global economic crisis both now and during the great depression, is MORE deregulation?
*blink*
Yeah, that’s like suggesting the way to help a person suffering a gun-shot wound to live is to shoot them again.
I’m with MissPrism on this one … how stupid are you exactly? And is it a linear or geometric progression?
Incidentally, the British population was healthier under rationing than ever before (or arguably since) as rationing enforced a low-fat diet and because poor people, who couldn’t previously afford meat, were suddenly able to get enough protein. Infant mortality fell sharply.
It’s probably fair to say that rationing awakened Britain to the value of public health, and thereby in part led to the other libertarian’s nightmare, the NHS.
No I don’t, because I don’t argue that state coercion should be abolished. State coercion is necessary to protect private property rights, to prevent the initiation of force or fraud by one citizen against another, and to enforce contracts. Rather, what I contend is that the state should not force you to surrender the fruits of your labour for the benefit of another person, nor should it tell you how you have to live your life.
If we did not have protection from force or fraud, or protection for property rights, then – as you correctly point out – the strong would prey on the weak. Which would be good for no one, because there is always someone stronger than oneself. So the state is necessary.
What is neither necessary nor desirable is for the state to, for example, take away your right to choose your own healthcare. In the UK, even if I use exclusively private healthcare – or never use any healthcare at all – I must still pay, in taxes, for the NHS. Why should I be forced to do that? Why should I be denied the right to opt out of the NHS and take my money elsewhere?
How arrogant and blinkered are you exactly? And do you really think your comments are amusing?
Ok Walton, I’ll bite. Why should I have to surrender the fruits of my labor to the guy who “owns” the company I work for? Shouldn’t all the “profit” he gains from my labor be given to me, rather than held in his selfish greedy hands? Have you ever had a job? Do you know what assholes most managers and business owners are, and how they’ll screw their workers over in a heartbeat? Without OSHA and other government controls do you have any idea what hell most occupations would become? Go shovel horseshit for a couple weeks (a job I had at the State Fair one year) and tell me how great it would be to be ruled by your boss.
I have to pay taxes towards a fire brigade and my house has never caught fire. NOT FAIR. What if I want to use my own hose? And I pay for the police but I’ve never been mugged. OPPRESSION!
Ughh! Well at least your reasonably honest about it. The state should use violence to to protect the privileges of the heirs of the strong who preyed on the weak in ages past (private property) but never to correct these inherited inequalities (even if it would be better for literally everyone to do so).
The strong will also prey on the weak if there exists even one person born with the options of signing her freedom of action over a boss or starvation. Negative freedom on it’s own is worthless if real life is “do what the boss class says or die in agony”.
I made the mistake of asking a question as if libertarianism was about liberty. It’s just class-warring on the side of capital.
No. Because you freely entered into a contract to work for him.
I apologise for making this comment. It was unnecessary and antagonistic.
What if there is no choice? The “free” market allows employers to sink to the lowest degree of responsibility towards their employees and gives the workers no recourse, while destroying any incentive to treat workers fairly. Get a job and come back here to tell us how your “free” market treated you. Criminy, man, your real-world experience is mighty thin.
And I mean a real crap job – digging ditches, shoveling shit, flipping burgers, some real-world job where your boss is unreasonable, and where any of your suggestions are replied to with the old canard “If you don’t like it, start your own business”.
Libertarian “choice”: be exploited, or starve.
Well, of course it is. I’m nineteen. How much real world experience do you expect me to have?
But, “I can only hope that I shall be one of those whose follies will cease with age.” – William Pitt the Younger
By the time I was nineteen, I’d been a day-laborer, shit-shoveler, lawn-maintenance-guy, paper shuffler in a cube farm, and house-keeper/babysitter (temp job). Now I know that most of this is because I couldn’t afford school and life at the same time (my parents refused to help in any way and I had to leave the moment I could get out) and food and shelter were rather important since I couldn’t live with my folks anymore, and I would much rather had the opportunity for an academic life like many posters here, but that was not to be. I don’t expect you to be experienced in all that life throws at people, I’m just sayin’ you’re outlook is kinda naive, since you’ve never been sacked for some lame excuse and put into poverty by some asshole who didn’t like your attitude.
Well, of course it is. I’m nineteen. How much real world experience do you expect me to have?
Well, there’s a shocker.
*falls over laughing*
WRT immigration to NZ (which , let us remember, almost on topic) – good luck understanding the paperwork. Maybe they’ve calmed down now but when I was contemplating the move the requirements and forms appeared to be chaginng on a daily basis. It *can* be done (a cousin managed it after several years) but certainly requires patience and perseverance.
And Walton (which is, let us remember, off topic) – you’re no more a grownup simply because you’re a legal adult than the soviet union was socialist just because it labelled itself so. While you constantly behave like a child you’ll inevitably get patronised – the solution is inherent in the problem. Be happy that you’re too young to have lived through the Thatcher Dictatorship and the Reagan Insanity. “recognised as the greatest heroes of the twentieth century” indeed!
I lol’d.
Put your money where your mouth is. Move here now while you can’t afford it, the same as most Americans.
