Matt's post on the practice of throwing the bigot label at Christians as a method to silence debate got me thinking. Some of my thinking came out in the comment I wrote on Half Done and in Matt's comment in the original post but I still feel I have more to say.

I'm someone who (stating the obvious perhaps) happily walks into the thick of heated and hostile debate. To be more accurate I am someone who willingly does this; I don't always find it easy or exciting; in fact, sometimes I am terrified. I still my fears by remembering I fear God more than men and by recalling Saphira's words in Eragon "without fear there cannot be courage."

It is true that I am wired that way more than most people and I do enjoy the intellectual challenge but I am still human; my apparent confidence is not always actual and I do find the abuse and the mud difficult to weather, especially when I am abandoned by those who should be standing with me or I see those who share my views believing the lies said about me or those who will only secretly associate with me lest their public image be tarred by mine (funny, given I think I have more respect in the public square than most Christians and in fact my opponents will often try to tar me by suggesting an association with the very people who are so concerned that their good public image might be damaged by an association with me).

Then there are those who frown on our and others, attempts to engage culture and deem it pointless for a range of reasons. David Farrar (who I do not include in this list but I quote here because his comment is paradigmatic) wrote in More on Abortion,

In my experience with abortion debates, no-one who is pro-choice or pro-life is open to persuasion to change their views.

Where David is right is that when debates go around and around on peripheral points and people are emotive and uncritical and go all over the place no one's point of view changes, if anything the opposite occurs. However, David is wrong if he means that this never happens. Over the years I have seen many people change their positions on abortion and on a number of other polarising topics, simply through exposure to a rigorously reasoned case irregardless of their worldview. Further, I don't find it that hard to achieve these changes in heart in other people.

This is in part because arming yourself with the ability to reason gives you an immediate advantage over the majority because the majority are not practised in it, and also because we live in a culture where propaganda and slogans pass for informed comment. Most people know what they are supposed to believe and have a vague idea of why - typically something emotive that sounds like it is a 'right' - but the why is frequently not founded on anything of substance and quickly unravels when exposed to critique.

The worst though are those who buy the lie and sell out their faith. I get most frustrated at my fellow Christians. I expect to not be on the same page with the left and at times the secular right, but Christians are supposed to get it.

When the bigot label gets hurled amidst the mud and everyone acts all angry and hurt, far too many Christians immediately assume there is truth in what they are being subjected to; their position must be bigoted or maybe it was the approach they got wrong. They accept the criticism, despite the lack of argument or factual basis and modify their own approach and position.

I suspect that part of this is that Christians themselves are often nice people and they know they must conduct themselves ethically or answer to God so they make that very human mistake, we all make at times, of transposing how they would conduct themselves onto others; thus they swallow the lie and forget the scripural mandate to not entertain accusations of immoral conduct without corroborating evidence. The other part of it is that Christians, like the majority of society, are too uncritical.

Now it is always worthwhile to check one’s approach is not overly confrontational and is well reasoned and supported but throwing out one's position or watering it down just because someone abused you and issued a string of unflattering accusations is ludicrous. To the hardened anti-Christian activist the problem is that your are a Christian and you are breathing. So yes, the problem is bigotry but it's not coming from the Christians.

It is not that the Christian position needs modifying, these people will hate regardless. Sure, they'll sometimes back off if the Christian modifies their stance but that's because the weak, wishy-washy, emotive, irrational position they have moved to lacks credibility outside Christian circles and is no longer effective. Take a look at this post by Kay about Christian websites and see whether it is bigotry or effective cultural engagement that really scares our opponents. [Apologies for using a self-congratulatory example]

The M & M blog is scarier because their posts almost make sense. ( http://www.mandm.org.nz/ ) Idiocy can be just funny. Even over the top hatred like http://www.godhatesfags.com/ is so extreme that its hard to take it seriously. M&M sound plausible & reasonable but have gaps in logic twisting their reasoning. Slimy.

But over on http://www.godhatesfags.com/ - the home page of the Westboro Baptist hurch - they're thanking God for the $US10.9 Million court verdict against them - because it means their message is being spread around the world! Weird.

