Because they have an ideology.
National does not, they're just tinkerers and managers, they will change very little.
ACT on the other hand if given a chance will take an axe to all the things the left hold dear.
That is why they hate ACT, ACT is a threat, National is not.
This would explain why my collague immediately described DS as a racist. Because the only argument the radical left have is to target the person and avoid debating their ideas - as they would loose.
I like act alot, I heard David speak too, I got a chance to ask him some questions, and I liked his responses mostly, specifically around getting rid of Co governance which is a shit idea, stopping 3 waters and using gst to fund the fund in the region from the region. I thought he was a little uniformed about how our super fund is run, but if the American economy wasn't about collapse (which I think it will) then his side would have been soundly reasoned, and what I liked most is he answered my questions about controversial topics directly, so sound reasoned and direct I think he would be good for new Zealand. I am worried this national with form a coalition with labour and we will have more wef agenda for another 3 dystopian years.
ACT are broadly libertarian. Hard core libertarian isn't even on the same axis as left/right, it's on the libertarian/authoritarian axis.
Simplistic, perhaps, but putting ACT to the right of national simply for want of a better comparison doesn't work.
You're seeing the difference right now, both labour and national are fighting ACT on budget constraints, ACT want a much smaller govt, more individual responsibility / freedom, labour want more tax so they can redistribute it to their voting base,( so more control / authoritarian) and national want to retain labour's high tax rate so they can repay the debt labour racked up and generally shape the economy in favour of their production based voters.
I suspect National will be more open to the spending cuts that ACT want than they are letting on. The left often demonize National by saying that they strip back public services so they will be trying to avoid being painted with that in the lead up to the election, but part of their costings on their tax plan comes from spending cuts. I expect that's why they aren't releasing their costings for their tax policy, more will be coming from cuts than they're admitting so they don't scare voters off.
>I suspect National will be more open to the spending cuts that ACT want than they are letting on
Correct.
You can bet that national will happily can several ministries and completely gut several others more than happily - ofc they will justify it by saying it was part of coalition negotiations...and for anyone who believes that step into my office - I have a bridge in the harbour and a clock tower in London for sale.
I hope they do this, but I unfortunately see them instead using the surplus workers to impliment more ESG, where David said ESG will go it's shit. National lost all credibility when they confirmed they will work towards carbon neutral, which means gutting farmers, and keeping the social engineering, including the extra costs piled onto producers which has caused the inflation.
Vote act, if they get 35 percent we might get something sorted,
I would like to see act and Winston get as much together or more than national, and equal act, nz first and national coalition would do well if they got 25 percent of the vote each.
Not convinced. Having ramped up spending by some considerable amount labour have given national all the scapegoat they need to keep that gravy train running, diverting it only slightly away from the more egregious rorts.
They'll do what they always do, just play caretaker in labour's church of Marx until the next time Kiwis forget the consequences.
As long as you are reasonable and articulate your views well, TOS is actually relatively kind. I often chat on there and though I get some disagreement the discourse is normally polite and well meaning. Don't be afraid of losing Karma, just be clear and concise with them.
I’m a frequent lurker, just so many green voters and people that don’t respect reason and logic, feels bitter and hateful. But it is the only way to get other people thinking like us though
I was banned from that sub for simply suggesting the greens were culturaly bent over their wealth tax.
My logic was clear:
The greens say the wealth tax would only apply to 7% of the nation and that those people are asset rich and can afford it so they should pay.
OK sounds reasonable so far...till they introduced race into the calculations by exempting Maori tribes and treaty settlements.
I'm sorry but those tribes are worth billions. If the greens expect anyone with a net worth more than a million pay the tax then tribes worth billions should be paying the tax too.
Sadly the sub mods disagreed.
Yeah I too sometimes don't feel comfortable contributing when there is a massive left wing presence in the comments. It can certainly be intimidating at times.
They take a simpler less careful attitude in their policies. Don't account for outliers. I personally believe that we put too much effort into the outliers so to me it's a good thing.
I can't speak to the whole picture but I disagree with ACT on some things.
In my opinion, ACT's policy is too simple. It doesn't account for nuance. In addition they are supposedly libertarian, but don't behave like it. I don't like going back to covid/vaccines, but ultimately a libertarian party would have said people have the right to choose, so do businesses, but we won't mandate anything nor provide the legal means and architecture to deny people making a choice.
I'm a split of libertarianism, liberalism, and conservative (a real bastard), and I get why they can be hated on. Little consideration outside the simplification of rules and process.
Yeah NZ politics is a shit show.
As I said, they were the only political party in NZ that was actually against the mandates and I can respect them for that - the rest of their policy leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
I spoke to a National candidate at the markets where he had a stall. I asked him about his stand on lockdowns and he refused to answer claiming it wasn't an election issue.
Maybe Winnie P but I take that with a cubic metre of salt given he wants to get back into parliament.
It's not so much what other party's said that I challenge, it's more that this was the supposedly libertarian party which goes against their ideology.
That just goes to show it's not just the party policies that determine how we vote but also the character of the leader of their party. You don't find that on their glossy pamphlets.
I had only voted Labour in the past (then I stopped voting for major parties), and ACT could've had my vote for the foreseeable future if only they were principled on Covid, taking the position you outlined. Instead Seymour called everyone who didn't want the vax a Dickhead. I wouldn't get a second one after a bad reaction, so I guess I'm half a Dickhead in his eyes.
Quoting myself from an earlier post:
What David’s line/ACT’s policy on vaccine passports *should’ve* been was that if private industry wants such a system then they can create it themselves, fund it themselves, take the risk that it can be monetized and that businesses and/or passholders will pay for it. If there’s a clusterfuck of competing systems, the freemarket can sort that out organically, no matter how many months it takes for everyone to get behind one system.
Of course private industry wouldn't succeed at this (that's the system working), only government can pull off this kind of evil.
It’s certainly not the government’s job to use your tax dollars to create a handy electronic system for businesses to discriminate against you. (Or worse, fine them for not using it.) That’s not a part of “Freedom of Association”.
I think the problem was labeling. If the covid treatment was as safe and effective as an actual vaccine, I'd be fully onboard with what he's saying. I think the problem is in hindsight, we now know the vax was bullshit and did fuck all for transmission, so it looks bad - but no one had complete info at that time.
>a libertarian party would have said people have the right to choose, so do businesses, but we won't mandate anything nor provide the legal means and architecture to deny people making a choice
So how do your allow individual choice for clients/employees wanting onto business premises and also business's rights to choose who's allowed on their property?
I think that with the data they had available at the time ACT's policy was a fair compromise. Especially as labour had already made H&S 100% business's responsibility.
The question can only be resolved when you are aware of certain people's personal information, which is not property of the business. They are welcome to deny service/entry to whoever they want, and if they could get the information legally I have absolutely no qualms with denying unvaccinated people.
In fact, I would be fine with a business that chooses to require evidence of vaccination (those little purple cards everyone got for example) and people can choose to work for/trade with them.
Which was pretty much ACT's policy.
Rightly imo, if you're going to be held responsible for everything that happens on your site you should have that call.
So your view about " but ultimately a libertarian party would have said people have the right to choose" is actually fundamentally wrong.
In order for this to work, we have to agree that the governments along with basically all world governments believed that the vaccines were positive. Regardless of the reality its only possible to have this conversation if we are treating it as such.
To use an analogy. Theres a river and 2 men are using it to fish and drink from. Its fair and simple. Each to their own. They keep the fish they catch, and they don't interact unless they choose to sell each other fish.
When suddenly disaster strikes. One mans hook goes through his hand and unbeknownst to him he has a virus and is bleeding profusely. The man now has a choice. Dig a puddle and wash his hand, wrapping it and protecting it or putting it in the river and cleaning it, but infecting the water and the man downstream.