We recently had visitors who have been living in the south of France for the past few years. They’ve lived all over the world including several years here in NZ in the early 90’s; they’ve been back several times over the years and have adopted a NZ-born child. They’d be our only Christian friends, and one comment they made while they were here was that they found France a much more secular society than NZ. Churches were in a much healthier state here, with a much stronger sense of community.
I have to admit I was surprised – I’d always thought we were pretty secular here, and maybe they’re just remembering how things were 15 years ago, societal attitudes are changing quite rapidly. But maybe large chunks of the western world outside of the US are at least as secular as NZ.
Not that I’m suggesting you should move to France instead, PZ. But be aware that NZ is not a utopia. As others have mentioned there’s lots of woo stuff here, especially alternative medicine, and you can hardly turn on the TV without catching a medium talking to dead people. Then there are the alternative archaeology crowd who reckon we were settled thousands of years ago by the Celts, or the Phoenicians, or the Chinese, or the Egyptians. Creation Ministries International also has a local branch here, and regularly imports speakers from Australia who draw good crowds.
When the game is rigged, it’s not free choice.
Walton:
I’m on deadline with a project at work and have no intention of jumping into this with all four feet, so forgive me in advance if this comment seems like a hit-and-run. That said…
It’s certainly true that when one country treats its citizens better than another country does, that creates a certain “osmotic pressure” at the border (yes, I know NZ doesn’t have a land border with anyone else; “border” is a concept, dammit), and potentially brings people into the first country for reasons that will strike its existing citizens as opportunistic and unfair.
But that doesn’t amount to an argument in favor of the first country abandoning its benefits and racing to the bottom. The phenomenon you point out is just as easily an argument that every country should have socialized medicine than that no country should.
After all, when the people of a country are ruled by unregulated, ad hoc, profiteering warlords, those people often flee to places where folks have functioning police forces and militaries to protect them. Does anyone therefore argue that the existence of these “freeloading” refugees is an argument against “socialized” police and military services?
Thanks for the plug, PZ! Love, from one of the only countries in the world to have the Southern Cross as a circumpolar constellation. <3
Oh yeah, plus we don’t have any of those funny accents of yours. :-)
I have a daughter in primary school in NZ, and I think I should comment on the religious education thing.
NZ education law allows school governors to close the school for half an hour a week for christian religious education. My daughters school does so. What they get is bible study, led by believing but untrained teachers. I honestly think the bad teaching (Manicheanism? When did that stop being heresy?) did more to drive her away from godbothering than my gentle persuasion or her older brothers mockery.
Since the school is technically closed, and it’s at the end of the day, my daughter gets to come home early. I’ll admit to have bribed her with a concession that she can play for half an hour on the Wii before doing homework if she does so!
Oh, and we’re on Auckland’s North Shore if PZ is looking for somewhere to stay around there. On the other hand, my wife misses her family terribly, and by they time PZ retires we may be back in the Twin Cities (where PZ would also be welcome, but is probably less short of potential hosts).
Just as we were speaking of giant squid, another has washed up on Lyall Bay beach, right at the door of the capital city.
The tentacled emissaries of the deep are calling, PZ…
Summary: PZ: willing and welcome; Walton: NO.
#24: Ichthyic, harden up – those sandflies only tickle.
#54 Virginia, apparently not. See http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/295808
@43:
Hello Alison. Small world… :-)
@57: “Only problem: It’s nearly bloody impossible to imigrate there.”
As a scientist you’d have no problem getting past the red tape itself, but getting a job would be the trickier bit. People would probably be happy to have you, if only they had the money: our academia isn’t rolling in cash (we’re funded to the tune of the lower end of the OECD nations). If you’re not as fussy, there are the usual vacancies at the universities.
@58: Agreed. I have to admit from a research career point of view by far my biggest mistake was moving back here. Very provincial as you say. As I try remind people who think of moving here, it’s one thing to travel in a place and another to live there. If you’re into the outdoors, etc., all of that is easily compensated, though.
Regards medical care, visitors are treated essentially free (with a few exceptions), ditto for migrants. This opens up a risk of a few individuals trying to move to get the free health care. This is as much about the paid health care from where they come from as anything else. Think about it ;-)
Rupert @97. My children’s school in Wellington also had religious ed…except that the board was stacked with local fundies and they scheduled it for 9am, which meant it became a defacto lesson and most working parents unhappily let their kids stay. My children were among the few whose parents didn’t want them getting RE (it was terrible imported crap from Australia–full of original sin and God creating Adam and Eve) and so they were stigmatised by having to go to the library. Ironically, among the other kids who had to go to the library were a largish family of brethren children (daughters all in headscarves). My children-of-atheists became great friends with the children-of-brethren and often met to play together. It was this experience that made my atheism much more militant—that a small core of zealots relying on broad apathy and parents’ fear of stigmatising their children could hijack a whole school, was wrong.
We were pleased to escape that when we moved to Christchurch–although there are more Christians down here than I had expected, most keep it to themselves. It is true that parading one’s religion in NZ is a bit of an embarrassing thing to do—primarily, I think, because most people see excessively religious people as a bit silly–if not unstable.