For people whose tactic is to paint anyone who offers a credible response to their position as a bigot it serves their interests to ensure that the public square is either dominated by extremists that they can easily discredit and wishy-washy claptrap that lacks credibility; they want credible reasoned critique to go away and they are not going to be tolerant and respectful unless they can neutralise your message.

Never underestimate the power of a sound argument, never fear entering a debate, though of course pick your battles wisely. Conduct yourself ethically, never let it be personal and always remember that the price of having Christianity’s abusers stop frothing at the mouth is all too often a failure to engage culture and that is a price that is not worth paying. None of us like upsetting people, but the best way to win respect is not to shy away from the argument but to demolish it without getting nasty or personal.

It has been 2 years today since MandM was born and our first post, In Remembrance of the Religious Right, entered the blogosphere.

Apparently most blogs don't make it to the 6 month mark so we are doing nicely.

Thanks everyone for your continued support.

We are currently working on a new layout for our blog so apologies if things seem in a bit of a disarray.

You may notice in your feeds that we have posted new posts but they are dated for ages ago. This is so we can make use of our new links bar, there is unfortunately no way to avoid them coming up on the feeds.

We have been working on this all day, Madeleine created the header image and that took a while as the original had blue sky and scaffolding on it, so we will take a break now and keep fiddling over the weekend.

Please let us know what you think of the new layout and look. We have not yet had a chance to test the colours on other computers and we are aware that while out old layout looked like a pale cream on our computer on others it was a fairly loud orange brown - hence the change.

These colours should all be complementary to the header image and the links and text should all stand out - please let us know if it does not.

Whaleoil and David Farrar are in disagreement over some comments by Garth George regarding abortion and child abuse.

Garth George says:

I have said it before and I say it again: The number one cause of abuse against
women and children is abortion.

David Farrar says:

I disagree.

I think there would be less child abuse if there were more abortions. The world would be a better place if those who are not suited to be parents did not become parents.

Whale Oil says:

I think they both are missing the point.

We have become a society that tolerates and indeed allows violence against children it is just a matter of where you draw the line that is the argument.

Garth George draws the line at conceptiona and David Farrar draws the line at birth. (I think, perhaps he would like to clarify when it is ok to kill babies and when it is
not.)

My view is that we are indeed a sick society at whatever point we kill and excuse it away with weasel words like foetus, procedure, first trimester etc.

Likewise my view about most of the recent cases of horrific child abuse is that they are no more and no less anything but late term abortions. The simple fact is that the parents of the children had no more respect for the life of the child than someon having a “procedure”.

You see if we accept that you can kill children at up to 21 weeks from conception then why not at birth or why not at 5 years old, or even 18 just before they can vote. For me there is no difference. The Nia Glassie’s and Kahui twins are simply late term abortions by parents who no longer respected the life of their child. As long as we fail to respect human life then we will continue to get these case and no one should be at all shocked by it all.

Whaleoil has a point, something Adolf agrees with me on, though David Farrar’s argument is not new; in, “Abortion a Feminist Perspective”, Susan Sherwin mentions that feticide may be justified in order to prevent child abuse.

[F]eminists recognize that women have abortions for a wide variety of compelling reasons. … knowing the fathers to be brutal and violent, may be unwilling to subject a child to the beatings or incestuous attacks they anticipate; some may have no other realistic way to remove the child (or themselves) from the relationship.[i]

In addition to outright abuse, she also suggests child neglect.

Women who suffer from chronic disease, who believe themselves too young or too old to have children, or who are unable to maintain lasting relationships may recognize that they will not be able to care properly for a child when they face the decision.[ii]

The argument is a two-premise syllogism. The first premise asserts that permitting feticide prevents child abuse or future child neglect. This is because it destroys organisms that will probably be abused in the future. The second premise claims that it is permissible to kill an organism if we know that it will probably be abused or neglected in the future.

The second premise is false. Consider a new-born child born into a context whereby one knows that it is likely that it will be abused either physically or sexually in the future. If the major premise were true, then killing that infant to protect it from abuse would be permissible. In fact, according to this principle, it is acceptable to kill any person, child, teenager or adult whom we know is likely to be abused in the future.

