sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Suzi Kerr says to get traction on climate change issues in this election, campaigners need to focus on the political aspects including the cultural and social evolution ones

Suzi Kerr says to get traction on climate change issues in this election, campaigners need to focus on the political aspects including the cultural and social evolution ones

By Suzi Kerr*

The biggest environmental issue that New Zealand must address seriously now is climate change mitigation.

In doing this we need to show leadership, use science (especially economics and psychology), and have politics focus on what really matters to voters.

The following post was originally presented as a speech at the Auckland University Business School Ballot Box event on Wednesday, August 13.

Why climate change?

It is irreversible, cumulative, systematic (affects all aspects of life on earth), and complex.

While solutions need not be expensive if done well, they will involve all aspects of our society: economy, culture, diet, identity, recreation …

Climate change is the greatest threat to our biodiversity, water resources and oceans in the long term.

In contrast to climate change, water issues are mostly reversible and biodiversity issues are more focused in both the effects and the solutions.

Addressing these other environmental issues is good and will often help with climate change but we cannot effectively address climate change only through related issues:  significant opportunities will be missed and some effort will be misdirected.

For example many people still talk about insulation programs as climate policy despite strong evidence that in the short run at least, they have had almost no effect on emissions.

So what should we be discussing about climate change in the context of the election?

There is agreement across the political spectrum that we should be pricing carbon. That’s a great place to start.

There are however political differences in how high the price should be and how we should share the benefits and protect the vulnerable (poorer households and workers and owners of assets in declining industries) during a transition to a lower emissions future.  

Some people feel cheated and disillusioned as a result of the large gains some individuals and companies are reaping through avoidable arbitrage opportunities in the ETS and are uncomfortable with the perception of large gains from free allocation of emission units in the case of industry, or exemption from the system in the case of agriculture.

The recession, which has hit the poorest disproportionately in all societies, the global discussion about inequality and the top 1%, and our growing understanding of the increased decoupling of GDP and societal wellbeing, has brought into stark relief that in periods of fundamental change, even if society as a whole benefits (which we would by controlling climate change) some individuals will lose a lot while some will reap large gains if we do not pay close attention.

These fundamental issues of New Zealand’s overall level of effort to shift toward low emissions, and how we manage distributional issues is what political discussion should be about, not which technical instrument, tax or ETS, should be used to realise the politically determined goals.

While carbon pricing is critical it is only one part of an integrated solution.  Beyond carbon pricing in the context of the election and beyond, we can discuss how the government can best work with the private sector (both business and civil society) to make smooth, rapid, transitions to low emissions mobility, production and homes.

Political debate can consider different ways that government can support society’s ongoing cultural evolution to be consistent with a low emissions future.  Many futures are possible; as a society we need to choose our direction.  In these discussions we need to focus on the wellbeing of all New Zealanders where we know that income, measured as GDP, is a highly imperfect measure of wellbeing.  GDP and emissions continue to be closely linked (though they do not need to be) but wellbeing and emissions are much less linked so we have many options.

These are questions on which people with different political perspectives will genuinely differ, and which need to be resolved through dialogue and democratic processes.

But climate change is a global issue, and it makes no sense for discussion of New Zealand policy to focus only within our borders. How much we contribute is and will continue to be chosen in the context of what others are doing and could do. The way we contribute should also be strategically chosen to have the greatest global effect taking advantage of our strengths.

Can and should New Zealand take a global leadership role on climate change?

Yes we can – we have taken leadership roles before (women’s suffrage; nuclear free, 1980s economic reform); other similar states have taken leadership roles on climate (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Califiornia, British Columbia; but also Costa Rica, Brazil) and New Zealand has shown climate leadership already, for example with our innovative ETS and with research on agricultural emissions.  New Zealand still has disproportionate influence for our size internationally.

So we can take leadership, but should we?