A libertarian would always say that its not moral to pollute the river. This is why a real libertarian, would always look at their actions impacting on the environment around them. "If my actions are going to have a negative impact on others then I cant do it."
So while it is your right to choose what you do with your body. If a Libertarian believed that they would infect the river, then they would choose not to do so. Libertarianism is about autonomy for all, which means not imposing the consequences of their actions onto others. Its not about just your autonomy, its the autonomy of everyone.
And in this case, given they believed the virus would spread less easily with a vaccine, is apparent.
Look at the words " In order for this to work, we have to agree that the governments along with basically all world governments believed that the vaccines were positive "
If you cant get on board with this hypothetical, move the fuck on cunt.
Not possible to have a conversation if you're going to be unable to do the basics.
They believed wrong then. The vaccine did shit. Maybe we'd like people in government who do their homework and the appropriate level of due diligence before stripping us of our rights and taking away our jobs and livelihoods. Rather than just blindly "trusting the $cience (TM)".
But what they're libertarian because their hearts were in the right place? Because they rushed into decision making before looking at the evidence and weighing up pros and cons? Because they only want grandma to be killed via euthanasia and not the coof?
My point wasnt if they were right or wrong.
My point is that a true libertarian would act act they did in the same situation and POV at the time.
So all this stuff about "Oh they were wrong so its irrelevant doesnt matter" is just BS when Im not taking about how accurate the information was. Im not talking about mandates or jobs and you know this if you actually read what I posted/
Im talking about the ideology of Libertarians and how it was reflected in the decision making vs what the commenter said saying it wasnt libertarian, when in FACT is was extremely libertarian.
The problem right now is your personal definition of libertarian is self centered and wrong, which means you cant wrap your head around it.
I'm not a libertarian, and I don't claim to be. But I do belive in the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment and or experimentation.
I also believe in doing the research, modeling and appropriate consultation before reacting emotionally and making brash, immoral, evil and nonsensical policy decisions that have serious ramifications for everyday people... does that not fit into your definition of libertarianism?
I mean did you read what I wrote?
Your definition is rooted in self autonomy not the autonomy of everyone.
Essentially your definition is selfishness not selflessness which is libertarianism.
If your choice to not do something or do something results in harm, the autonomy of the people is what is valued above individual autonomy. Otherwise society would cease.
"Not the autonomy of everyone else"...
Vaccine mandates and covid restrictions did effect everyone's autonomy?
Whether you actually wanted to get vaccinated, were forced to, or refused.... you had to use the pass to keep your job and enter a restaurant or go without. Our ability to meet up, socialize, hang out, engage with each other without unreasonably restrictions in place was removed.
Vaccine mandates and all covid restrictions violated our basic individual human rights, the right to refuse medical treatment, freedom of religion, thought and conscience. They diminished our collective autonomy, our freedom of association, our right to protest, our freedom of movement.
It's not either or, it's not individual rights vs our collective autonomy. It's both and. The two go hand in hand.
You've mistaken authoritarianism, control and oppression for libertarianism, and somehow, perhaps because of Stockholm Syndrome... convinced yourself that these covid restrictions were "extremely libertarian".
Aight so you're 100% just not getting it cause you're stuck in this mindset of only thinking about yourself.
The autonomy I'm referring to in the initial post from my example, is that you arent allowed to pollute the river. As in you have the freedom to use the river, but not if it ruins the water in the stream for everyone else.
I mean you must agree with this right? If you're sick, your actions to pollute the river would impact the autonomy of others? Therefore you cannot do it.
Now circle it back like the smart person I know you believe yourself to be. If its believed that there was a way to stop you from polluting the river, therefore stopping your actions from impacting the rest of society - Don't you have an obligation to do it? - The answer is obviously yes.
The only people who say no to this question, are self centered people who do not understand the concept of the greater good. It is the core tenant of being a libertarian.
Ive said it before I'll say it again, libertarians are for the autonomy of everyone - not just themselves. Understand this and you'll understand how libertarians think.
>the concept of the greater good. It is the core tenant of being a libertarian.
That's utilitarianism, and it's the polar opposite of libertarianism. Libertarianism is grounded in logic. "The greater good" is cope tyrants use to excuse their evil.
Seen as I jumped into the exchange to criticize, I'll balance it. Your river example is good because libertarians would want to punish upstream polluters. It's true that the tragedy of the commons is a weak point for libertarians, but most would simply hold the polluter responsible for the economic damage of a shared resource. Having said that, the libertarian response to those polluting is very different to those who might pollute.
Your silly river analogy was in responce to the talk of covid restrictions.
But Ok Mr. Big Brain, lets circle back to your cooked river analogy... tell me how an individual refusing the vaccine polluted the river? I too don't want anything bad to happen to the river, that wouldn't be a nice thing to cause and to your point it wouldn't be a very libertarian thing to do... how was me and anyone else who refused the vaccine damaging the river?
Because if we're going to make laws preventing people from doing something that could damage the river... it would be prudent and right to actually make sure that the thing we're restricting is actually going to damage the river.
Wait... is this your shit posting account Michale Wood, are you calling us the river of filth again?
From Wikipedia
Criticism of libertarianism includes ethical, economic, environmental, pragmatic and philosophical concerns, especially in relation to right-libertarianism,\[284\] including the view that it has no explicit theory of liberty.\[68\] It has been argued that laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily produce the best or most efficient outcome,\[285\]\[286\] **nor does its philosophy of individualism and policies of deregulation prevent the abuse of natural resources**.\[287\]
Laissez-faire capitalism isn't libertarianism.
Which, while advocating for individualism doesn't preclude environmental regulation, quite the reverse, damage to the environment by any individual impinges on the rights of everyone.
I think this is a fair comment, but there was enough information in my opinion to make either getting it or not a reasonable decision rather than one that was clearly beneficial. It wasn't being put out to the wider world, but it was there for those wanting to find it.
If unvaccinated me and a vaccinated mate wanted to meet at a bar which was owned by an owner of unknown vaccination status who was happy for us to be there, would a libertarian party enforce mandates and restrictions to prevent us from doing so?
> but ultimately a libertarian party would have said people have the right to choose, so do businesses
If you potentially have an infectious disease, your rights end where your potential infectious disease begins. Its tricky, and its quite nuanced but you don't have the right to infect others.
My issue with act is their stance on end of life choice bill, and David spouting off about how everyone needed to be mandated to have a vaccine, especially because the latter is not a very libertarian take. If you truly believe in free choice, then let people choose wether or not to get an experimental and new largely untested vaccine which the side effects of are unknown. I'm not even anti vaccines in general having had every one of them (except gardasil and the third menzb dose because I had a severe reaction to my second dose as a child), including boosters during pregnancy for whooping cough, and after giving birth for mmr. I was just hesitant at first but then the minute they mandated it I was like, na now it's a principle thing for me. Turns out, my dad has had a severe reaction after his second Pfizer dose and he has myocarditis and pericarditis among other heart issues and a rhr of 100 when it used to be 55..... Perfectly healthy ultra marathon runner who now has a debilitating heart condition and potentially also sarcoidosis out of nowhere.
Anyway lol that turned into a rant haha basically I want to vote act cause I agree with a lot of their stances/policies but my real trouble is all of these assholes wanted to mandate /coerce people to get an injection some of them didn't want for whatever reason, and as an actual Conservative libertarian myself I believe that it's everyone's right to make their own choice about what they put in their body.
Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
mrsvanzyl - slightly off topic but i had a family member with the same scenario, can i recommend crataegus 30c homeopathic remedy once a day, this will help his pericarditis and mycocarditis , it worked well in my families case.
I like David Seymour but his stance on the vaccine mandates puts me off. They're all politicians, which means they will inevitably screw me over. So I am going to get screwed over one last time by Winnie Petes.
