To compromise between right and wrong is to choose wrong.
To compromise between just and unjust is to choose injustice.
Monthly Archives: February 2013
It takes two to tango
I was speaking with a professional mediator/arbitrator tonight and he threw this supposedly wise saying into the conversation.
It takes two to tango.
The meaning of the saying is that whenever there is a dispute both parties are at least partly at fault. The saying is false. It is possible for one party to be entirely in the right but he has ruled out this possibility beforehand.
Where to find people who will judge righteously?
You have not done those things you ought to have, Dunne
Since August 2011, Peter Dunne has banned 30 synthetic cannabinoids by issuing Temporary Class Drug Notices. These are published in the New Zealand Gazette, “the official newspaper of the Government of New Zealand.” Here’s an example.
Pursuant to section 4C of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, I give notice that the following substances are classified as temporary class drugs:
CB-13
1-naphthalen-1-yl-(4-pentyloxynaphthalen-1-yl)methanone
MAM-2201
(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)(4-methyl-1-naphthalenyl)-methanone
AKB48
N-(1-adamantyl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
XLR11
(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone
This notice will take effect on 13 July 2012 and will expire on 13 July 2013, unless cancelled or renewed as specified in section 4E of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Dated at Wellington this 2nd day of July 2012.
HON PETER DUNNE, Associate Minister of Health.
The legislation enabling the issuance of Temporary Class Drug Notices was the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act (No 2) 2011, which became law on 9 August 2011. Let’s take a closer look at what it says.
4C Temporary class drug notice
(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, specify any substance, preparation, mixture, or article as a temporary class drug.
(2) The Minister must not give notice under subsection (1) if the substance, preparation, mixture, or article is a Class A controlled drug, a Class B controlled drug, a Class C controlled drug, a precursor substance, or a restricted substance (as defined in section 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005).
(3) The Minister must not give notice under subsection (1) unless he or she is satisfied that the substance, preparation, mixture, or article that is to be specified in the notice poses, or may pose, a risk of harm to individuals, or to society.
(4) A notice under subsection (1) may describe the substance, preparation, mixture, or article by any 1 or more of the following:
(a) its chemical name, or 1 of its chemical names:
(b) its product name:
(c) a description of the substance, preparation, mixture, or article, in the form that the Minister considers appropriate for the purposes of the notice.
(5) A notice under subsection (1) must state the date on which the notice comes into force.
(6) The date specified under subsection (5) must not be earlier than 7 days after the date of the publication of the notice in the Gazette.
4D Effect of temporary class drug notice
(1) Except as provided in this section, a temporary class drug is to be treated, while the temporary class drug notice remains in force, in the same way as if the drug were a controlled drug that is specified or described in Part 1 of Schedule 3.
(2) A temporary class drug specified or described in a temporary class drug notice is not to be added to any schedule of this Act while the notice is in force.
(3) Despite section 7(1), it is not an offence for a person, in relation to a temporary class drug, to do either or both of the following while the temporary class drug notice relating to that drug is in force:
(a) to possess for his or her own use less than 56 grams in total of any products (including cigarettes), or any drug forms (including flakes, tablets, or capsules), each containing some quantity of that temporary class drug:
(b) to use that temporary class drug.
(4) Possession by a person of 56 grams or more in total of any products (including cigarettes), or any drug forms (including flakes, tablets, or capsules), each containing some quantity of that temporary class drug is to be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as possession by that person of an amount, level, or quantity at and over which a controlled drug that is specified or described in Part 1 of Schedule 3 is presumed to be for supply.
(5) A substance that has a structure substantially similar to a temporary class drug is not to be treated as a controlled drug analogue by reason only of that similarity.
(6) While a temporary class drug notice is in force, the Minister must seek advice, as he or she considers appropriate, under section 5 or 5AA, or both, in relation to the temporary class drug and its appropriate classification, if any (including as a precursor substance, or as a restricted substance as defined in section 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005), under this Act.
(7) As soon as possible after the publication of a temporary class drug notice in the Gazette, and while a temporary class drug notice is in force, the Director-General of Health must ensure that the notice, and information about its effects, is available—
(a) on the Ministry of Health’s Internet site, in an electronic form that is publicly accessible; and
(b) in any other way that the Director-General considers appropriate in the circumstances.
(8) Despite the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989, a temporary class drug notice is not to be treated as a regulation for the purposes of the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989.
4E Duration of temporary class drug notice
(1) A temporary class drug notice expires at the earliest of—
(a) the close of the day that is 1 year after the date on which the notice came into force; or
(b) the date on which the substance, preparation, mixture, or article is—
(i) classified as a Class A controlled drug; or
(ii) classified as a Class B controlled drug; or
(iii) classified as a Class C controlled drug; or
(iv) added to Schedule 4 as a precursor substance; or
(v) classified as a restricted substance (as defined in section 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005); or
(c) its revocation by the Minister by notice in the Gazette.