This involves two questions:

  1. Is leadership likely to be effective in increasing global effort?
  2. Will it be beneficial to New Zealand?

First, is leadership likely to be effective?  Simple economics shows that although climate cooperation is beneficial globally, every individual, town, industry and country has a strong incentive to free ride when we try to address the problem, and simple economics predicts low or no cooperation.  We often hear arguments for inaction based on this – that group X (choose your favourite – I’ve heard this from many groups in many parts of the world) is too small to make a difference and therefore shouldn’t act.  But the world can be broken into groups which each contribute 0.14% to global emissions; yet if none of them act, we will all lose.  So small size is a spurious reason for why New Zealand specifically should not take leadership. 

Ultimately it is people who cooperate (or not). We talk a lot about ‘countries’ doing things but States just aggregate the preferences of people within them and States’ decisions are always strongly influenced by small groups of people. 

And the good news is that simple economics is wrong about people.  People do cooperate to solve problems, all the time.  Economies would not function without high levels of cooperation. 
There is now a huge academic literature in the cross-over between economics and psychology showing through experiments and case studies that people consistently do two things.

  1. Most people will contribute to a cooperative outcome, against their selfish interests.
  2. Most people will contribute and cooperate more when they see that others are contributing.  

Together these two characteristics of humans can create a virtuous cycle of rising cooperation.  That growing cooperation can be stimulated with leadership by what are often called ‘white knights’ and can be made less fragile as cooperative behaviour is, by mutual consent, embedded in regulations and institutions.

Why should New Zealand take leadership – be a white knight?

  1. We have a real stake in a stable climate – we have a wonderful country and standard of wellbeing to protect.
  2. We can only directly influence ourselves – if we want white knights to exist we can’t force others take that role  (7 habits of effective people)
  3. We are among the people with the highest level of wellbeing on earth by any measure – we can afford it
  4. Climate leadership can make us proud and can support the international reputation of New Zealand and New Zealanders from which we all benefit; and finally
  5. It doesn’t have to cost much.

Global economic modelling consistently shows that the costs of controlling climate change need not be that high if, and that’s a critical if, we do it efficiently.

We can start by putting our effort into doing things that we already know will help – e.g. a higher carbon price, providing tools to farmers so they can easily understand what drives their emissions, changing tax structures to avoid perverse incentives to over-intensify farms or over-use nitrogen fertiliser, eliminating barriers to experimentation with and diffusion of new low emission technology, controlling pests in our forests…. 

We can also help work out, from a strong social science basis, other ways to achieve the changes we know are technically possible.  We can experiment with promising policy ideas.  If we carefully evaluate our experience and actively engage internationally to share that experience, we could have significant global impact while improving the wellbeing of New Zealanders. 

Motu, with many wonderful collaborators: business leaders, NGOs, Maori, government officials and academics, including researchers at the University of Auckland, are working actively in this space with our new Low-Emission Future programme.  That programme is showing both the great potential New Zealand has for global leadership on climate action and also the challenges of doing this type of non-political climate policy work in New Zealand.  Despite significant funding from the Aotearoa Foundation (which is funded from the US) we are struggling to raise the relatively modest local co-funding we need to sustain the programme.  Help is welcomed.

In summary, I’d like to leave you with three key points:

  1. We must talk about climate mitigation    
  2. In the election process we should focus on truly political issues: 
  • How high should we aim to set the carbon price?
  • What is our desired distribution of costs and benefits during the transition to a low emissions society?
  • What is our desired process for cultural and social evolution:  including management of constitutional and legal issues?
  • Ultimately:  what sort of society do we want in the long term? 

Within any given set of political parameters we can then explore - in a non-political way -   instruments to achieve those using the best available economics, psychology, law, humanities ...

  1. We should discuss how we can lead globally, make a difference and be proud. Not by putting on a hair shirt (who would want to follow!) but by implementing policies we know are not high cost (eg. a moderate carbon price); experimenting with new ideas, especially in areas where New Zealand is globally unusual (agriculture and forestry); credibly evaluating our efforts; and letting people know what we are doing and what we are learning.

Climate change is inherently hard to address and we are likely to fail as often as we succeed.