After 9/11 the chaplain at my university in Wellington held a commemorative service. I didn’t go of course, but a young American woman, recently arrived in the country, did, and was horrified by the chaplain’s bland and apologetic references to God–as if such things weren’t quite proper. She wasn’t particularly religious herself–but she seemed to think there should have been more direct and passionate appeals to the deity, along with calls for justice and vengeance. Apparently the turnout was pretty poor as well.
I loooooooooveeeee NZ, Aeotearoa..the long white cloud. Been there a few times in the 80s and it’s like California was in a few years back but with twice the coastline!
As so many have mentioned it’s hardly anyone’s paradise, but if you can’t find a place where you’d feel like you’re among friends in NZ, you may have the problem. I think it’s in part due to the fact that with only 3 million people no matter where you are or who you meet, if they’re from NZ chances are you either know them or their neighbors or a relative. A most congenial society, especially the pixilated ones.
As of religion..odd,isn’t it that they have an official relgion..I think it’s Anglican, and of course,just like England, or any of the other modern nations, they politely ignore it. Which is what I’d all but recommend here, just to pull a “jiu-jitsu” move on the religious movement. No better way to get kids to ignore religion than to make ’em have to study it for a grade. Insist on it…that would teach ’em a lesson they weren’t expecting.
Really religous conservatism was all but gone in the US until sometime in the late 60s with the resurgence of the highly commercialized christian teen movement “jesus people” which was a reaction to some particularly petulant nose-rubbing and eye-gouging in which traditional religions in America were ridiculed and denegrated from time to time…something it had never experienced before and so I think it over-reacted and since has started to believe it’s own BS. I think it deserved to be ridiculed and such and do my fair share but you know how it is with teens…they love to p.o. the parents and when the parents say open up your minds the kids insist on reading the bible…maybe we should insist that they read the bible if they want an allowance or a drivers license and the resentment will drive religion out of their minds…It worked for me.
Speaking of NZ…recall how Captain Cook (he looms large in the modern history of NZ and all of Oceania) got his crew to eat their daily anitscorbutic, sourkraut, which all the crew hated even though they knew it worked. So Capt Cook made a rule that said only officers could have it..the crew threatened mutiny it they didn’t get their share.
Oh, and the ladies of NZ are marevlous.
She’ll be ‘right, mate.
Buy a couple of hundred acres about 50 miles inland. In 15 years it’ll be right on the beach. Real gradual shelf over there, mate.
@102: “As of religion..odd,isn’t it that they have an official relgion..I think it’s Anglican, and of course,just like England, or any of the other modern nations, they politely ignore it”
Semantically speaking, I guess anglicanism is our official religion, given that the English Queen is constitutionally our Head of State. But maybe that’s a good symbol for the significance of religion to us–we see her about once a decade; I think most of us are completely indifferent to her and her inbred family; her representative, the Governor General, is a smiling figurehead who attends tea parties; and one day, when we ditch the Queen, and the sadly shrunken Union Jack on our flag, we’ll be able to officially ditch religion as well.
Okay its far from perfect, but still come to NZ. This weekend is the annual running of the sheep (yes, auctually a real event)
first off, let me say:
stay off my blog, Walton.
there, with that off my chest…
Good grief, there’s a lot of Kiwis reading Pharyngula.
Indeed. Moreover, it is one of the reasons I decided to come down here!
Now that I am here, and it seems like there are a few inhabitants of welly hinging about, is it time for a meet and greet?
what better than discussing matters of a cephalopodian and evolutionary nature at one of the great pubs here? Did you hear they just found another Colossal Squid on the beach in Island Bay??
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/2311472/Giant-no-match-for-colossal-cousin
maybe we could have a piss-up at the upper floor of Kitty Oshea’s over pitchers of Speights Old Dark?
if interested, shoot me an email, or go to my newly born blog.
email:
ichthyicATfisheyephotosDOTcom
blog:
http://pokeitwithastick-ichthyic.blogspot.com/
Actually, it isn’t. The Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, but her religious role relates only to England (not to Scotland, where there is a different established church, nor to Wales where the Church has been disestablished). She has no religious role in the other Commonwealth Realms. Nor do any of the Commonwealth Realms have an Established Church. (As an illustration of this, Church of England bishops in England are appointed by the Queen; elsewhere in the Anglican Communion, they are elected by the clergy of their diocese.)
The fact that you have the Queen as your head of state doesn’t mean that any other part of the UK constitution applies in New Zealand. You’re a completely independent nation which just happens to be in personal union (i.e. sharing the same head of state) with the UK.
And why does everyone on this thread suddenly hate me? From the reaction to my comments, you’d think I’d been proposing the televised murder of small children for entertainment.
Walton,
easy mate,you were nominated for a Molly after all,not quite sure how that happened,but I guess its a recognition that you are using your brain every now and then ! So keep doing that !
Ichty,
I’ll be in NZ for a week in July,if you dont mind an Aussie over there,we can set something up,let me know…..
Walton,
If it’s any consolation, I don’t hate you.
Yes, you’ve got some strange (by my standards) ideas – but you aren’t anywhere near as intractable and mindbogglingly intellectually dishonest in your presentation of them as a number of other posters we get here.