(2) A temporary class drug notice may be renewed by the Minister—
(a) prior to the date of its expiry as calculated under subsection (1); and
(b) on 1 occasion only; and
(c) only for the purpose of allowing sufficient time for the Minister to obtain the advice that is to be sought under section 4D(6).
Did you pay special attention to the highlighted bits?
According to 4C(3), since August 2011 Peter Dunne has been satisfied 30 different times that a particular substance poses, or may pose, a risk of harm to individuals, or to society. Well, it’s nice to know that someone’s getting some satisfaction.
Now, according to 4D(6), “while a temporary class drug notice is in force, the Minister must seek advice, as he or she considers appropriate, under section 5 or 5AA, or both, in relation to the temporary class drug and its appropriate classification, if any (including as a precursor substance, or as a restricted substance as defined in section 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005), under this Act.” What advice did Peter Dunne consider it appropriate to seek, regarding the 30 substances he’s banned? He must have sought it. So what was it?
So far, Peter Dunne has renewed all his Temporary Class Drug Notices issued in 2011, prior to their expiry. Note that, according to 4E(2), this is only for the purpose of allowing sufficient time for the Minister to obtain the advice that is to be sought under section 4D(6). Peter Dunne must be seeking lots of advice. Otherwise, what’s taking him so long?
You know what I think? I don’t think Dunne’s been keeping his side of the deal at all. I’m going to ask him to find out.
People ain’t no good
Stop trusting in mere humans,
who have but a breath in their nostrils.
Why hold them in esteem? (NIV)
Ship of Union Fools. The Living wage.
Never underestimate the power of Idiots in large numbers!
The NZ Herald ran a story today about Union activism, lobbying for the raising of the minimum wage… under the emotive term ‘Living Wage’.
It was with great relief that I read further that John Key rejected the notion.
It currently sits at $13.50.
Read about it here:
Unions seek to compel employers to raise their minimum wage to between $18.00 to $20.00 an hour, under the pretext that this rate will mean “families can realistically live”.
As I was reading about this in the Smoko room at work, I could not help but mutter how insane I thought this Idea is and that it would only serve to hurt New Zealand, esp those this wage was supposed to help.
I was promptly challenged, and so I began to explain why this was both a stupid Idea and why it would make things worse for everyone.
I explained that $18.00 dollars an hour may indeed be enough to get by on…today… under the present cost of living, yet the very introduction of this ‘artificial’ wage increase would immediately cause a jump in living expenses… and thus the raise would only serve to inflate costs, and $18.00 would then not buy the same amount of goods and services as it does today… before the compulsory rise.
Ie it is a self defeating gesture.
It would cause the cost of living to rise for everyone, esp in regards to things like Bread, Bakery food, Petrol, etc… things which Kiwis buy from other Kiwis, rather than from overseas. Conversely it will hand a greater competitive advantage to imported Goods comparative to New Zealand produce. Imports will still be effected, yet not to the same degree as Kiwi made… and this disadvantage puts New Zealand business under greater strain.
Some businesses simply will not remain viable because the wage rise makes their products too expensive, and some will simply shut down their operations, others will move offshore to countries where they can get less expensive labour, and others will bring in Automation, because they can justify the expense in light of the New Wage laws.
In all these scenarios It will be bad news for the lower wage earners.
All these Evils will have resulted because of ridiculous Social engineering
The Unions and complicit Social democrats will have successfully cost workers their jobs proving that this type of Economic stupidity will surely hurt the very people this socialist compulsion was supposed to help!
It keeps getting worse because Unemployment will jump and so will numbers on the unemployment benefit (ramping up the costs to taxpayers)… and what is even worse is that because the costs of living have been artificially forced upwards… the buying power of welfare benefits will have shrunk too!
Then we will nodoubt hear Union cries to raise welfare benefits to ‘living proportions’, throwing even greater burdens on the workers… ie the taxpayers!
Some may say that $18-20/hour might encourage some people off welfare, yet where would these jobs come from?
You have in reality made it much harder to employ them!
And all this misery is a typical result of Government Regulation and interference in the market place and economy of the country!
The Socialist Unionists will not blink from blaming all this extra pain and chaos upon the greed of the capitalists!
That’s how this Malevolent virus of the mind maintains itself in it’s hosts.
Socialism maintains a Class warfare, always blaming the greed of the other side.
The truth is we don’t have a capitalist system, which is ‘Laissez Faire’… ‘Hands off’ Free market economics.
We have a Socialist regulated/ hands on economy!
So quit with the Rubbish that ‘Capitalism doesn’t work’.
It’s Socialism which is failing, and driving our country into debt and destitution!
I have much better solution than compulsory wage rises.
It would indeed help the lower wage earners.
Interested?
I suggest we get rid of income Tax upon the first $10- 15 000 dollars (per annum) earned by everyone!