It would be great if we could learn from failure and adapt rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater; if we could support those brave enough to risk failure; and emphasise the water we are gradually dripping into the glass to give us heart so that we can all persist in our efforts and ultimately make a real difference.

Every drop counts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Suzi Kerr is a Senior Fellow at Motu Economic and Public Policy Research. This article also appeared on the blog “New Zealand’s Low-Emission Future.”  The views expressed are those of the authors.  

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

57 Comments

That's a really good article which deserved more attention than it seems to get.  Sadly it's so good that I cannot think of any contentious or argumentative response that will wind up the usual suspects and so get a debate going, sorry.  But I wanted you to know that at least one of us read and appreciated your work here, thanks.

Up
0

Agree, so two.

regards

Up
0

I think the two main parties are far from interested in doing anything that impacts their political outlook at the moment. The third is willing and the fourth is making OK noises in that direction. That while small is a quite noticable change in a short time span, if that rate keeps up then we might get somewhere.

In terms of leadership NZ has a clean and green image that is more than a little tarnished. Taking a leadership role and moving a tidy lick aka the Greens' policy at the least will stop further blackening of our reputation and help sell our products.

I find it strange that we have a commodity outlook for our produce when in fact as we can see with the chinese buying up NZ made baby formulae and farms as fast as they can there must be a considerable scope for being high value.

regards

Up
0

And the use of economics and psychology is thought to be sound science - by which to push this issue on people to accept the far from settled science.

A good scientist is always skeptical!!!!  Correlation is not Causation!! And measuring at Mauna Loa MLO certainly has its issues the common one is that it is a volcano.

 

The biggest issue to face NZ is the poor science that is being perpetuated upon the population. Please Suzi explain to me if the surface is not in mechanical equilibrium or in chemical equilibrium or in thermal equilibrium has it not failed the three requirements to be in thermodynamic equilibrium. If the science is settled then you, me and everyone on the planet would have to accept that dymanic equilibrium or steady state means thermodynamic equilibrium.

 

Then there is Henry's Law.....and things just aren't quite fitting the picture for me.....outgassing would require seperable partial pressures by isotropic weight and it all seems a little bizarre.

 

And then there is this.

 

How does the system respond to a disturbance, the answer is given by Le Chatelier's Principle:

If a system at equilibrium is disturbed by a change in temperature, pressure, or the concentration of one of the
components, the system will shift its equilibrium position so as to counteract the effect of the disturbance.

-Le Chatelier's Principle (1888)

 

http://bouman.chem.georgetown.edu/S02/lect8/lect8.htm

 

 

Up
0

Economics and psychology!

One can't help but think of Ernest Rutherford:

- "An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid."

- "If your experiment needs statistics/[economics and psychology] you ought to have done better experiment."

Up
0

The only thing science is settled on is that the climate will always change.

Yes, flooding may be worse these days then it has ever been ( no one will never really know) but as far as rainfall goes we are not seeing anything extreme. The increased flooding is due to manmade development. Each extra hectare of tar, concrete and roofing iron means that the storm water system has to cope with an additional quarter of a million litres of water for every 25 mm of rain ( a decent downpour). Instead of the soil being able to soak it up and then slowly releasing it. Manmade yes but nothing to do with climate. Add to that the non maintenance of drains and it all gets diabolical.

Yes, temps in the cities have gone up but again that is due to the heat absorption and release of above said structures, not  to mention the heat generated by other man made inventions. 

Let's say that they are correct and after the various adjustments they need to make (for whatever reason) to the temp the average is indeed up by the commonly stated 0.6 degr C ( some models predicted 2 degr C by now) it has not gone up further for 16 years and we  now have 38 different explanations for the "pause". Even the sun was recently mentioned as having an influence, who would have thought?

We are still having ice on both poles, one a bit less then normal the other a bit more. (the north pole should have been ice free by now)

Energy content of total storm activity is down and in most if not all regions heavy storm activity is less. (it was to get really bad with these)

There is still snow in winter unlike the model predictions of some.

Yes glaciers are receding but guess what - they find evidence of human activity where the ice has receded, iow in the past there were no glaciers there either. 