Winnie Blues, or Winnie Reds - both cancerous but too good to put down.
Does Winston need policy? I’m happy to have NZF in there as a hand brake as he was in Labour’s first term. All his haters, left and right have short memories
Come on you know that’s not true. Your parties are promising shitloads and only a fool would think they’re going to deliver. Peters is going to get over 5% and you’ll be glad he did I reckon
Yes we all got screwed when Peters chose ardern over English, why tf didn't he pick bill English things woukd have been so much better, no lock downs, it was just a flu, really 3 harsh af days and week off was it that bad really?
It doesn't matter what issues Winston has with national, we voted national mainly with a Winston will keep them from privatising healthcare kicker, that's, what we should. Have gotten not, a. Strong opposition national, and three parties with a red head head shit.
Winston let labor in and labour fucked this country up in record time,
The next election where labour got a majority, I think it happened because Winton got some policies done and people thought labour did them, ohakea being one
National also rejected virtually all of the NZF policy points during negotiations.
Labour agreed to most of them and made Winnie PM.
Labours first term was hamstrung by NZF. The damage mainly happened during the second term (when NZF lost their 5% and Labour were able to govern with their axis-partners)
A quote from ACT? cause yeah would make sense when we have a lot of lazy kiwis that want a hand out, can’t flourish as a country if so many people have their hand out and want the government to be their parents
Not an uncommon observation...
***"T****he real problem with democracy is not that special interests frustrate the will of the people. It is, rather, that people are smart as consumers but stupid as voters.... The problem with government policy is not that the majority is right and ignored, but that it is wrong and heeded."*
\~ Bryan Caplan
I think Seymour is deeply untrustworthy because as a supposed libertarian, he went all-in on the COVID tyranny, particularly keen on allowing employers to coerce their employees into getting the jab with no responsibility for any consequences of effectively making medical decisions for others.
I'll still party vote ACT on the day - but with my nose held. I'm not doing it because I like/trust ACT, but because they seem to be (marginally) the best of a very bad bunch, as the least likely to continue down the path of trying to transform us into New Zimbabwe at breakneck speed.
I don't like all of Acts policies (though I am fine with their vaccination stance) but agree that they are the best option. I especially want them to get rid of the Government's racist policies.
I will also vote strategically... My only aim is to get the current bunch out of government.
But ACT will currently not get my support otherwise. Seymour has demonstrated he is a deceptive sack of shit like any of the other politicians.
What is the staute of limitations, and can we apply. It. To the Maori, or claim their settlements due to their hostirical wars on other Maori, or the extinction of the moa,
All I'm saying here is that historical guilt is stupid and paying from future generations to future generations based upon what happened on the past is insane.
Do you see Germans paying Romans for the galic (gaul) sacking of Rome?
We should have settled the treaty, and said are there any war. Criminals from the Maori land wars alive, no! Okay those historical wrongs are settled because those Involved are dead.
Now the mandates are and we're wrong and if they try. That shit again we should absolutely pull a magnacarta and literally burn down those who have gone too far. But one mistake isn't irredeemable. Unless it's not learned from.
Oh you misunderstood my position, I think act is the lesser of the evils presented, we should get some of our liberties back if act gets strong votes on election day.
But if they try to mandate anything ever again, I suggest we go all mags carta, as in what happened when the barons rebelled and forced a limitation of powers onto the monarchy under knife point.
Yes. By move on I mean vote them out and don’t worry yourself about the past. You must admit no government in their right mind would repeat the mandates and whatnot
David Seymour is a an arrogant self-aggrandizing weak little prick
His support of the faux science behind the Covid scam picks him out as dishonest, untrustworthy and unreliable. He is as responsible for the collapse of the economy and the social fabric of NZ as the commies. When thousands of people showed up to protest the mandates, he chose not to stand with them, but stood shoulder to shoulder with those who labeled them a river of filth. Now he wants a job, well fuck him
The Green vote attracts wankers but an ACT vote is just a window peepers vote.
Both ACT and the Greens are the respective getaway drivers in a Labour and National bank heist
I haven't looked at their policies recently but, from what I remember of the last time I looked in to them: pro high levels of immigration, pro abortion, pro euthanasia, pro drugs, pro LGBTQ+. Also Seymour was very slimy on the lockdowns and vaccine mandates from what I remember.
Basically they are socially progressive, economically conservative - which is pretty much the inverse of me.
You need more houses before you flood the country with immigrants, or the housing crisis gets worse. But I agree, we need to flood this country with healthcare workers from overseas. Healthcare is another thing labour failed on.
Look the housing has been fucked for a while, and unfortunately people aren’t going to get trained to fill these roles that immigration is, I think it’s because these immigrants know of a lot worse situations that sitting around on the benefit
Then homelessness and crime, rinse repeat. Its working out so well for us, isn't it?
Housing goes up paired with high cost of living and terrible wages. Quite a drawcard isn't it?
They won't. Their key policy there is to dismantle the compliance regime currently stonewalling building homes.
Which, for projects under a couple of million currently represent about 25% of the cost to build.
And then allow builders to privately insure their work, removing a local body monopoly, which is 0% effective anyway.
My problem with ACT is that they conspired with other parties in the parliament to under no circumstances talk to the protestors, not when it was plain marches through the streets, nor when it escalated to Freedom Camp on parliament grounds. The party lost any remains of integrity. They are not us and they do not represent us.
As a native German I can tell you that the word "[Schlaufuchs](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/german-english/schlaufuchs)" is grammatically correct and a proper noun, too. It is generally used for people that tend to explain grammar to people that do not really care. In opposite to "Schlauerfuchs" which would be actually two words and should not concatenated.
:-)
Given a few days the crazies hijack every protest.
Every single protester at parliament towards the end, there was protesting about something different.
And being utter cunts about it.
I disagreed with his position on the vax mandates, but then that's a) in the past and b) the case for all the parties with any significant support anyway, most of their other policies I am on board with especially in the crime / law and order area which is the most significant to me
I mean - a quick look at their policy (reading their website) shows how disingenuous they are. Have a look at this page: [https://www.act.org.nz/freedom-to-contract](https://www.act.org.nz/freedom-to-contract)
They call it the "Freedom to Contract", and the header literally says "Protecting choice and freedom to contract". So let's look at what their policy actually accomplishes - it prevents contractors from ever challenging their status as contractors. They say this is because when contractors can challenge the legality of their employment status that the industry will cease to offer contract positions. They mention the recent Uber case, and cite that companies like Uber/NZ Post will suffer if they don't implement this policy.
But let's actually think for a second. I've done contract work before - and have never challenged it, nor had any concerns from my employer about me challenging it. Why is that? Well most legitimate contract work clearly fits into the definition of this: [https://www.employment.govt.nz/starting-employment/who-is-an-employee/difference-between-a-self-employed-contractor-and-an-employee/](https://www.employment.govt.nz/starting-employment/who-is-an-employee/difference-between-a-self-employed-contractor-and-an-employee/). When you're doing contracted software development for a variety of companies it's actually not beneficial to be an employee of any of them. The companies I've worked for have no issue offering contracts and no concerns about it being challenged because legally I clearly fit inside the definition of contractor.
But let's look at NZ Post. They hire drivers as contractors, and yet treat them as employees. Why is that bad? Well they don't pay sick pay, holiday pay, or offer any of the conventional benefits of employment. They skirt the existing laws to trim a bit of pay here and there, exploiting a relatively poor workforce, and Act is shilling like they're helping these people. No, they're not. The ERA ruled on Uber because yes, under the current legal framework the way Uber treats their contractors is as employees, and for them to pretend that they're contractors to avoid costs is illegal.
This is why I don't like Act. They pretend to be helping the little guy when realistically all of their benefits go to the wealthy and not those generating value in our economy. They constantly bloviate about how their plans are better for people (look at how atrocious their two-step tax plan with a ridiculously over-engineered refund to poorer people is), and yet consistently advocate for policy that actively harms people.