As for the others, well, I’ll hazard a guess and say it’s the L-wordism that rubs some people here the wrong way. It’s very hard for someone to embrace that and not come across as either extraordinarily naive or seriously morally flawed – or both.
That’s not really my opinion; I still don’t know enough about it – or its proponents – to have too much of an opinion either way. But that’s certainly the ‘vibe’ I’ve picked up on.
It’s less the libertarianism — speedwell is another one but doesn’t get the same reactions — than Walton Misogynist’s mindboggling intellectual dishonesty and intractable dogmatism. Example: in the God, abortionist thread we see how he claims to have recently advanced his thinking on abortion, while in fact he has held the exact same view since June. This is a pattern. He often says he’s learning and growing to get the approval of other commenters here, but when you examine the substance, nothing has changed.
They already do. There is plenty of freedom of movement for skilled workers. America is very open to immigration from Western Europe. Strangely enough, most Western Europeans choose to stay in their communist hellholes rather than journey to this great land of freedom. I guess they’re all brainwashed or something. Walton is lucky to have learned to think for himself rather than succumbing to ideological mantras.
strange gods before me, I will respond to your final post to me on the “God, abortionist” thread, as that thread is now closed and I see that you are reading this one.
I do regularly say things which might offend the Tory establishment (and would, if I were a significant enough figure for it to actually matter, which I’m not). I am relatively pro-open-borders on immigration, for example, as I believe I’ve made clear on other threads. (Anti-immigration sentiment is a major characteristic of much of the rank-and-file political right in Britain.)
But what I’m not willing to do is to pick a fight over abortion. Abortion is not and has never been a partisan issue in the UK. Votes in Parliament on abortion-related issues have usually been free votes (conscience-based rather than voting on party lines). I’m happy with that status quo. If I were an MP and the topic of imposing further restrictions on abortion were to arise, I would vote against it – but I would accept that some of my party colleagues would have different views.
No, I’m not. If a proposal is mooted in Parliament to repeal the Abortion Act 1967, I will certainly oppose it, and will do so vocally. But at present, there is no such proposal. (I believe there was a suggestion at one time to lower the cut-off point for abortions from 24 weeks to 22, or something like that, but I can’t remember how it turned out.) I repeat: I will not support the imposition of any further restrictions on abortion. If any such restriction is proposed at any time, I will oppose it publicly on my blog, will write letters to MPs and will do whatever else an ordinary citizen is empowered to do to oppose it. Is that good enough for you?
I think there’s a slight misconception here (which is my fault, from the way I phrased my previous post). Those British politicians who we in Britain might characterise as “religious conservatives” are very, very different creatures from the American religious right. They are much less influential, and they are much less desirous of shoving their beliefs down everyone else’s throats. They’re also, in general, less judgmental about other people’s sex lives. (Even to the point of cognitive dissonance. I know at least three practising Catholics who are in gay relationships. Go figure.)
We do not have an equivalent to Jerry Falwell. Britain has no army of Southern Baptists ready to march and militate against any concessions to the godless and the gays. This simply is not a feature of British politics. But at the same time, there are a fair few people in the Tory Party – though most of them are fairly quiet about it – who are old-fashioned in their social attitudes, and a fair number of them are not keen on abortion. Would it really be productive for me to go out of my way to piss them off and make them angry? Would that make anything better?
As I said, I support abortion rights. So do a lot of Tories, and if it comes to a vote (whether popular or parliamentary) I feel confident that the present situation will be maintained, whatever the party in power. There really is nothing to worry about on that front in Britain.
That said: my comments about the culture war were, really, more apposite in the context of American politics. The fact is that libertarians in the US have been, for some decades, in an uneasy alliance with Falwellian religious conservatives. I don’t like it. The modern GOP is an embarrassment to educated conservatives everywhere. But, in the context of US politics – and, as I’ve said, I would quite like to live in the US some day – we have to put up with it.
Having said that; one of the many things distinguishing US from British politics is the multiplicity of different elections. Were I a US citizen, I would often (though not always) vote for GOP candidates for the presidency and for Congress. But I would always support Democrats in elections for, say, school boards, or in judicial elections in those states which have them. Because while Republicans are (broadly) right on the economy, Democrats are (broadly) right on social issues.
I agree with you that one can’t always separate “economic issues” and “social/moral issues”; many social and moral issues have an economic dimension, and vice versa. Indeed, the artificial distinction is one of the things I dislike about US politics: why is it that if one wants the freedom to keep and spend one’s own money, or to choose one’s own health provider or one’s children’s school, one must vote Republican; but if one wants the freedom to marry who one wants, to control one’s own body or to be free from detention without trial, one must vote Democrat? Yet it’s inevitable – few people will ever defend freedom consistently. Rather, they’ll defend freedom when it suits their interests – so big business, for instance, will stand up for “economic freedom” issues (in some contexts) but couldn’t give a damn about “social freedom” issues.
And so those of us who do consistently defend freedom must, in the context of US politics, make a choice – do we sacrifice economic freedom or do we sacrifice social freedom?