Yes some areas now have a different weather pattern but that is what happens when you cut down the trees and turn it into crop land.

Man does have an impact on local weather patterns, absolutely.

But the climate is doing what it has always done - changing.

Suzi you can rest easy, nothing is going to happen that nature did not intend. But of course it may not suit some. The problem is we can't control it and that is what some have a problem with.

AGW is manmade ok.

A manmade fantasy. 

As in the past warming periods, humanity always did well when it got warmer and was struggling when it cooled again. It seems that some are happy to see others struggle.

 

I always find it ironic that political "progressives" do not accept a changing climate whereas political  "conservatives" accept that we live in an ever changing world and are happy to adept. You would have thought that it should be other way around.

 

 

Up
0

We and the species around us and the eco-system, and agri-culture cant change fast enough.

regards

Up
0

Those of us in agriculture live and work according to climate steven.  Hence we are more adaptable than you give us credit for.  Long term adaptability usually takes a wee bit of time, but we get there in the end.  Where I now live, a glacier once was.  The climate changed and it is no more.  

 

Some of us believe in humankinds ability to adapt, some see climate change as an opportunity to make money out of others fears of change, and some just have fear of change.  To believe that we can change the course of nature is arrogance in the extreme.  

Up
0

local changes are possible - "Death Valley" in the USA was originally massive forest area not unlike NZ.  It was cleared and planted as pasture....changing the rain patterns, and without established top soil and anchoring plants, it dried up and blew away.

Climate does change.  Grapes and Lions used to be grown in the north of the UK.  Too cold now.  But  its just a matter of adapting to what is there, no reason for making pollution...but too many people overreacting, trying to be seen to outdo each other in hysteria

Up
0

"Energy content of total storm activity" URL? from what I have read the warmer water and that is goes far deeper means hurricanes etc are going to be bigger, a lot bigger.

regards

Up
0

"going to". Wouldn't have we seen it by now? See the NOAA data since 1945.

Up
0

Well it seems we have had more and bigger Hurricanes this year and it isnt over yet.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-have-been-5-yes-5-monster-hurrica…

So it hardly looks like less and smaller.

More like,

"Right now, there are two major questions: Just how many more records will the 2014 Northeast Pacific Hurricane season set? And will one of those be a new record strongest hurricane ever recorded in the basin?"

regards

Up
0

"Monster" hurricanes! Who is trying to push up the value of their bunker? Have a look on a global basis. Yawn.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YAO92b5mz2Q/UL-77ukhO7I/AAAAAAAACSI/NUhR0fVdL…

Up
0

"temps in the cities have gone up" and so? nothing especially to do with climate change at all.  The heat island effect is well known.

http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Urban_heat_island

regards

Up
0

"Even the sun was recently mentioned as having an influence, who would have thought?

Thought? um no,

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming…

"Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming."

Up
0

"flooding may be worse these days then it has ever been" no one will never really know)"

Actually we do the [re-]insurance industry is extremely worried and looking to pass on costs or maybe withdraw.  Oh and try getting a loan off a bank if you are un-insured, fat chance.

regards

 

 

Up
0

Flooding. Globally you are 98% less likely to die of flooding/extreme weather today than you were in 1920's. You're being scammed by big insurance so there is a surprise - don't mistake worried for gleeful. Perfect demonstration of how adaptable mankind is.

 

Up
0

Oh right, no matter what the data is, we are being scammed. What do you want as proof? I suspect nothing would be absolute enough in your case.

Insurance companies do the stats/odds btw. They want to make a % so once they now the frequency they can set a price.  However when 1 in 100 year events happen as 1 in 20 and maybe even 1 in 5 they cant even plot that change rate.  What happens then? well they either charge a lot more and cripple business with those fees, or withdraw from insuring or the business stops paying and gambles. Such huge losses when they then occur will dwarf an economy such as ours. Oh and if you cant get insurance for a house you cant get a mortgage on it either.

regards

 

 

Up
0

Sure - show me the data you are more likely to die of floods now than you were early last century. Don't mistake economic growth on floodplains for more extreme weather. The insurance industry love chicken littles. Pontificating about global warming shows how much they care. Great PR.

