Monday, November 23, 2009

We want democracy

On Saturday, several thousand people marched in Auckland, many chanting "we want democracy".

This implies we don't have democracy. I`ll be posting on this sometime this week. But for now, consider this:

What is the democracy that the marchers wanted? What is democracy?
Update Heaps of pix here. The $450,000 reportedly spent on the march is more than the amount that the Kiwi Party, the Libertarianz, the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party and the Family Party spent on the 2008 general election combined.




Blogger bruddah said...

We do not have an ownership society, we have a rentier plutocracy increasingly controlled by transnational capital. we get to swap out our landlords once in a while but they do not act in the interest of the people. the national wealth is not redistributed it is funnelled to the executive class. people spend their lives enslaved to mortgages or renting and unable to save for the future. Dreams are lost, potential is missed, honest work is not rewarded, clever-dick financiers cream the fruits of others' labour.

maybe i have been reading too much, but democracy and economics are supposed to serve the people not exploit them

November 23, 2009 at 3:32 AM  
Blogger Chuck Bird said...

Dave, I can only say why I marched. The type of democracy I would like to see is that moral legislation must be approved by a general referendum before it becomes law. I have heard the argument by libertarians that all legislation is moral legislation and that tax is theft. I acknowledge that there can be some difficulty defining moral legislation. Before the anti-smacking legislation the easiest way to define moral legislation would legislation that is voted on by a conscience vote rather than along party lines. Examples of such legislation would be laws relating to abortion, euthanasia and the drinking age. These issues have been voted on as a free vote.

I am generally against referenda on most only issues. I went to a lecture by Richard Ekins hosted by the Maxim Institute. One can read his paper at the following link.

I realise the anti-smacking legislation was voted on along party line. This was because of a unique set of circumstances. It was a private member’s bill and was going to be voted on as a free vote. While lobbying was going on Philip Field became and independent MP. Labour was then dependant on the Green vote and Labour agreed to make this a government bill in return for Green support.

It is a little unclear exactly why Key made the flip flop and forced all him MPs to do the same. It also seems likely that Key has also done a backroom deal with the Maori Party not to change the law.

I do not think it democratic that moral legislation of this nature is decided by backroom deals. This is another downside of MMP.

November 23, 2009 at 9:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dave. You say that Colin spent $450,000. He says he didn't. Please provide accounts because obviously you have them. or maybe you've brought into the media attacks.

November 24, 2009 at 7:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon, where did I say that he spend $450,000. I never said that. However, I did say that this figure was reported.


November 24, 2009 at 10:12 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Clicky Web Analytics