[repost to break up links for spamtrap]
Steaming lies, Walton, contradicted by your own statement that “the conservative movement … (in Britain or worldwide)” cannot afford “more internal division”, every word of which was partisan politics. Last year, over 80% of Tory MPs voted to limit abortions to 22 weeks from the current 24. Only 20% of Labour MPs did. So in general, voting Tory is an anti-woman act, and voting Labour is generally a pro-woman act.
It was an amendment proposed by MP Nadine Dorries to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill last year. She proposed the same thing in 2006, she’s running a web campaign for the proposal and she’s on record as seeking restrictions down to 9 weeks if she can get this 20 week ball rolling. So this is definitely coming back around, and you know it, so there’s no reason to wait to talk about it. But I see no mention of it on your blog.
Abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland. Even by your own measure, this is not a law that should stand. Any time would be a good time for you to start posting about this on your blog. You had a fine opportunity last month. But it’s going to take a long-term, sustained effort to get the law changed, and you don’t have enough interest in women’s rights to sustain your attention span.
As I outlined earlier, the current law is based on misogynistic premises, and is bound to kill and maim women. So no, settling for the current law is not good enough for me. I would have thought I made that clear by calling you Walton Misogynist. The current law is anti-women and you don’t care.
This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. You give up arguing in favor of the current law, admit my reasoning is sound, and then you go on quietly condoning the current law. You don’t change your mind. You just want people to stop yelling at you.
Notwithstanding that we’re talking about a bill proposed just last year which got over 200 votes to force their beliefs down everyone else’s throats. I see.
Contra, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1975933/Christian-fundamentalists-fighting-spiritual-battle-in-Parliament.html
Yes, legalizing abortion in Northern Ireland really would make the world a better place. That this seems ridiculous to you is only evidence of your misogyny.
Lying dumbfuck! A 304-to-233 vote is not at all safe, and could swing in a single election. QUIT TALKING OUT YOUR ASS. It’s bad enough when you yap about US issues you don’t understand. But you’re not even cognizant of women’s issues in your own nation!
Your definition of economic freedom is my freedom to starve to death in the streets. I’m not impressed.
Anyway, this is all boilerplate libertarian bullshit. I gave you specific links to specific topics relevant to this conversation. I should have known it was a waste of time to try to engage you meaningfully.
Outright lies. See, this is why you’re a bad person. Not just because you have bad ideas. Quit lying, liar.
Correction:
January.
Walton@107
“Actually, it isn’t. The Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, but her religious role relates only to England (not to Scotland, where there is a different established church, nor to Wales where the Church has been disestablished).”
Yeah…yeah… I know all that (sheesh…talk about literal!). My point was the old Queen Lizzy is as irrelevant as her religion, which, I might add, was very much the main denomination here for a very long time–and Anglicanism played a big part in the colonisation effrt. Pick that aprt too if you need to–but I won’t be coming back for the pearls.
oops, correction to above email addy.
that was an old one.
use this one:
fisheyephotosAThotmailDOTcom
Strange coincidence – I know several people who live in Nadine Dorries’ constituency (which is in the part of the country from which I hail originally). Though I haven’t met her personally, she’s not well liked in the Tory Party at all, or so I’m told. (I realise this is a bit OT.)
NI is a bit weird compared to the rest of the UK, and it’s the only area that really has a “religious right” in the American sense. (The only US-style fundamentalist I’ve ever met in Britain hails from rural NI.) Yes, I think abortion should be legalised in Northern Ireland – but since we’ve given them devolved government (and we’re currently in the process of devolving judicial and policing matters), that’s rather hard to achieve. Westminster does retain the sovereign right to legislate for NI, and maybe it should… but I doubt it would be an easy process, given the extreme volatility of NI politics. The last thing we need is more instability and anti-British sentiment over there, especially since we’ve had one separatist bombing already this year.
I also read that Telegraph article to which you linked. I’m a bit sceptical about the parliamentary lobbying described; IIRC, Norman Tebbit is an atheist (and I note that the article makes clear that he never laid the amendment in question). Yes, there are some religious nuts in Britain. A liberal society which tolerates different views cannot avoid that. But we are, by and large, a fairly secular society (NI excepted).
Or rather, I don’t have enough personal political influence to do anything significant about it.
As I keep pointing out, ranting on the internet and writing angry letters to MPs does not actually achieve change. “Democracy” in Britain is largely illusory. The practical purpose of our parliamentary system is not to “represent the people” (if such a thing is even possible); it’s simply to allow us to change governments without assassination or civil war. The fact is that ordinary citizens – while, thankfully, we have the right to free speech – do not have any significant influence over what goes on in Westminster. Even Parliament is a relatively powerless body in practice; most significant policy decisions are now made by ministers and Whitehall or EU bureaucrats. As we don’t have primaries, MPs answer to their party whips and not to the public. If one were to wish to do anything for women’s rights in the UK, one would have to get into a position of political power, whether directly or behind the scenes.
What would really solve the above problem, of course, is constitutional reform, reducing the concentration of power in Whitehall, so that these rights are protected against the will of the government of the day, and so that ordinary citizens can have real influence over the political process. And the people who are saying the right things on that front are libertarian Tories such as Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan. We need a constitution with an entrenched bill of rights; we need more localism; we need open primaries so that MPs answer to the people and not to the party. It is a Tory government which holds out some hope of achieving these things.