Up
0

Just go read what the insurance industry is saying.

I think you'll care when we see insurance get so high it cant be afforded. The thing is you cant force a private entity/business/person to insure you.

Of course even worse labour wants to do that (become an insurer) which is plain stupid.

regards

 

Up
0

Yes I read what insurers have to say - but you also have to balance that with GDP normalised cost data. As GDP goes up and people with short memories build on floodplains the cost per event goes up. But once GDP is normalised not much is happening. You house is worth more but so is your income to pay for insurance so these things balance out.
Remember the insurers are trying to sell you something.

Up
0

"it has not gone up further for 16 years"

Actually that isnt true.  Some years since 1998 (which was an exceptional peak year) have been warmer than 1998 and we have had the warmest decades.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

"......Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010."

regards

 

Up
0

1998 wasn't an "exceptionally peak year". The rate of increase 1975-1998 was no different to 1860-1880 and 1910-1940 before SUV's were invented. Yes, it is getting warming - it is an interglacial so you would expect that.

Do we have runaway global warming? No. If it was was you would expect temperature to be rising faster than in 1910-1940.

Can't paste for some reason. See Nature Jan 2014 - 0.04/dec actual, 0.21 modelled/predicted, Trenberth "it's a travesty we can't find the missing heat" quote and also Jones BBC interview Feb 2010

 

 

Up
0

Yes 1998 was an exceptional peak year.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

"In 1998, an abnormally strong El Nino caused heat transfer from the Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere. Consequently, we experienced above average surface temperatures. Conversely, the last few years have seen moderate La Nina conditions which had a cooling effect on global temperatures."

regards

Up
0

So it was all about an "abnormally strong El Nino" not about SUV's. Even with "abnormally strong El Nino" it didn't warm any faster than 1860-1880 or 1910 to 1940.

Cut and paste from "Skeptical" Science - dudes who astroturf, fabricate quotes and photoshop themselves as Nazi SS officers... Try harder.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

Up
0

No, the hotter than normal 1998 was due to the extra influence of an abnormally strong el nino.  On top of that several years since have been as hot without such an el nino.

If you look at the entire temperature record from 1860 to 2014 you will see a trend that rises constantly with some flatish periods and some periods that rise faster, so what its a bit of variation.

Skeptical science is a link to all the research,  I dont need to try harder, its good enough.

That piece btw is 4 years old and the Qs are cherry picked by deniers.

regards

 

Up
0

Exactly - your second paragraph nails it. All that variation between 1860-today yet we are not seeing the rate of increase accelerating. Warmer yes, but you expect that in a interglacial. No runaway global warming even though 25% of industrial CO2 went in since 2000. Time to get a new theory.

As for "denial" questions for poor Phil - it was a BBC interview. The biggest buch of hand wringers out there! Have a read up on 28gate to see how utterly compromised they are by big green.

Up
0

An old BBC interview with it looks like loaded questions supplied by deniers, hadrly balanced looking.

Now you are switching to "runaway" which is a different context/argument. 

Not increasing?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

Yeah right, looks like a bit of an upward trend to me.

 

regards

 

Up
0

Steven you like the word "deniers"...don't you....Are you denying something?

 

 

Up
0

Well lets see when terms like,

"climate nazi's" is used?

Denier is fairly mind by comparison.

Lets look at the english term,

"One who denies"

So we have a small but vocal and well paid it seems / group or those who with very right wing fringe politics who despite the overwelming amount of evidence deny man made climate change, it isnt rational IMHO.

Just who is in denial here?

regards

 

Up
0

Steven, you can dress it up however you like. The Phil Jones data table in the BBC interview is unequivocal - nothing out of the ordinary is happening. The interview is a few years old - but so what - it is was discussing trends last century. Nothing much has happened since other than the 0.4/dec warming vs 0.21/dec predicted. When will interglacial warming stop - who knows.