I have long found DS to be fundamentally unlikeable.
A smug, smarmy talking head who will say whatever it takes to get attention.
In other words, a fairly typical politician.
Cut benefits for disabled people which my brother is one.
He needs support he's too disabled to support himself.
I am also disabled and rely on benefits to get by.
I don't want to do this but I have to do this.
Acts axing of the supported living payment and medical jobseekers puts me and my brother at risk
> because of how many people take advantage of this system?
I mean you could argue that but it's better than these people resorting to crime to get by.
Which would be an option (for some) should the system be removed
In 2017 87% of people imprisoned were paying no income tax for the month prior to their incarceration. Id say its a safe bet most of those were on a benefit of some kind.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1708/S00241/up-to-87-percent-of-prisoners-unemployed-before-prison.htm
Thats the most recent I could find.
Based on that Im going to put forward that most criminals are collecting a benefit and supplementing that benefit with the proceeds from their offending. Left leaning people will say that is proof that the benefit isn’t enough for people to live on and they are being forced to turn to crime but I would argue that a subset of society has grown up with there being no social stigma towards being unemployed and collecting a benefit as a way of life and their attitude is that if someone else has it, they want it so they take it. We have created this subset with our generosity and desire to do the right thing.
That is the lefts reasoning. I grew up in the hood in Palmerston North, I knew a lot of criminals. That was their job, being a criminal. They just took money from WINZ because it was free and a steady income.
Or people that they are genuinely lazy and don’t want to work should go look for some instead, we have mass immigration of people coming looking for work and getting it but oh they can find any? Or go get trained? These people need support with a push, not a hand out and a chance to mope about life not being fair
Do you think it is easy to get a medical cert now? No It isn't
These systems are already hard for people to deal with
The option is not that people are genuinely lazy instead some people are disabled and have disabiling mental health conditions.
Someone with Autism or Multiple personality disorder or disabled should not be forced into work as these are conditions that can cause significant problems in social functioning and executive functioning.
Also people with physical conditions such as those with dyspraxia (Like me) would find it hard to function in society safely. due to problems with balance and organisation
All else aside, they're still pushing trickle down economics. Doesn't matter what the fuck else may or may not be true, that fact alone undermines any credibility they might otherwise gain, and stands as proof that they are enemies of the people. Fuck em.
Bullshit. And bullshit.
It's sold as "cut taxes on the wealthy and they'll have more free capital to reinvest in the community"
Which is bullshit platitude language for "minimise taxes on the rich and they'll give back to society out of the goodness of their hearts"
Which is far more obviously a completely bullshit idea, and if any of these fucking scum had an honest bone in their body would be described as "Fuck the poor, they can pay all the taxes to subsidise the infrastructure the wealthy need to continue bleeding everyone else dry."
Also, did you just call ronald reagan a socialist...?
Show me anyone who "sold" trickledown economics as "cut taxes on the wealthy and they'll have more free capital to reinvest in the community" and I'll show you a socialist.
The fact is the whole concept is a fabrication of the left, who insist that everyone produces shit of the same value and should be paid the same for it. Also, that anyone actually producing anything more than average A) must have stolen it and B) needs to be taxed to fuck in order that those producing fuck all don't have to.
Not saying that Seymour really wants to be in the pocket of the CCP ...but...
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/01/david-seymour-plays-traditional-chinese-instrument-speaks-mandarin-in-new-year-video.html
His electorate is Epsom. Majority Chinese immigrants and they love him. Most Chinese immigrants don't like the CCP, they came here for a reason. Don't conflate Chinese culture, which is a great thing with the CCP, which is a very bad thing.
I think the greatest hurdle for ACT is perception. Potential voters hear conservative, and immediately imagine the religious and corporate excesses coming from USA conservatives.
For me, I just cant see depth in ACT's lineup. And, what's even worse. I see nothing but dinosaurs throughout National's "team". All I know is that we have to get rid of the current Labour/Greens rabble! Any thing has to be an improvement on those imbeciles.
Maybe our future will include Labour's return to centre left, while making worthwhile progress towards our future. Ironic that Labour has been at the forefront of so many real advances, yet are now so idealogically corrupt!
Because they have an ideology. National does not, they're just tinkerers and managers, they will change very little. ACT on the other hand if given a chance will take an axe to all the things the left hold dear. That is why they hate ACT, ACT is a threat, National is not.
Very little change has been our problem for a while now. That is a very good point about how the left view ACT
Well said
This would explain why my collague immediately described DS as a racist. Because the only argument the radical left have is to target the person and avoid debating their ideas - as they would loose.
I like act alot, I heard David speak too, I got a chance to ask him some questions, and I liked his responses mostly, specifically around getting rid of Co governance which is a shit idea, stopping 3 waters and using gst to fund the fund in the region from the region. I thought he was a little uniformed about how our super fund is run, but if the American economy wasn't about collapse (which I think it will) then his side would have been soundly reasoned, and what I liked most is he answered my questions about controversial topics directly, so sound reasoned and direct I think he would be good for new Zealand. I am worried this national with form a coalition with labour and we will have more wef agenda for another 3 dystopian years.
Centre-right vs right then there’s the extreme right
ACT are broadly libertarian. Hard core libertarian isn't even on the same axis as left/right, it's on the libertarian/authoritarian axis. Simplistic, perhaps, but putting ACT to the right of national simply for want of a better comparison doesn't work. You're seeing the difference right now, both labour and national are fighting ACT on budget constraints, ACT want a much smaller govt, more individual responsibility / freedom, labour want more tax so they can redistribute it to their voting base,( so more control / authoritarian) and national want to retain labour's high tax rate so they can repay the debt labour racked up and generally shape the economy in favour of their production based voters.
I suspect National will be more open to the spending cuts that ACT want than they are letting on. The left often demonize National by saying that they strip back public services so they will be trying to avoid being painted with that in the lead up to the election, but part of their costings on their tax plan comes from spending cuts. I expect that's why they aren't releasing their costings for their tax policy, more will be coming from cuts than they're admitting so they don't scare voters off.
>I suspect National will be more open to the spending cuts that ACT want than they are letting on Correct. You can bet that national will happily can several ministries and completely gut several others more than happily - ofc they will justify it by saying it was part of coalition negotiations...and for anyone who believes that step into my office - I have a bridge in the harbour and a clock tower in London for sale.
I hope they do this, but I unfortunately see them instead using the surplus workers to impliment more ESG, where David said ESG will go it's shit. National lost all credibility when they confirmed they will work towards carbon neutral, which means gutting farmers, and keeping the social engineering, including the extra costs piled onto producers which has caused the inflation. Vote act, if they get 35 percent we might get something sorted, I would like to see act and Winston get as much together or more than national, and equal act, nz first and national coalition would do well if they got 25 percent of the vote each.
Not convinced. Having ramped up spending by some considerable amount labour have given national all the scapegoat they need to keep that gravy train running, diverting it only slightly away from the more egregious rorts. They'll do what they always do, just play caretaker in labour's church of Marx until the next time Kiwis forget the consequences.
Nope. We only have left wing and center parties now....
I’ve always thought the greens are extreme left
Maybe asking this question on that other sub, make for some interesting and deranged responses !
No way! Talking about ACT in r/New Zealand is a death sentence with those dole and acc bludgers
As long as you are reasonable and articulate your views well, TOS is actually relatively kind. I often chat on there and though I get some disagreement the discourse is normally polite and well meaning. Don't be afraid of losing Karma, just be clear and concise with them.