On a related note: I should tell you that my Facebook status today reads “[real name redacted] is pleased that Iowa has legalised same-sex marriage”. I don’t make a secret of my liberal social views. I am pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and pro-secularism, and I make this clear to people on a regular basis.
Walton #62
Mancur Olson proposed a theory about the beneficial impact of government. Before there were governments, nobody had incentives to produce public goods and they were not provided by anyone. However, nations formed (via various mechanisms) and the taxes of robber kings were preferable to the predations of roving bands of bandits. This is because the tyrants had a long-run stake in the domain they were exploiting (or robbing if you like) and the roving bandits did not have a long-run stake, so their incentive was to have a marginal tax rate of 100%. The roving bandits tried to maximize their theft each time and then moved on to steal from another locale. In contrast, autocrats were motivated to increase the efficiency of these economies by providing public goods and thereby increase the tax receipts over the long run. The autocrat acted in self-interest under limited information to provide public goods that grew the economy for his subjects and simultaneously increased his income. This is one reason why even despots like Castro or Saddam Hussein provide public goods for their nations. It is in their long-run self interest. If they were not thinking about the long run, it would be in their self interest to tax 100% now and keep it all for themselves instead of producing public goods.
Later some nations evolved into democracies. These can be seen, in the least charitable light, as dictatorships of the majority which try to rob the minority. However, the majority (working in self-interest with limited information) will now decide to provide even more public goods in order to increase the income of the majority. This grows the economy more than an autocratic government and now the benefits are much more widely dispersed. This helps to explain one reason why the rich world is virtually entirely composed of long-time democracies.
Furthermore, the roughly 190 national governments of our world compete with each other for productive citizens and for military and economic power. This competition provides some check on the excesses of governments. Factions within countries also compete for power. Generally, the more broadly distributed the power is in a country, the better the government will be at providing public goods as if it were purely benevolent.
Another advantage of social systems with governments is that the government takes a monopoly on the right to use violence. As everyone who has taken Econ 101 knows, monopolists raise the price of their product and decrease the quantity. In this case, the product is a “public bad” and it is desirable to raise the price (credible threat of overwhelming retaliation and possible fines) and decrease the quantity of violence. The incentive for the ruler of the government is self-interest to maximize long term revenue by maximizing economic growth. In anarchic social systems where nobody owns violence, there can be conditions analogous to a “tragedy of the commons” as violence is overused.
The reason everyone here just gets along is because no one gets in each others faces about personal, private things like our religious (or lack of them) beliefs. That means people keep their obnoxiousness to themselves.
Atheists who are so fervant that they would desecrate a Catholic Host are about as welcome in NZ as a pulpit beating fundie minister. Actually probably less because the fundie minister would do his ranting behind closed church doors and wouldn’t harass anyone else’s important stuff.
Shorter Walton Misogynist: “don’t you mind lil ol me, i can’t hurt nobody.”
This refrain is getting very tiring, and you are getting very boring.
Words matter, Walton. Ideas matter. Your words and ideas matter. From somewhere in your psyche, this dirge echoes mournfully, and you’ve got end that tune. It’s almost making me sad. I don’t know if it’s just your cowardice talking — it could be — imagining one’s self ineffectual is a convenient license for retreat.
But I suspect that a larger part of the problem is your depression. Having known depression myself, I can empathize somewhat. It does feel like nothing you do matters, nothing makes the world any better, and it’s already pretty bad so you could hardly make it worse. Telling you that you need to get some perspective on other people’s predicaments, while objectively true, doesn’t much help. Because when you’re depressed, it’s hard to feel anything strongly, full-bodied empathy included. I won’t pry but I do hope you’ve gotten yourself into some manner of reputable therapy by now. Stick with it.
Pharyngula is a very high traffic blog. The ideas you or I or anyone share here do not merely disappear into the abyss. And you’ve held a prominent position at Wikipedia for some time, no? I’m low-balling in my estimate that at least 10,000 people have read at least one comment of yours. The effect is surely compounded if your Wikipedia edits are related to your politics, as that’s a top ten website. Granted, it’s a far smaller number that have actually taken your ideas seriously (so appreciate my vendetta for what it’s worth), but that number is not zero.
You really do make a difference. You’re not David Cameron, but you’re not an aborted embryo either. ;)
It’s not as though getting elected is the only thing people can do. As 80% of Tories are anti-woman, and only 20% of Labour are, doing one’s part in the elections will make a difference for women’s lives. I’m not exactly keen to give you specific advice here, since you’d be working for the generally anti-woman side. The general point is just that sure, writing letters to your MP might not make much difference — don’t discount it entirely, some listen when they’re unsure — but helping to unseat them can work. And when we’re talking about a 304-to-233 vote to take away women’s rights, with electoral swings that large not especially uncommon, you’ve really no excuse.
Mind you, I’m only saying all this so I can accuse you of willful cowardly inaction later. I’d never forgive myself if this little pep talk spurred you.