This would give the poor a real increase in wages without adding costs to employers!
This would mean the costs of production would not increase, and the cost of living would not be artificially increased, nor would thousands be forced onto the Dole!
We don’t have to imagine why the socialist Unionists and Politicians have not put this suggestion on the table!
They want more taxes, not less! ( Think about how heavily unionized all the State employees are in Health , education, etc, etc)
I don’t have space here to talk about the fact that in reality reducing Tax rates can result in greater tax revenues for the government due to growth in the economy.
Nor will I go into the fact that if politicians agreed to lower taxes to win votes, they would probably borrow money at a faster rate rather than cut government spending. which is another shyster evil which ought to be illegal.
Nor will I go into the explanation that in the real world it is the Law of supply and demand which sets wage rates, not Dictators.
(I have written about this Here:)Nor will I present arguments for abolishing minimum wage laws altogether… though there is a very strong case for doing just that.
I must leave these subjects for a later date.
I t is enough for me to say that only the most ridiculously naive morons think economics can be ‘doctored’ so as to improve living standards by passing such farcical laws.
Tim Wikiriwhi
P.S
For Some time I have also been meaning to write a blog post upon what is going on in respect to the Highest wage/ salary earners… the CEOs etc… the Largess, and how this too is an aberration…an evil which is having very serious detrimental effects upon our society, yet it will have to wait.
It is enough to say that this largess actually encourages socialists to pass absurd yet draconian laws… just like this one…the living wage… believing they can wrestle money away from the Top wage earners and hand it to the lowest ones… and that no ill effects will result.
They are complete Morons.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.
Update: 7-10-13
Another delusion is the calculated cost of implementing this ‘Living wage policy’ as it fails to take into account the disgruntled workers who have taken the trouble to up-skill themselves yet find themselves earning little more than the those people with virtually no skills at all!
Human nature dictates that these workers will strike and demand higher wages too.
and thus there will be multiple unforeseen and un-calculated costs which will have ruinous consequences…. esp for taxpayers, rents,and ratepayers… and the Costs of essentials
Power to the people
Some of my best friends are socialists. One friend in particular often has good arguments in favour of government interventions in a variety of flavours. Here’s one of them, in response to this article in the NZ Herald on rising power prices.
Its no surprise that electricity prices in NZ have doubled in real terms (compared with overseas) in the last 30 years (as per the article in your link).
Interesting to look at the wage bill, interest bill and profit (and where the profit went) for the old system and compare with the new.
And also look at the nature of the generation and distribution assets , old and new i.e. how much of todays electricity as supplied by dams and plants that were there 30 years ago.
I have no doubt the the old government owned system was:-
Simpler
Cheaper
More reliableAlso with the old system
little marketing and advertising costs
reduced management costs
greatly benefitted from orders of magnitude
reduced compliance costs (annual reports. legal costs etc)
profits went to the government to offset taxes
Central planning was done to benefit NZ – not to manipulate the system to the benefit of those receiving bonuses (smartest people in the room syndrome)Cutting the system up into competing entities means that in many cases where there used to be one job there are now about 6. Plus each of the new entities now has its own marketing department. I project managed the multi-million dollar computer that is required to calculate the billing between generators and retailers. Such complexity was unnecessary in the old system. And someone has to pay for all those people treading the streets trying to persuade households to switch from one retailer to another.
In the old system the best brains were used on engineering calculations – now they are used on how best to manipulate for profit.
It all wouldn’t be quite so bad if households could buy electricity at wholesale rates plus a margin and use smart meters to understand and adapt to the risks – but that particular vision still seems unreachable.
Anyway that’s my (admittedly one sided) rant.
My friend also admits it “was written very very quickly as an angry outburst. No real thought gone into it. It is filled with sentences and phrases that could be much better as well holes in the logic etc. and totally lacking in references or hard facts.”
Way too modest!
I think it deserves a response. Any takers?
Free will. What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!
I’m fast coming around to the view that the concept of free will is what Ayn Rand called an anti-concept.
An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate …
Free will is designed to obliterate human decision-making.
It’s simple. We make decisions.
Other people (including God) hold us accountable (i.e., deserving of moral praise or blame) for our decisions. That’s all there is to it, and all you need to know.
The Singularity – the technological creation of smarter-than-human intelligence – is coming, as early as 2030 according to some estimates. The first smarter-than-human AI will make decisions, like we do, only better. Will it have free will? That depends on whether other people (including God) hold it accountable for its decisions.
“The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a human being, and the mind of a human was given to it. (NIV)
The neurophysiology of free will
Insha’Allah
Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” As it is, you boast in your arrogant schemes. All such boasting is evil. If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them. (NIV)
Poi E
Sick of race-based politics in New Zealand? Me too.
Let’s celebrate New Zealand’s Maori culture instead, with this timeless gem from the Patea Maori Club.