Up
0

wow steven an own goal there i think..you are correct there has been a consistant warming trend(no runaway global warming)  so now you have changed camps..no shame in that..

as someone  notable once said,

"people are decieved on mass .. and enlightened one at a time"

welcome aboard

Up
0

Um no, dont put words in my mouth.. 

There has as yet been no runaway climate change, that is probably correct. Now will there be or not? Many of the climate scientists say that there is probably a very good case for saying yes once above a 2Deg rise.

"Consistant" as in the upward trend can be observed and not "constant" as in no appreciable change of rate.

regards

 

 

Up
0

You're on fire today - "many" "probably". Given the current rate of warming at 0.04/dec all of these gravy train types will be dead before we even see 2 degrees of warming. Not really a reason to hamstring and economy. Just stick the pollution laws we have.

"Many of the climate scientists say that there is probably a very good case for saying yes once above a 2Deg rise."

Up
0

Some people don't understand the difference between trend and variation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vj-0imOLw

Up
0

Hi,

Some ppl dont actually want to understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klgp_qDiRhQ

regards

Up
0

Explaining CC to a barmaid, or the population in general, needs to reach her at a level that relates to her life and this is where the use of soundly-based fiction or film can make an impact. 'Clifi' had quickly become a favoured way of communicating the message. Search it on Google and see how US scientists and commentators are taking up the genre. Even the Smithsonian magazine has put out a call for 'clifi.' And, to my surprise and gratification, my new novel MiSTORY  has made the NZ bestseller list. This speculative novel looks at where we could be if we carry on with 'business as usual.'

Up
0

Another reason not to vote National.  All these climate change deniers vote National.  Make your vote for a smarter greener economy and kick the flat earthers to touch.

Up
0

.. " All these climate change deniers vote National " .

 

Can you back up that remarkebly bold assertion with some actual facts ?

 

Up
0

Ummm. 

Actually while substantially correct,

a) There were 1000 odd votes for the Libertarian party, last election, I'd be gob smacked if most of those were not deniers.

bi) The % that votes Act?

bii) % for Crazy Colin?

biii) How mnay NZF voting golden oldies are deniers?  probably a decent %.

biv) The fundi god squaddies? (assuming they are not voting for Crazy Colin).

c) The hard left are equally in denial and just as vocal.

d) Even Labour supporters want a "just" environmental policy, ie one that doesnt cost jobs or stop growth.

regards

 

Up
0

Profile and notaneconomist and the other chap on this post could you please confirm to gummy who you vote for?

 

 

Up
0

... aha , so there's just the three of them .. .. my buddies Mr profile and Mr notaneconomist ... and steven ??? ...

 

So watcha actually meant to say was " all three of these climate change deniers who vote National " .... yesssssssss ?

Up
0

Not Steven, jake.  My comment was in the context of this post.  

 

For or a smarter greener economy give your party to the greens

Up
0

dont you mean 

For a smaller greener economy give your party to the greens..

 

fixed it for you   ..your welcome

Up
0

... since when have the Greens stood for the environment , I thought they'd been hijacked by the socialist party , anti-smacking , social engineering , tax the productive sector to the moon & beyond ...

 

But know wotcha mean , the Tasmanians have have a Greens state government for some years , and the economy has shrunken considerably , and jobs gone lickety-splick ...

Up
0

A shrinking economy is good for the environment though.  The problem is joe public want more of everything not less.  So a smarter greener economy is the compromise.  

Up
0

sadly they also don't want to pay for it; and smarter and greener both cost more...

Up
0

So it will be more expensive or nothing, there is  no other option, and your choice is?.

Agree (on them not wanting to pay for it), and that is the disconnect.

I dont agree with "smarter" and greener costing more in the medium and longer term. 

I mean are you really saying doing something "smarter" is more costly? isnt that an oxy moron?