At this point, I’m going to take for granted your assumption that you just don’t matter. Because we get pretty interesting results from taking that at face value.
You don’t matter, you can’t change anything, so all your words are just sound and fury. Nevertheless, there’s a hint of a tune, if not a melody then at least a tone.
You still focus on things that are important to you. You reveal your priorities and your personality. You write often about the property rights of the moneyed classes; we may infer that the rich are super awesome in your eyes. You blog rarely if ever about laws in your nation that hurt, kill and impoverish women; we may infer that women are disposable to you.
So maybe you are just an irrelevant little troll, with no hope of being reached and no real intent of reaching anyone. You’re nevertheless a misogynistic little troll, and don’t mind taking some time out of my day to point that out. Even if your follies don’t serve as an example to others, I take some pleasure in watching you squirm under the indictment.
Which of these do I really believe: Do I think you have potential for human decency, empathy and meaningful connection, and do I hope for the best? Or do I think you’re doomed to remain a narcissistic troll for the rest of your days? Would you care to guess?
I’ve been virtually inactive on Wikipedia for the last year. I haven’t taken any admin actions for a very considerable time, and have only edited sporadically over the last several months. And no, I have never used Wikipedia articles as a political soapbox; if I had done so, they would never have made me an admin.
Abortion rights are not the only thing which is important. The economy is important; wrongheaded government economic policies have the potential to cause massive human suffering and impoverishment. You may be a single issue voter, but I’m not. I am not going to support a bunch of socialists merely because they’re pro-abortion. The harm their other policies would do to the lives of millions of ordinary people would be incalculably greater.
If there were a major UK party in which every single member was anti-tax, anti-EU, pro-free trade, pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro-free speech and pro-civil liberties, I would support it. But there isn’t. So I have to take the lesser of three evils.
There is no such thing, in modern Britain, as “the moneyed classes” (unless you mean the traditional aristocracy, who today control a comparatively small proportion of Britain’s wealth). There are simply some people who, through a combination of talent, effort and, in many cases, sheer luck, have made more money than others. And there is nothing wrong with this. A person does not deserve to be punished for being successful. It is as immoral to steal from a man with millions as to steal from a man living on the bread line – because you do not have the right to deprive him of his property. Yes, this is a matter about which I feel very strongly. It’s not because I have some attachment to “the rich”; it’s merely because I believe that everyone has the right to keep and dispose of his or her own property however he or she sees fit. There are too few people in these troubled times who are promoting this message, and so, naturally, I do so. The biggest danger our world faces today is that of FDR-style statism; worrying trends in that direction are being displayed both in the US and across Europe. I am fighting it, and promoting the message that the free market has not failed and is still our last, best hope to build a better and more prosperous world for everyone. Do you blame me for concentrating on that?
In this case I wasn’t implying subterfuge. But Wikipedia is a volunteer project, right? People improve upon what interests them.
But it was just a thought. Don’t take it the wrong way.
What an odd suggestion! I’ve roundly criticized you from most every angle by now. Indifference to women’s lives is just the easiest charge that I can make stick.
Blah blah blah. I’ve watched SC try to educate you on this matter, and I’ve watched you ignore her. Same with Knockgoats. They’re both more educated than me on the history of capital. I’m not going to bother, and I’m not going to take what you have to say seriously until I see you deal with them seriously.
Well, maybe a bit of fun. Thought experiment: I’ve been starving for several days and I will die soon, maybe today. For [suspension of disbelief] reason, I’ve been completely unsuccessful at begging for handouts, finding charity, or state aid. Should I steal a loaf of bread from a well-to-do merchant, or should I die? These are my only two options. It’s awfully simplistic, but I think some people in times past have faced similarly bleak circumstances. And it is just a thought experiment.
Whew, that’s good to hear. We’re going to be all right then. And here I had thought exponential overpopulation coupled with global warming feedback loops were going to be the greatest danger during my lifetime. Figured that a resurgent white supremacist/Christian fascism was a real possibility, given the inevitable wars for dwindling territory as deserts spread and oceans swallow coasts. Expected many tears, punctuated by dread. FDR would be cake.
I blame you for treating women’s ability to plan for their own economic futures as unimportant, given your obsession with finance. Even within the boundaries of what you claim to regard as important, abortion is tremendous. Women’s education is central to poverty, and reproductive rights are central to planning both education and finance.
Taking for granted that you believe what you claim to believe, women’s rights are far, far more important than you seem to realize. Given the simplicity of googling this shit, I regard your ignorance as indifference.
You aren’t being internally consistent. You assert – and I’m inclined to agree – that a woman, as property owner of her own body, has an absolute right to exclude the foetus from the use of her body, even where the death of the foetus results. Her body is hers; she’s under no obligation to use it to keep the foetus alive. So why do you not similarly assert that a property owner has an absolute right to exclude a starving person from the use of his or her property, even where the death of the starving person results? His bread is his, and he’s under no obligation to use it to keep the starving person alive.
If it’s OK to override property rights in order to save lives, then your argument for universal, unlimited abortion-on-demand falls down. Conversely, if it’s not OK to override property rights in order to save lives, then just as the foetus has no right to sustain its life by using the woman’s body against her will, so a starving person has no right to sustain his life by eating another’s food against his or her will.
