All posts by reed

Christian Libertarianism, Justice, Nanny State

Our Father Who Art in Parliament

1 Comment

The question I ask myself to work out my legislative political views is this…

In this situation is it right for me (or some other person) to use force against a neighbour?

If my answer is “yes” then I support legislative force and government interference in the situation.
If my answer is “no” then I oppose legislative force and government interference in the situation.

I have noticed that sometimes other people will think it is not right for them to use force in a situation but that it is right for government to use force in that same situation. Why do they have a discrepancy? Why would someone think it is right for government to do something that would be wrong for them to do by themselves? They must think that government is special. They must think that government is above their own moral limitations.

An attempt to explain this discrepancy was made to me in a recent discussion. The explanation given was that the government (in this case the court system) is like a father settling disputes amongst its children.

I think viewing government as a father is idolatry.

Questions for the readers…
Do you believe there are situations where it would be wrong for an individual to use force but right for government?
If so, how do you explain the discrepancy?

Uncategorized

Gay Marriage Legislation = Forced Acceptance

15 Comments

A legal opinion by lawyer Ian Bassett said a Human Rights Commission statement that religious officials and leaders were free to refuse to perform marriages that were not in accordance with their religious beliefs, was incorrect.

He said if celebrants and church leaders refused to perform marriages, or hoteliers and others supplying services to the public refused to supply services to same-sex couples for a wedding, they would be breaching the Human Rights Act.

Meta-ethics

Right and Good

13 Comments

There is a difference between Right and Good – the two concepts are often used synonymously in discussions but they are not the same. The distinction is noted in Romans 5:7…

Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.

A righteous man is not (necessarily) a good man. A righteous man is someone whose actions are according to what is right i.e. to do what you must do and avoid doing what you must not do. A good man is someone who does good. To do good is to do something out of love.

Rightness, or righteousness, is a matter of right and wrong – e.g. paying your debts, honouring a contract, honesty, self defense.
Goodness is a matter of the heart e.g. generosity, kindness, helping those in need, mercy.

This topic seems too obvious to blog about but I’m sure this post will be useful for linking to later.

Feel free to discuss or critique.

Constitution, Justice

One Rule Constitution

7 Comments


If I could write one rule, and only one rule, for New Zealand’s Constitution the one rule that I would write would be…

Any legal punishment must be proportionate to the offense.

If you could write one rule, and only one rule, for New Zealand’s Constitution what would that one rule be?

ASS

Advertising Standards Authority – no jurisdiction over own name

26 Comments

Following my complaint about the Advertising Standards Authority Society misrepresenting themselves as an authority the ASS has ruled that it can not consider a complaint about its own name because it has NO JURISDICTION.

It’s an ironic ruling. My complaint is that they claim authority when they have no authority i.e. the ASS have no jurisdiction at all, however this would be the one occasion where the ASS actually have authority because the complaint is about their business – they own it – they have complete authority over themselves. They just don’t have authority over anybody else.

The ruling is now on the ASS website.