In order to be plausible, Sherwin and Farrar must limit the kinds of entities that the principle is referring to. It must be restricted to exclude entities that are infants or other human beings such as toddlers, adolescents and adults. However, the proponent of this argument must assume that fetuses are not human beings in the same sense that infants are. The argument is sound only if feticide is not homicide.

Engaging in feticide to prevent child abuse is only justifiable if feticide is somehow the morally-better option. If the two are both homicide then one will be engaging in the very action one is trying to prevent. Sherwin and Farrar’s argument relies on the assumption that feticide is not homicide. Farrar has, of course, argued for this assumption, he maintains that a fetus is not a human being until it acquires an ECG which Farrar places at 20 weeks. As I argue in, Abortion and Brain Death: A Response to Farrar, this argument is unsuccessful as are the other attempts to place it at viability, sentience or personhood.

[i] Sherwin, Susan. “Abortion a Feminist Perspective.” In Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, 5th ed., ed. Bonnie Steinbock & John D. Arras, (Mountain View CA: Mayfield Publishing Co) 1999, 361.
[ii] Ibid.

RELATED POSTS:
Is Abortion Liberal? Part 1
Is Abortion Liberal? Part 2
Sentience Part 1
Sentience Part 2
Viability
Abortion and Brain Death: A Response to Farrar
Abortion and Capital Punishment: No Contradiction
Imposing You Beliefs Onto Others: A Defence
Published: Boonin's Defense of the Sentience Criteria - A Critique
Published: Abortion and Capital Punishment - No Contradiction

I am a Theologian with a strong background in Philosophy; apart from Philosophical Theology, my particular area of interest is Ethics. Given this, I often post my thoughts and reflections on moral issues of various persuasions on this blog. I have discussed the morality of warfare, whether it is sometimes permissible to lie, the morality of torture, capital punishment, the nature of our obligations to the poor.

On occasions, I discuss issues related to abortion and homosexual conduct something which, I think, is unavoidable if one is a theologian writing from a relatively conservative evangelical perspective. I believe that homosexual conduct is contrary to divine law and I believe that feticide is homicide. The latter claim is not just a casual opinion; I spent some years writing a PhD thesis on the topic and over the last couple of years I have had articles published in this area.

Now a pervasive response to my position on these issues is that appeals to divine law to condemn practises like feticide or homosexual conduct are really an expression of bigotry. One would think that it would be fairly obvious to people that you don’t refute a position by calling the person who holds it a bigot and it is tempting to dismiss this response as simply a confused ad hominem; the problem is that people do not appear to find this obvious. In my experience, many people even educated people, recoil from considering any argument against feticide or homosexual conduct or listening to theological concerns on these matters because they perceive such positions to be bigoted.

It’s worth fisking this objection a bit. A good place to start is to ask what does this charge amount to? When someone claims that another is a bigot, what is meant by this? The Pocket Oxford English Dictionary defines a bigot as someone who is obstinate in his or her beliefs and is intolerant of others. Presumably, the objector claims that one who appeals to the law of God to condemn feticide or homosexual conduct (or some other practise celebrated by contemporary liberal secularists) displays or expresses these features - they are both obstinate and intolerant. The accusation clarified, an obvious question arises, why hold this claim?

Obstinance
Turning to the issue of obstinance, why must a person who holds these beliefs do so in an obstinate manner? Could they not have come to these beliefs as a result of careful reflection? Alternatively, could they hold to them because they are not convinced the counter arguments are sound? What is needed here is some argument to preclude such options and none is forthcoming.

I suspect that what lingers behind this accusation is the belief that theologically-based opposition to abortion is obviously mistaken and the case against it so compelling that no rational, informed person could think otherwise. If so, then this is not so much an argument against such appeals but an assumption that those who make them are mistaken on other grounds. The objector should come clean about what these other grounds are and put forward the compelling, unassailable arguments that everyone else should apparently already know about.