Unless you’re asserting either (a) that the life of a foetus is worthless; or (b) that the right a person has over his or her body is not a mere property right, but a sui generis type of right more extensive than a normal property right. In either case, you have to justify why.
Unless the woman’s life is objectively worth more than the fetus’s, and her interests so compel our protection more than can the fetus’s. Which I have already asserted and explained, and these explanations you have not challenged.
I would if I were backed into a corner, but I don’t think it’s necessary here. We’re comparing my life with the merchant’s bread. I hope that my life is uncontroversially worth more. So I ask again, your opinion, Walton, should I steal a loaf of bread or should I die?
Hold up. I didn’t challenge that claim when you originally made it because it wasn’t the only line of reasoning you were using.
Yes, the woman’s life (in the sense of “life or death”) is objectively worth more than that of the foetus. And, like the majority of people, I unconditionally support the right to abortion in any case (regardless of the stage of pregnancy) where it’s medically necessary to save the life of the mother.
But the more difficult question is whether abortion on demand is an unconditional right – that is, whether a woman has an absolute right, at any stage in the pregnancy, to choose to abort the foetus even where the pregnancy is medically normal. As I understood it, you were arguing that she does have such a right because she owns her own body, and she therefore has the right to deprive the foetus of access to it, even if doing so will kill the foetus. That’s fine; that argument is consistent and logical, though many people would strongly disagree with its premises. But if one accepts that argument – i.e. that property rights outweigh the preservation of life – then one is also forced to the conclusion that if a person does not wish to surrender his property to feed another, he should not have to do so.
I’m not expressing an opinion of my own here; I’m pointing out that your position is internally inconsistent. Either the duty to preserve life outweighs the right to exclude others from one’s property, or it does not. (Or, as I said, there are two more options; either (a) the foetus is not “life”, or (b) one’s property rights over one’s own body are a special sui generis type of right which is more extensive than other property rights, and which outweighs the duty to preserve life where a normal property right does not. But if you argue for one of these options, you need to provide some justification.)
That’s awesome. My supernatural powers of Walton-prediction told me that you were going to say this. No insult there, I’ve probably just spent too much time picking your brain.
What I’ve been saying is that, given that the woman has the right to preserve her own life, it is not possible to craft a law that both respects this right and prohibits abortion on demand, because any such law would be incapable of handling borderline cases, and would err on the side of killing women.
So, if you’re asking “is there an absolute right to abortion from bodily autonomy”, you’re asking about a theoretical right that the law can never address. It can never matter, because even in the absence of such a right, a law which seeks to protect the fetus’s rights instead will necessarily run afoul of the woman’s right to life. And if there is such a right, its territory is still already covered by the leeway necessary to the woman’s right to life.
Now, are you interested in rights that the law can never address? I am not. I expect that making a big deal of them will just complicate unrelated matters, because so many people are fuzzy thinkers.
If you demand that I produce a basis for such a right, sui generis as you say, I am prepared to do so. But I find it irrelevant in general, and especially irrelevant to this discussion because we’re not talking about my bodily autonomy vs the merchant’s bread, we’re talking about my life vs the merchant’s bread. So I would prefer to get on with the bread before going on this irrelevant tangent.
You are at some point going to answer the question about the bread?
I’ll answer your hypothetical with another hypothetical. Let’s say you’re dying of kidney failure, and another person has two healthy kidneys, one of which they can easily donate to you. Would you be justified in forcing them, coercively, to donate a kidney?
If not, then you are still making, by necessary implication, the claim that a person’s rights over his or her own body are a special kind of right which is more extensive than ordinary property rights. Why is a person’s kidney any different from his loaf of bread? Why do you have any more right to take his bread than to take his kidney?
In fact, stealing his bread is arguably worse than stealing his kidney. A person receives his or her kidneys (and the rest of the body) for free, courtesy of Nature. By contrast, the merchant in your hypothetical has expended time and labour (unless his wealth is hereditary; let’s assume it’s not) in order to obtain that loaf of bread. Accordingly, by stealing from him, you are in some measure enslaving him; you’re taking from him the benefit of his time and effort.*
*(I’m not necessarily endorsing this line of argument. If carried to its logical conclusion, it would mean we should have no income, payroll or sales taxes, but a 100% inheritance tax. But I digress.)
Because I am not endangering the well-to-do merchant by taking his bread. That’s why I chose a well-to-do merchant, rather than a fellow poor person who’s living hand-to-mouth. It would be more wrong to steal bread from the poor person, because I’m endangering their life.
Putting the merchant under unnecessary surgery most definitely endangers his life. So your hypothetical is not equivalent.
In the absence of a more explicit answer, I will take this implication as your answer that I should choose to die rather than steal bread.
NZ used to have a rep as a really difficult place to get laid. Hopefully that has changed as well.
In a Durex survey of promiscuity, NZ women came on top – um, let me rephrase that, were the most promiscious of all surveyed.
No idea about NZ males – but the distaff side must be getting it from someone. Perhaps it was a disgruntled tourist spreading such vile rumours?