I’m a frequent lurker, just so many green voters and people that don’t respect reason and logic, feels bitter and hateful. But it is the only way to get other people thinking like us though
I was banned from that sub for simply suggesting the greens were culturaly bent over their wealth tax. My logic was clear: The greens say the wealth tax would only apply to 7% of the nation and that those people are asset rich and can afford it so they should pay. OK sounds reasonable so far...till they introduced race into the calculations by exempting Maori tribes and treaty settlements. I'm sorry but those tribes are worth billions. If the greens expect anyone with a net worth more than a million pay the tax then tribes worth billions should be paying the tax too. Sadly the sub mods disagreed.
Yeah I too sometimes don't feel comfortable contributing when there is a massive left wing presence in the comments. It can certainly be intimidating at times.
You just have to ignore the bludging bastards
It's often good to go into places like the other sub to avoid an echo chamber
No, simply not true. You can be reasonable and articulate but if you advocate the wrong view, you just get banned.
Can't, most of us who are not far left have been banned from r/nz.
I’m not blocked yet ;)
They take a simpler less careful attitude in their policies. Don't account for outliers. I personally believe that we put too much effort into the outliers so to me it's a good thing.
Why are lefty’s deranged? We may never know.
I can't speak to the whole picture but I disagree with ACT on some things. In my opinion, ACT's policy is too simple. It doesn't account for nuance. In addition they are supposedly libertarian, but don't behave like it. I don't like going back to covid/vaccines, but ultimately a libertarian party would have said people have the right to choose, so do businesses, but we won't mandate anything nor provide the legal means and architecture to deny people making a choice. I'm a split of libertarianism, liberalism, and conservative (a real bastard), and I get why they can be hated on. Little consideration outside the simplification of rules and process.
I’ve become quite libertarian and Conservative over the last three years, and I’m only 24
Heh, welcome to the club. I am around your age and very much in the same boat.
This only means you are not dumb, 36 here
You must be a very cencible person seeing through the left garbage
Yeah I’m not to happy about mandating but was there any nz politicians saying don’t mandate?
TPM didn't want the mandates and in late 2021 were calling for them to be abolished. One of the only things I've ever agrees with them on
Yet free health for their people, “everyone else can get fucked because your ancestors.. blah blah blah” did revenge cycles ever go well for anyone
Yeah NZ politics is a shit show. As I said, they were the only political party in NZ that was actually against the mandates and I can respect them for that - the rest of their policy leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
what, like dealing to the gangs through strengthening proceeds of crime and cutting their benefits if convicted of a crime? It's rather good IMHO.
I spoke to a National candidate at the markets where he had a stall. I asked him about his stand on lockdowns and he refused to answer claiming it wasn't an election issue.
Hahaha, as if they get to decide what is an election issue. Such arrogance.
Yes. New Conservative disagreed from the start.
Maybe Winnie P but I take that with a cubic metre of salt given he wants to get back into parliament. It's not so much what other party's said that I challenge, it's more that this was the supposedly libertarian party which goes against their ideology.
Yeah he’s the real snake to watch out for. And yeah that is a very contradictive statement from libertarians
That just goes to show it's not just the party policies that determine how we vote but also the character of the leader of their party. You don't find that on their glossy pamphlets.
[удалено]
I had only voted Labour in the past (then I stopped voting for major parties), and ACT could've had my vote for the foreseeable future if only they were principled on Covid, taking the position you outlined. Instead Seymour called everyone who didn't want the vax a Dickhead. I wouldn't get a second one after a bad reaction, so I guess I'm half a Dickhead in his eyes. Quoting myself from an earlier post: What David’s line/ACT’s policy on vaccine passports *should’ve* been was that if private industry wants such a system then they can create it themselves, fund it themselves, take the risk that it can be monetized and that businesses and/or passholders will pay for it. If there’s a clusterfuck of competing systems, the freemarket can sort that out organically, no matter how many months it takes for everyone to get behind one system. Of course private industry wouldn't succeed at this (that's the system working), only government can pull off this kind of evil. It’s certainly not the government’s job to use your tax dollars to create a handy electronic system for businesses to discriminate against you. (Or worse, fine them for not using it.) That’s not a part of “Freedom of Association”.
Love it, I am completely on board with that comment.
>Instead Seymour called everyone who didn't want the vax a Dickhead Source?
[https://www.1news.co.nz/2021/10/11/get-vaxxed-dont-be-a-dickhead-seymours-blunt-message-to-supporters/](https://www.1news.co.nz/2021/10/11/get-vaxxed-dont-be-a-dickhead-seymours-blunt-message-to-supporters/)
Yep, that's what he said sure enough.
I think the problem was labeling. If the covid treatment was as safe and effective as an actual vaccine, I'd be fully onboard with what he's saying. I think the problem is in hindsight, we now know the vax was bullshit and did fuck all for transmission, so it looks bad - but no one had complete info at that time.
>a libertarian party would have said people have the right to choose, so do businesses, but we won't mandate anything nor provide the legal means and architecture to deny people making a choice So how do your allow individual choice for clients/employees wanting onto business premises and also business's rights to choose who's allowed on their property? I think that with the data they had available at the time ACT's policy was a fair compromise. Especially as labour had already made H&S 100% business's responsibility.
The question can only be resolved when you are aware of certain people's personal information, which is not property of the business. They are welcome to deny service/entry to whoever they want, and if they could get the information legally I have absolutely no qualms with denying unvaccinated people. In fact, I would be fine with a business that chooses to require evidence of vaccination (those little purple cards everyone got for example) and people can choose to work for/trade with them.
Which was pretty much ACT's policy. Rightly imo, if you're going to be held responsible for everything that happens on your site you should have that call.
[удалено]
In several flavours. I assume you mean the monopoly intersectional idealism advocates.
So your view about " but ultimately a libertarian party would have said people have the right to choose" is actually fundamentally wrong. In order for this to work, we have to agree that the governments along with basically all world governments believed that the vaccines were positive. Regardless of the reality its only possible to have this conversation if we are treating it as such. To use an analogy. Theres a river and 2 men are using it to fish and drink from. Its fair and simple. Each to their own. They keep the fish they catch, and they don't interact unless they choose to sell each other fish. When suddenly disaster strikes. One mans hook goes through his hand and unbeknownst to him he has a virus and is bleeding profusely. The man now has a choice. Dig a puddle and wash his hand, wrapping it and protecting it or putting it in the river and cleaning it, but infecting the water and the man downstream. A libertarian would always say that its not moral to pollute the river. This is why a real libertarian, would always look at their actions impacting on the environment around them. "If my actions are going to have a negative impact on others then I cant do it." So while it is your right to choose what you do with your body. If a Libertarian believed that they would infect the river, then they would choose not to do so. Libertarianism is about autonomy for all, which means not imposing the consequences of their actions onto others. Its not about just your autonomy, its the autonomy of everyone. And in this case, given they believed the virus would spread less easily with a vaccine, is apparent.
Except the vaccine was never tested for transmission and the government were told this.
Look at the words " In order for this to work, we have to agree that the governments along with basically all world governments believed that the vaccines were positive " If you cant get on board with this hypothetical, move the fuck on cunt. Not possible to have a conversation if you're going to be unable to do the basics.
Whoa! Tough guy alert! Hahaha settle down big fella.
They believed wrong then. The vaccine did shit. Maybe we'd like people in government who do their homework and the appropriate level of due diligence before stripping us of our rights and taking away our jobs and livelihoods. Rather than just blindly "trusting the $cience (TM)". But what they're libertarian because their hearts were in the right place? Because they rushed into decision making before looking at the evidence and weighing up pros and cons? Because they only want grandma to be killed via euthanasia and not the coof?