Let me add further that as a person who studies ethics and aspires to be a professional theological-ethicist, nothing is more frustrating than being told by a journalist or a tax lawyer that it’s an obvious fact that a certain theological ethical stance is mistaken. Further, if I think otherwise I must be misinformed and ignorant of the subject, a subject they often have done little or no study on. Perhaps this is one area where a little humility is needed.

Intolerance
Turning to the issue of intolerance, let me here just say that, the concern about intolerance implicit in this objection is mistaken. Even if the proponents of more conservative positions were intolerant, this would only constitute an objection to their behaviour if it were first assumed that people have a duty to refrain from intolerance and this assumption is problematic.

In many contexts intolerance is appropriate and contrary to popular slogans, a virtue. Imagine a society that tolerated rape, child molestation or infant sacrifice? Moreover if unqualified, the assertion that people have a duty to be tolerant entails that one should tolerate intolerance, is deeply paradoxical.

For this charge to have any substance, the objector needs to specify what sorts of action he or she thinks one should tolerate and which ones are such that intolerance is inappropriate. He or she needs to justify this distinction and then provide reasons for thinking that appeals to divine law in a subject like feticide fall into the latter category yet no argument of this sort has been forthcoming.

Here us the rub; if feticide is an action on a par with infanticide then intolerance towards it is justified. In asserting that it is not, the objector implicitly assumes that feticide is not homicide without offering argument. Similarly if homosexual conduct is a serious form of sexual immorality, such as incest, bestiality, polygamy or adultery, then intolerance against it is not necessarily wrong. Our society, for example, has laws against incest and bestiality and few contend for their repeal (though the chipping away has begun). Once again, the objector here, in making their charge, assumes that homosexual conduct is not seriously immoral.

Now it is possible that these assumptions are correct but it is also possible they are not.
Anyone who appeals to divine law to condemn practises like feticide or homosexual conduct is denying these assumptions. You don’t provide a cogent objection to a position by assuming it is false at the outset and then using this assumption to prove that it is. What is needed is an actual argument for the assumption in the first place. Until some actual argument is forthcoming that demonstrates the falsity of what has been defended, objections based on the notion of tolerance merely beg the question and have no impact on the thesis being advanced.

I think there is a kind of irony here; often when someone accuses Theologians of bigotry they themselves are simply obstinately assuming that their position is true and their assumption leads them to castigate and refuse to tolerate the opinions or person who expresses dissent to the secular liberal orthodoxy. Here, as elsewhere, the accusation of bigotry is a form of Orwellian double-speak.

We've been tagged by our old Free-Students Network chum Trevor Louden. The rules are:

• Link to the person who tagged you
• Post the rules
• Share seven random or weird facts about yourself
• Tag 7 random people at the end of the post with their links
• Let each person know they’ve been tagged by leaving a comment on their blog

[UPDATE: Mark V makes the point that we should really do 7 facts each, it is actually difficult to come up with these as many we assume people already know about us.]

Fourteen pointless facts about us:

1. Madeleine voted for the Alliance the first time she voted because she liked their tax policy.
2. Before Matt went to Uni his career ambition was to be an officer in the NZ Army but he failed the psych test.
3. Madeleine travelled the world on a boat for two years before she turned 5 and learned fluent German (as fluent as pre-schoolers get).
4. Matt finished University with an A grade average, was awarded 7 scholarships and one of his PhD thesis markers said his PhD was one of the finest he had had the privilege of examining.
5. "Womens' Space Invasion Outrages" was the title of Madeleine's first foray onto the front page of a major newspaper.
6. Matt has never smoked a cigarette, been drunk or tried drugs. Madeleine is
   not commenting.
7. Matt proposed to Madeleine by writing a 7 page letter arguing the case, point by point, for why getting married was a good idea.
8. Madeleine hate seafood, shellfish, even fresh water fish - all of it.
9. Matt does not eat grapes or strawberries.
10. Madeleine, as an adult and not under the influence of any substance, once walked naked through the corridors of Waikato Hospital.
11. Matt was once charged with "sexually harassing a space," the charges were thrown out by the university mediator.
12. Madeleine is older than Matt.
13. Madeleine is accomplished at sewing and cake decorating.
14. Matt is working towards his brown belt in karate.

[If we get to write 14 facts then surely we get to tag 14 blogs...]