Anyway the problem is a) we wont have the fossil fuel to have a non-green economy, between now and then fossel fuels will get ever more expensive, and scarce and hence wont be cheaper.

b) Greener in the context of producing power/energy we can use has to be greener there will be nothing else as an option.

regards

 

 

Up
0

It is going to shrink no matter what. With moving to a Green economy ie one that is sustainable it will shrink sure but probably not collapse, unlike the never ending growth BAU model both National, Act, Labour and even Mana (what strange bedfellows) thinks is a goer..

regards

 

Up
0

Message to all Greens........Caring for the planet.......during the September elections....please think of the environment and place all ballot papers in the appropriate recycling bin located under or at side of the ballot box please.......

Up
0

Oh you are so funny.....lets not have democracy eh? lets just do it notaneconomist's way as she knows best.

Yes that will end well....

regards

Up
0

Well it depends on your definition of democracy and the values and principles that people uphold.....but I like the following interpretation.

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy...Abraham Lincoln........

 

And if we don't hold these principles of democracy as expressed by Abraham Lincoln it is easy to become a victim to the following:

Democracy is the road to socialism...Karl Marx.......

Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance...H.L. Mencken.................

 

The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and then take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting ...Charles Bukowski.

 

Democracy and Socialism have nothing in common but one word...equality. But note the difference: While democracy seeks equality in Liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude....Alexis de Tocqueville

 

 

It is not in the nature of politics that the best people should be elected. The best people do not want to govern their fellowmen. ~George E. MacDonald

 

Up
0

In your case it seems to be your theory "works" until it meets practice. ie we have a social democracy it may well be flawed but its the best we have.

"Mencken was known for his controversial ideas. As a frank admirer of German philosopher Nietzsche, he was not a proponent of representative democracy, which he believed was a system in which inferior men dominated their superiors"

"Mencken also wrote: "I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding, supervision of environment and education, extending over many generations, it might be possible to make an appreciable improvement in the stock of the American negro, for example, but I must maintain that this enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand"

Just who gets to decide who is the superior? funny thing but I thought you objected to eugenics.

Bukowski, wow an intelectual giant there, "Bukowski had returned to the post office in Los Angeles where he began work as a letter filing clerk, a position he held for more than a decade" Think I'll pass on that one.

regards

 

 

 

 

 

Up
0

You missed the basic requirements of Abraham Lincoln's definition? Which, if you understood what it takes not to be a slave and not to be a master you would then have understood the other quotes and the context in which they were to be read.......

 

You admit we have a social democracy that is flawed.....so to keep using something that is flawed is really rather the definition of stupidity is it not? I liken it to trying to thread a needle with a piece of barbed wire.......

There is nothing worse than seeing the light at the end of the tunnel to find a whole bunch of politicians come out of the woodwork wanting to extend the tunnel......and to think people vote for those extensions.....I guess some like dim.....

 

 

 

Up
0

Your basic requirements are not my ones I would think.  Since I dont think like you I have no reference point.  So it depends on the context of what he is saying and the context you wish to apply and tha may not be justified or truthful.

Lets see, Abe Lincoln basically "caused" the civil war in his insistance on freeing slaves, forcing others into fighting for others freedom. Generally that is /was considered a noble undertaking.

or what about WW2? dont you feel conscription is a form of slavery even if it undoes a great wrong like defeating Hitler?

regards

Up
0

If you take freedom for granted......then you will soon lose it won't you?

There is always someone, some cause etc that wishes to restrict freedom and this has plagued man throughout history......Are you suggesting that people should just roll over and turn the other cheek and let those who wish to control everything be in control?.....We all have freedom of choice....it is just that some of us use this freedom of choice to ensure that others have their freedom as well, as we know that others will do anything they can to restrict and control freedom for all.

 

Neither of us can change the history of WW2 or the American Civil war....we do however have a duty to not forget those who fought and died for freedom !!!! And that means watching over any situation that curtails freedoms and doing something about it !!!!

 

Freedon has responsibilities attached !!! If you do not take full responsibility you do not have freedom !!!

Up
0

Yes,"dialogue and democratic processes " are just what we need to keep totalitarian ninnies like this author out of power. Vote against them, please.

Up
0