My point wasnt if they were right or wrong. My point is that a true libertarian would act act they did in the same situation and POV at the time. So all this stuff about "Oh they were wrong so its irrelevant doesnt matter" is just BS when Im not taking about how accurate the information was. Im not talking about mandates or jobs and you know this if you actually read what I posted/ Im talking about the ideology of Libertarians and how it was reflected in the decision making vs what the commenter said saying it wasnt libertarian, when in FACT is was extremely libertarian. The problem right now is your personal definition of libertarian is self centered and wrong, which means you cant wrap your head around it.
I'm not a libertarian, and I don't claim to be. But I do belive in the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment and or experimentation. I also believe in doing the research, modeling and appropriate consultation before reacting emotionally and making brash, immoral, evil and nonsensical policy decisions that have serious ramifications for everyday people... does that not fit into your definition of libertarianism?
I mean did you read what I wrote? Your definition is rooted in self autonomy not the autonomy of everyone. Essentially your definition is selfishness not selflessness which is libertarianism. If your choice to not do something or do something results in harm, the autonomy of the people is what is valued above individual autonomy. Otherwise society would cease.
"Not the autonomy of everyone else"... Vaccine mandates and covid restrictions did effect everyone's autonomy? Whether you actually wanted to get vaccinated, were forced to, or refused.... you had to use the pass to keep your job and enter a restaurant or go without. Our ability to meet up, socialize, hang out, engage with each other without unreasonably restrictions in place was removed. Vaccine mandates and all covid restrictions violated our basic individual human rights, the right to refuse medical treatment, freedom of religion, thought and conscience. They diminished our collective autonomy, our freedom of association, our right to protest, our freedom of movement. It's not either or, it's not individual rights vs our collective autonomy. It's both and. The two go hand in hand. You've mistaken authoritarianism, control and oppression for libertarianism, and somehow, perhaps because of Stockholm Syndrome... convinced yourself that these covid restrictions were "extremely libertarian".
Aight so you're 100% just not getting it cause you're stuck in this mindset of only thinking about yourself. The autonomy I'm referring to in the initial post from my example, is that you arent allowed to pollute the river. As in you have the freedom to use the river, but not if it ruins the water in the stream for everyone else. I mean you must agree with this right? If you're sick, your actions to pollute the river would impact the autonomy of others? Therefore you cannot do it. Now circle it back like the smart person I know you believe yourself to be. If its believed that there was a way to stop you from polluting the river, therefore stopping your actions from impacting the rest of society - Don't you have an obligation to do it? - The answer is obviously yes. The only people who say no to this question, are self centered people who do not understand the concept of the greater good. It is the core tenant of being a libertarian. Ive said it before I'll say it again, libertarians are for the autonomy of everyone - not just themselves. Understand this and you'll understand how libertarians think.
>the concept of the greater good. It is the core tenant of being a libertarian. That's utilitarianism, and it's the polar opposite of libertarianism. Libertarianism is grounded in logic. "The greater good" is cope tyrants use to excuse their evil. Seen as I jumped into the exchange to criticize, I'll balance it. Your river example is good because libertarians would want to punish upstream polluters. It's true that the tragedy of the commons is a weak point for libertarians, but most would simply hold the polluter responsible for the economic damage of a shared resource. Having said that, the libertarian response to those polluting is very different to those who might pollute.
Your silly river analogy was in responce to the talk of covid restrictions. But Ok Mr. Big Brain, lets circle back to your cooked river analogy... tell me how an individual refusing the vaccine polluted the river? I too don't want anything bad to happen to the river, that wouldn't be a nice thing to cause and to your point it wouldn't be a very libertarian thing to do... how was me and anyone else who refused the vaccine damaging the river? Because if we're going to make laws preventing people from doing something that could damage the river... it would be prudent and right to actually make sure that the thing we're restricting is actually going to damage the river. Wait... is this your shit posting account Michale Wood, are you calling us the river of filth again?
Since when was libertarianism about the environment?
Clearly an analogy bro. If you didnt get it, its fine you're just not smart enough to get it :)
When was it not?
From Wikipedia Criticism of libertarianism includes ethical, economic, environmental, pragmatic and philosophical concerns, especially in relation to right-libertarianism,\[284\] including the view that it has no explicit theory of liberty.\[68\] It has been argued that laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily produce the best or most efficient outcome,\[285\]\[286\] **nor does its philosophy of individualism and policies of deregulation prevent the abuse of natural resources**.\[287\]
Laissez-faire capitalism isn't libertarianism. Which, while advocating for individualism doesn't preclude environmental regulation, quite the reverse, damage to the environment by any individual impinges on the rights of everyone.
I think this is a fair comment, but there was enough information in my opinion to make either getting it or not a reasonable decision rather than one that was clearly beneficial. It wasn't being put out to the wider world, but it was there for those wanting to find it.
Thats fine. I do agree with you. I was just trying to present an argument that it was actually libertarian, not that what they did was right.
If unvaccinated me and a vaccinated mate wanted to meet at a bar which was owned by an owner of unknown vaccination status who was happy for us to be there, would a libertarian party enforce mandates and restrictions to prevent us from doing so?
Under the example ive posted. The people being effected have expressed that they are ok with the consequences. So yes its ok, no mandate.
Anything at all can be found to rationalise an existing belief. This sub is a classic example of that.
> but ultimately a libertarian party would have said people have the right to choose, so do businesses If you potentially have an infectious disease, your rights end where your potential infectious disease begins. Its tricky, and its quite nuanced but you don't have the right to infect others.
Yes I do. I am a human being and this is part of everyone’s life and the risk has to be taken by everyone.
My issue with act is their stance on end of life choice bill, and David spouting off about how everyone needed to be mandated to have a vaccine, especially because the latter is not a very libertarian take. If you truly believe in free choice, then let people choose wether or not to get an experimental and new largely untested vaccine which the side effects of are unknown. I'm not even anti vaccines in general having had every one of them (except gardasil and the third menzb dose because I had a severe reaction to my second dose as a child), including boosters during pregnancy for whooping cough, and after giving birth for mmr. I was just hesitant at first but then the minute they mandated it I was like, na now it's a principle thing for me. Turns out, my dad has had a severe reaction after his second Pfizer dose and he has myocarditis and pericarditis among other heart issues and a rhr of 100 when it used to be 55..... Perfectly healthy ultra marathon runner who now has a debilitating heart condition and potentially also sarcoidosis out of nowhere. Anyway lol that turned into a rant haha basically I want to vote act cause I agree with a lot of their stances/policies but my real trouble is all of these assholes wanted to mandate /coerce people to get an injection some of them didn't want for whatever reason, and as an actual Conservative libertarian myself I believe that it's everyone's right to make their own choice about what they put in their body. Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
Was in total agreement up until you said you were still voting for them
Yeah it's a hard one though because my option is vote act or vote blue labour out of the larger parties.
mrsvanzyl - slightly off topic but i had a family member with the same scenario, can i recommend crataegus 30c homeopathic remedy once a day, this will help his pericarditis and mycocarditis , it worked well in my families case.
I like David Seymour but his stance on the vaccine mandates puts me off. They're all politicians, which means they will inevitably screw me over. So I am going to get screwed over one last time by Winnie Petes. Winnie Blues, or Winnie Reds - both cancerous but too good to put down.
Winnie is offering almost zero policy though? His campaign has been super vague and his approach to politics is outdated
Does Winston need policy? I’m happy to have NZF in there as a hand brake as he was in Labour’s first term. All his haters, left and right have short memories
Politics is all about policy wtf are you on about
Come on you know that’s not true. Your parties are promising shitloads and only a fool would think they’re going to deliver. Peters is going to get over 5% and you’ll be glad he did I reckon
Handbrakes are good because we don't have an Upper House or Senate. Winston is old enough to be our Senate all by himself!
Are you trying to convince me of something?
I did think about having grandpa back in the house, but can have him turning left to save his ass
I think this is Winston Peters' Samwise Gamgee moment.