We tag:

Say Hello to my Little Friend; Crusader Rabbit; Kiwiblog; Stephen Franks; No Minister; Roarprawn; Mullholland Drive; Lost Soul; The Policy Blog; The Dim-Post; The Visible Hand; What's Wrong With the World; Homepaddock; Hard News.

When I first read reports on the blogosphere about the NZ Herald commenting on Bronagh Key's wearing the same jacket twice, I thought that the article everyone was linking to must have been related to John Key's swearing in, where she wore the offending jacket the second time and the fashion comments had to be an ill-thought throwaway line.

I just clicked on the offending article; if the title doesn't give you a hint, Fashion tips to avoid First Lady blunders, I can tell you it has virtually nothing to do with anything John Key has done in his thus far short stint as Prime Minister, in fact he only gets a mention to frame the context the fashion tips fall in! The whole piece essentially reduces Bronagh to a barbie doll and is reminiscent of an era where the wife was just an accessory.

One also wonders at the term "First Lady" liberally sprinkled throughout the piece too. Is the Obama-McCain virus sweeping the media turning epidemic? New Zealand doesn't have a first lady, the only time I can recall that term being used in NZ politics was the last time the virus hit, when Clinton visited and PM Shipley's family was suddenly "our first family."

The article is way out of line. Especially in the financial crisis we are facing, wearing one's "purple Adrienne Winkelmann jacket" only once is the faux-pas, not the reverse. While the rest of the country faces the prospect of having to tighten our fashion budgets to Rachel Hunter's haute couture line from the Warehouse, the Herald's suggestion that Bronagh sports "diamond belts" and a specially commissioned "silver fern diamond brooch" because her husband "is loaded after all" is more than a little Marie Antoinette.

Of course the worst thing about this piece is the massive offense it must have caused Mrs Key. Its one thing to have one of your girlfriends quietly tell you they think your outfit is not your best look but when one of the biggest papers in the country takes it on themselves to have a raft of style-critics taking your look apart piece by piece and patronizingly telling you how you could look sexier complete with instructions of how to copy Katie Holmes, see last sentence below, it is outrageous,

"She's an attractive woman with a good figure, she could definitely be more adventurous with her clothes.

"We would accentuate her legs and waist, changing her tomboy look into a slightly more feminine and sexy version," she said.

Whitcher also plumped for slightly darker hair, cut in a bob, topped with a plum lipstick for a confident look.

In the two pages of fluff the Herald tried to pass off as journalism, I note there was no mention of PM John Key's repeat offending with the blue tie that has featured in almost every media appearance he has been in the past few weeks. Was this an oversight? Of course not. He’s male.

Matt and I have been involved in things political for a good 13 years, to a far lesser degree than the Keys of course. In that time while Matt has had to endure the odd comment about his "snappy dress sense" it was me that bore the headlines "Madeleine Richards on Murder, Feminism and Her Sexy Legs" on the front cover of the student mag at Waikato University, with weeks of letters to the editor commenting on the length of my skirts and how hot my legs are. It was me that has had editors writing comments on my figure - "ooh she gained weight" "has she lost weight?" - speculating what I eat, super-imposing my face on strippers jumping out of cakes and discussing my breasts. It was me that had to endure being woken at 6am by a call from a national radio program asking me live on air my thoughts on MP Pete Hodgson's comments on my weight. It is me that currently is the subject of a poll on my "hottness" where people have speculate as to 'how good a ride' I am.

Until we stop paying lip service to the lie that we don't judge people based on how they look and that men and women are treated equally in the political arena Bronagh Key can unfortunately look forward to more of the same.

Michael Laws has written a strong piece in the Sunday Star times on child abuse which pulls no punches and calls for a return of the death penalty. Most of what he says is spot on (well there is a bit of the 'someone else should be doing something' going on) but this statement is so far off it warrants a response:

... stop buying the liberal excuses. Every blame-shifter, every apologist, every politically correct naysayer is, in reality, part of the problem. They are the pimps of abuse - they condone ill-treatment because they make excuses for the perpetrator.