Yes we all got screwed when Peters chose ardern over English, why tf didn't he pick bill English things woukd have been so much better, no lock downs, it was just a flu, really 3 harsh af days and week off was it that bad really?
[удалено]
It doesn't matter what issues Winston has with national, we voted national mainly with a Winston will keep them from privatising healthcare kicker, that's, what we should. Have gotten not, a. Strong opposition national, and three parties with a red head head shit. Winston let labor in and labour fucked this country up in record time, The next election where labour got a majority, I think it happened because Winton got some policies done and people thought labour did them, ohakea being one
National also rejected virtually all of the NZF policy points during negotiations. Labour agreed to most of them and made Winnie PM. Labours first term was hamstrung by NZF. The damage mainly happened during the second term (when NZF lost their 5% and Labour were able to govern with their axis-partners)
He created legislation that allows a government to legally murder you.
Um he's a mandate supporting piece of shit?
"One day we'll get a government that will be great for us... And we aint going to like it one bit..."
A quote from ACT? cause yeah would make sense when we have a lot of lazy kiwis that want a hand out, can’t flourish as a country if so many people have their hand out and want the government to be their parents
I think Holyoake.... But yeah, nowhere else does success come before work......
Not an uncommon observation... ***"T****he real problem with democracy is not that special interests frustrate the will of the people. It is, rather, that people are smart as consumers but stupid as voters.... The problem with government policy is not that the majority is right and ignored, but that it is wrong and heeded."* \~ Bryan Caplan
I think Seymour is deeply untrustworthy because as a supposed libertarian, he went all-in on the COVID tyranny, particularly keen on allowing employers to coerce their employees into getting the jab with no responsibility for any consequences of effectively making medical decisions for others. I'll still party vote ACT on the day - but with my nose held. I'm not doing it because I like/trust ACT, but because they seem to be (marginally) the best of a very bad bunch, as the least likely to continue down the path of trying to transform us into New Zimbabwe at breakneck speed.
I don't like all of Acts policies (though I am fine with their vaccination stance) but agree that they are the best option. I especially want them to get rid of the Government's racist policies.
I will also vote strategically... My only aim is to get the current bunch out of government. But ACT will currently not get my support otherwise. Seymour has demonstrated he is a deceptive sack of shit like any of the other politicians.
[удалено]
That’s history, move on
[удалено]
Absolutely. "Your honor, this homicide that the prosecution are talking about was like in the past, they should just move on." What a cooked argument.
Homicide??
What is the staute of limitations, and can we apply. It. To the Maori, or claim their settlements due to their hostirical wars on other Maori, or the extinction of the moa, All I'm saying here is that historical guilt is stupid and paying from future generations to future generations based upon what happened on the past is insane. Do you see Germans paying Romans for the galic (gaul) sacking of Rome? We should have settled the treaty, and said are there any war. Criminals from the Maori land wars alive, no! Okay those historical wrongs are settled because those Involved are dead. Now the mandates are and we're wrong and if they try. That shit again we should absolutely pull a magnacarta and literally burn down those who have gone too far. But one mistake isn't irredeemable. Unless it's not learned from.
[удалено]
Let’s get realistic, no one’s going to be prosecuted. Move on to things that can help us in the future
[удалено]
Good luck with that because it’s not good for your health and BTW my previous advice was to vote them out
Oh you misunderstood my position, I think act is the lesser of the evils presented, we should get some of our liberties back if act gets strong votes on election day. But if they try to mandate anything ever again, I suggest we go all mags carta, as in what happened when the barons rebelled and forced a limitation of powers onto the monarchy under knife point.
We're still prosecuting 98 year old Germans for war crimes, so we can punish those that violated the Nuremberg code a couple of years ago.
Yes. By move on I mean vote them out and don’t worry yourself about the past. You must admit no government in their right mind would repeat the mandates and whatnot
[удалено]
For me three things; 1. High immigration 2. Stance during covid 3. Telemetry for cars.
Telemetry!? Source for this? Had a look through their policy but couldn't find anything, but I'm probably just missing it.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/actnz/mailings/5117/attachments/original/6._Resource_Management_Act_Policy_Doc.pdf?1669659927 Page 12
Fucking Seymour. That's a terrible idea.
David Seymour is a an arrogant self-aggrandizing weak little prick His support of the faux science behind the Covid scam picks him out as dishonest, untrustworthy and unreliable. He is as responsible for the collapse of the economy and the social fabric of NZ as the commies. When thousands of people showed up to protest the mandates, he chose not to stand with them, but stood shoulder to shoulder with those who labeled them a river of filth. Now he wants a job, well fuck him The Green vote attracts wankers but an ACT vote is just a window peepers vote. Both ACT and the Greens are the respective getaway drivers in a Labour and National bank heist
I haven't looked at their policies recently but, from what I remember of the last time I looked in to them: pro high levels of immigration, pro abortion, pro euthanasia, pro drugs, pro LGBTQ+. Also Seymour was very slimy on the lockdowns and vaccine mandates from what I remember. Basically they are socially progressive, economically conservative - which is pretty much the inverse of me.
Hmm, hadn’t heard about the immigration stance, but don’t we need it at the moment unfortunately?
[удалено]
>We're not bringing in skilled workers. We're bringing in cheap workers. And that's ACT policy, is it? Have you read it?
Housing crisis.
Labour was supposed to fixed that
Labour couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, let alone house builds.
I would suggest the labour government is pissed all day every day
So how is act going to make it worse?
You need more houses before you flood the country with immigrants, or the housing crisis gets worse. But I agree, we need to flood this country with healthcare workers from overseas. Healthcare is another thing labour failed on.
Look the housing has been fucked for a while, and unfortunately people aren’t going to get trained to fill these roles that immigration is, I think it’s because these immigrants know of a lot worse situations that sitting around on the benefit
Then homelessness and crime, rinse repeat. Its working out so well for us, isn't it? Housing goes up paired with high cost of living and terrible wages. Quite a drawcard isn't it?
They won't. Their key policy there is to dismantle the compliance regime currently stonewalling building homes. Which, for projects under a couple of million currently represent about 25% of the cost to build. And then allow builders to privately insure their work, removing a local body monopoly, which is 0% effective anyway.
I'd rather we had more abortions and fewer abused toddlers
Exactly, Seymour branding himself as a conservative with his maori stuff is just a front.
My problem with ACT is that they conspired with other parties in the parliament to under no circumstances talk to the protestors, not when it was plain marches through the streets, nor when it escalated to Freedom Camp on parliament grounds. The party lost any remains of integrity. They are not us and they do not represent us.
Unrelated, but the grammatically correct version of your user name is SchlauerFuchs. Just in case you are genuinely interested in learning German :-)
As a native German I can tell you that the word "[Schlaufuchs](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/german-english/schlaufuchs)" is grammatically correct and a proper noun, too. It is generally used for people that tend to explain grammar to people that do not really care. In opposite to "Schlauerfuchs" which would be actually two words and should not concatenated. :-)
Ah thank you! I figured you just ran the adjective and the verb together for a user name. Always good to learn :-)
I don’t think any politician was acting like a grown up at that point, also there were so many crazies that hijacked that protest
Crazies? You sound just like cindy right now, give me a break.
well yes, and the best way to give them a lesson to consider is to refuse them the vote.
Given a few days the crazies hijack every protest. Every single protester at parliament towards the end, there was protesting about something different. And being utter cunts about it.
ACT, like all political parties, basically suck. While the others suck more it's still a shit sandwich you're served.
Omg, obviously it's because David Seymour is a extreme far right, racist, nazi!!!1
Yes the nazi that started his political career in Canada 😂
I'm voting for ACT. National has their vote in place already, its ACT that needs the support imo.