And I include defence lawyers in that retinue because they whore their intelligence to protect the evildoers. As a rule, criminal defence lawyers have no soul. ... [emphasis added]

Now maybe I took issue with this because of my vocation, but 'defence lawyers whore their intelligence?' Is Laws arguing against due process? Should every accused automatically be assigned an in-intelligent lawyer? Perhaps we should forget about a trial altogether?

Further, 'defence lawyers have no soul?' Is Laws aguing against the presumption of innocence? If the court finds the accused not guilty then we must assume the defence lawyers were right.

What's next? A complete removal of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict (commonly dubbed "double jeopardy") in cases where the public 'know' the court got it wrong?

The defence laywer's job is to present their client's case. The state's job is to present the evidence that the accused is guilty. If the public is to have faith in the integrity of the justice system we should hope that both sides are highly skilled; the standard of evidence must be so high that the court, and the public, are left beyond any reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt, or lack thereof; expecially if we are to consider re-introducing the death penalty.

If the state is competent, and it is patently obvious the accused did it, then the most intelligent defence lawyer in the world will not be able to combat this. When the state bungles a case the last thing we should be doing is booing and hissing at the defence, do we really want to drop the standards and make it easy for the state to get a prosecution? This will give the state far too much power and society far too much uncertainty in the justice system.

We have to remember, as FE Smith points out in the comments section here, that it is not the defence lawyers who kill the Nia's of this world and we must put our faith in the presumption of innocence and in due process because the alternative is worse.

As I have previously argued, the presumption of innocence means, inevitably, that sometimes the guilty will walk and the innocent will be convicted. Whilst no one likes or condones these negative connotations the alternative is worse because the solution to ensuring that the guilty always get convicted is to imprison every accused and likewise, the solution to ensuring the innocent never get convicted is to never convict anyone. The system is balanced to make it difficult to convict, and this is where the intelligent defence lawyer is necessary, because it is generally deemed worse to send an innocent person to jail, or give them a lethal injection, than to fail to punish the guilty.

So we are left having to accept that once a court has heard a case, weighed the evidence and ruled, that's that. Demonising the defence lawyer because, despite the court's assessment, the public "know" this person is guilty (good ol' trial by media) is to give the state far too much power and to give society far too much uncertainty in the justice system. Whilst it may succeed in increasing the chances of nailing the guilty it equally runs the risk of allowing the state, with its vast resources, to hound and harass the innocent.

None of us like the idea that the someone will not be held to account when a child is abused to death but we must be careful we are not calling for anyone to be held to account; what we want is the guilty to be held to account and for that important distinction to be drawn we need good defence lawyers.

The Special Votes have been counted, the official result of the New Zealand 2008 Election is in; see the effect they have made on the provisional results:

Final results in bold, (provisional results in brackets)

National 44.93% (45.45%) - 58 (59) seats
Labour 33.99% (33.77%) - 43 seats
Green 6.72% (6.43%) - 9 (8) seats
ACT 3.65% (3.72%) - 5 seats
Maori 2.39% (2.24%) - 5 seats (overhang)
Progressive 0.91% (0.93%) - 1 seat
United Future 0.87% (0.89%) - 1 seat

Basically National loses a seat, the Greens gain one. What is with kiwi's overseas and nostalgically voting Green? Its all right for them, they don't have to live here.

No change to the reigns of power or anything dramatic as the confidence and supply agreements are more than adequate but as David Farrar said on applying the St Lague formula:

National was at massive risk of losing a second seat as they hold Spot 120. Labour are in 121. National’s quotient is 9160.0 while Labour’s quotient is 9159.5.

If Labour had 40 more voters turn up (that is less than one voter per seat), then Damien O’Connor would be back in Parliament and Aaron Gilmore would have missed out. Or if 22 people who voted National had voted Labour, then Labour would have 44 seats and National 57.

This does raise the risk of Labour seeking a recount somewhat, though of course, there is no guarantee that'd help them.

Seasoned blogger Barnsley Bill shares some tips in Blogging for Dummies, complete with live updates from commenters (including yours truly). It is hysterically funny because, sadly it is so true.