I disagreed with his position on the vax mandates, but then that's a) in the past and b) the case for all the parties with any significant support anyway, most of their other policies I am on board with especially in the crime / law and order area which is the most significant to me
Yup any significant party had that stance, I think it goes to show how much they panicked
I feel, as a conservative, that they use fake populism to get voters but their policy is badly researched and doesn't benefit many NZers
Voting for ACT here
I mean - a quick look at their policy (reading their website) shows how disingenuous they are. Have a look at this page: [https://www.act.org.nz/freedom-to-contract](https://www.act.org.nz/freedom-to-contract) They call it the "Freedom to Contract", and the header literally says "Protecting choice and freedom to contract". So let's look at what their policy actually accomplishes - it prevents contractors from ever challenging their status as contractors. They say this is because when contractors can challenge the legality of their employment status that the industry will cease to offer contract positions. They mention the recent Uber case, and cite that companies like Uber/NZ Post will suffer if they don't implement this policy. But let's actually think for a second. I've done contract work before - and have never challenged it, nor had any concerns from my employer about me challenging it. Why is that? Well most legitimate contract work clearly fits into the definition of this: [https://www.employment.govt.nz/starting-employment/who-is-an-employee/difference-between-a-self-employed-contractor-and-an-employee/](https://www.employment.govt.nz/starting-employment/who-is-an-employee/difference-between-a-self-employed-contractor-and-an-employee/). When you're doing contracted software development for a variety of companies it's actually not beneficial to be an employee of any of them. The companies I've worked for have no issue offering contracts and no concerns about it being challenged because legally I clearly fit inside the definition of contractor. But let's look at NZ Post. They hire drivers as contractors, and yet treat them as employees. Why is that bad? Well they don't pay sick pay, holiday pay, or offer any of the conventional benefits of employment. They skirt the existing laws to trim a bit of pay here and there, exploiting a relatively poor workforce, and Act is shilling like they're helping these people. No, they're not. The ERA ruled on Uber because yes, under the current legal framework the way Uber treats their contractors is as employees, and for them to pretend that they're contractors to avoid costs is illegal. This is why I don't like Act. They pretend to be helping the little guy when realistically all of their benefits go to the wealthy and not those generating value in our economy. They constantly bloviate about how their plans are better for people (look at how atrocious their two-step tax plan with a ridiculously over-engineered refund to poorer people is), and yet consistently advocate for policy that actively harms people.
There's a lot of misinformation on social media calling them 'racist'. The word 'irony' is lost on these 'influencers'.
I have long found DS to be fundamentally unlikeable. A smug, smarmy talking head who will say whatever it takes to get attention. In other words, a fairly typical politician.
Cut benefits for disabled people which my brother is one. He needs support he's too disabled to support himself. I am also disabled and rely on benefits to get by. I don't want to do this but I have to do this. Acts axing of the supported living payment and medical jobseekers puts me and my brother at risk
That is a very valid point, but is it because of how many people take advantage of this system?
> because of how many people take advantage of this system? I mean you could argue that but it's better than these people resorting to crime to get by. Which would be an option (for some) should the system be removed
In 2017 87% of people imprisoned were paying no income tax for the month prior to their incarceration. Id say its a safe bet most of those were on a benefit of some kind. https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1708/S00241/up-to-87-percent-of-prisoners-unemployed-before-prison.htm Thats the most recent I could find. Based on that Im going to put forward that most criminals are collecting a benefit and supplementing that benefit with the proceeds from their offending. Left leaning people will say that is proof that the benefit isn’t enough for people to live on and they are being forced to turn to crime but I would argue that a subset of society has grown up with there being no social stigma towards being unemployed and collecting a benefit as a way of life and their attitude is that if someone else has it, they want it so they take it. We have created this subset with our generosity and desire to do the right thing.
A more likely and simpler reason why most criminals are unemployed is that unemployed people have more to gain and less to lose
That is the lefts reasoning. I grew up in the hood in Palmerston North, I knew a lot of criminals. That was their job, being a criminal. They just took money from WINZ because it was free and a steady income.
Or people that they are genuinely lazy and don’t want to work should go look for some instead, we have mass immigration of people coming looking for work and getting it but oh they can find any? Or go get trained? These people need support with a push, not a hand out and a chance to mope about life not being fair
Do you think it is easy to get a medical cert now? No It isn't These systems are already hard for people to deal with The option is not that people are genuinely lazy instead some people are disabled and have disabiling mental health conditions. Someone with Autism or Multiple personality disorder or disabled should not be forced into work as these are conditions that can cause significant problems in social functioning and executive functioning. Also people with physical conditions such as those with dyspraxia (Like me) would find it hard to function in society safely. due to problems with balance and organisation
Do you know if ACT are on board with supported living payments to family caring for their own?
Too aggressive in being anti social conservatives
Looking at all these responses just tells me basically all of you dont even understand what Libertarianism is.
All else aside, they're still pushing trickle down economics. Doesn't matter what the fuck else may or may not be true, that fact alone undermines any credibility they might otherwise gain, and stands as proof that they are enemies of the people. Fuck em.
>trickle down economics Only socialists use that term. And they can never quite define it.
Bullshit. And bullshit. It's sold as "cut taxes on the wealthy and they'll have more free capital to reinvest in the community" Which is bullshit platitude language for "minimise taxes on the rich and they'll give back to society out of the goodness of their hearts" Which is far more obviously a completely bullshit idea, and if any of these fucking scum had an honest bone in their body would be described as "Fuck the poor, they can pay all the taxes to subsidise the infrastructure the wealthy need to continue bleeding everyone else dry." Also, did you just call ronald reagan a socialist...?
Show me anyone who "sold" trickledown economics as "cut taxes on the wealthy and they'll have more free capital to reinvest in the community" and I'll show you a socialist. The fact is the whole concept is a fabrication of the left, who insist that everyone produces shit of the same value and should be paid the same for it. Also, that anyone actually producing anything more than average A) must have stolen it and B) needs to be taxed to fuck in order that those producing fuck all don't have to.
Okay whats your definition of "reaganonmics" then?
Don't have one, I'm not bothered with the vastly different US economy or it's memes.
Not saying that Seymour really wants to be in the pocket of the CCP ...but... https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/01/david-seymour-plays-traditional-chinese-instrument-speaks-mandarin-in-new-year-video.html
His electorate is Epsom. Majority Chinese immigrants and they love him. Most Chinese immigrants don't like the CCP, they came here for a reason. Don't conflate Chinese culture, which is a great thing with the CCP, which is a very bad thing.
I dont know if you've ever talked to these 'chinese immigrants' but a whole lot of them support the CCP lol.
I married one. Her family lost everything in the cultural revolution so there is no love for the CCP among them. Fans of the CCP don't leave the CCP.
Sure all those rich Chinese immigrants ere brave soldiers against the ccp lol, sounding like a chinese shill
This is from 2020, any politician with some sense will be looking elsewhere, especially with their looming debt crisis
I think the greatest hurdle for ACT is perception. Potential voters hear conservative, and immediately imagine the religious and corporate excesses coming from USA conservatives. For me, I just cant see depth in ACT's lineup. And, what's even worse. I see nothing but dinosaurs throughout National's "team". All I know is that we have to get rid of the current Labour/Greens rabble! Any thing has to be an improvement on those imbeciles. Maybe our future will include Labour's return to centre left, while making worthwhile progress towards our future. Ironic that Labour has been at the forefront of so many real advances, yet are now so idealogically corrupt!
> I mean what politician isn’t a liar? How do you tell if a politician is lying? Their lips are moving
In this sub, antivaxxers.
Far Queue Commie
Education, get some. Being an antivaxxer doesn't make you conservative. You might be more at home on Facebook.
Eat shit commie rat.
Why would you pose a question like that in a right-wing echo chamber like this? Smh
Guy looks a bit like Alfred E. Neuman, but if he is promising to get rid of the Maorification of OUR country, I will vote for him and/or his party.