I have reproduced the list and will update it throughout the day linking to live examples that I know of and commenting on relevance, feel free to point to others.

1. Choose a witty sobriquet. Something which makes you sound clever, preferably a character from an obscure novel. If you haven’t read a book use a character from a film.
[Check. MandM plays on a number of cultural icons Eminem - Look Who's Back, M&M lollies, Subway Biscuits and it happens to be how people refer to us (and its less spack that Mattie and Maddie)]

2. Pick up on grammar or spelling mistakes to emphasise your point. If you haven't got a point choose one from someone even angrier than you.
[The observant will have noticed that particularly Matt makes a lot of spelling and grammar mistakes, we think he is dyslexic, but its always a good comeback when you can't refute his argument]

3. Use a straw man to make everyone who says anything reasonable sound like they are advocating child murder. If you don't know what a straw man is, you are probably using one anyway so don't worry.
[Couldn't find an example where one of us was accused of advocating child murder, though I have some dim recollection that it has happened, but here is one where Matt is asked if he wants to confess to being both gay and into pedophilia, ironically this comment came in a discussion where Craig Young complained, justly, that gay men are often falsely accused of all being pedophiles and Matt asked for some more info on his stats.]

4. Exaggerate, misquote and mislead. Deliberately misconstrue simple points in order to emphasise their advocacy of a position they were not taking.
[This happened to me on The Standard just the other day; I pointed out that an income of $40,001 did not make one "wealthy", especially if one had a family an lived in a main centre. Apparently I meant I was an uncaring tory and had no sympathy for "the 70% of New Zealanders who earn LESS than $40000."]

5. Lend legitimacy to your argument by using the following expressions: guardianista, NuLab, dear leader. This will instantly confound MPs and impress your blogging chums.
[I couldn't think of one off hand but then Cactus Kate came to the rescue.]

6. If you're in danger of talking about the issues, remember you're on shaky ground, back away. In fact its probably safer if you avoid this risk altogether by not reading the original post.
[Matt argued that sustenance rights do not necessarily entail statism and anonymous said "So if the government doesn't remove the wealth of the rich the poor will starve." Or here, where the person actually admitted they did not read the post before commenting.]

7. Talk about some mythical age in which this country hadn't had it so good. Usually before there were any immigrants or before social welfare became a 20 billion dollar a year entity.

8. If all that fails reduce everything to 1984. Pick a theme and repeat it over and over again until the internet ceases to exist, or we're all dead, or whatever it is that you're sure is going to happen happens. This is a sure fire way to deal with your crushing sexual inadequacy.
[Sounds like most of the people I went to law school with at Waikato. Sadly it also sounds like most of the lecturers too. Auckland Uni is a massive improvement on that score.]

9. Post a pompous long-winded and convoluted reply that nobody can be arsed reading, so they probably won't bother refuting it. They will just reply that you are a wanker and so one wins the moral high ground! Courtesy of Oswald
[Matt gets accused of engaging in this all the time but if you actually read what he says it is worth wading through. Great live example here, in fact the blog post that sparked these comments could be said to suffer the same problem]

10. Accuse anyone who made a devastating and witty critique that completely blew your point out of the water to be posting under a fake name. Suggest they are really someone that your friends don't like. Courtesy of Madeleine
[Multiple examples from this particular person I am thinking of but here is one where he wrongly accuses someone else of being Matt]

11. Post as anonymous and then complain when other people allege that the other anonymous's comments are yours. Courtesy of Madeleine

12. When you do spot something that most people don't understand but you do, find a way of making a clever statement demonstrating your superior understanding. (Even if it has no bearing whatsoever on the topic just as as long as people think you are cleverer than them) Courtesy of Madeleine
[Couldn't find one off the top of my head but Roger Nome attempts to do this here:"Ahh - argument by analogy. It enjoyed its hay day back in ancient Greece, but it's still good for convincing the masses that a false premise is in fact sound and true." Matt's response is priceless]

13. If in doubt, especially good when you simply lack the ability to respond and you know you are outgunned, invoke the never fail technique of calling everyone hate-filled, intolerant, bigots and wonder out loud where all their venom comes from. Courtesy of Matt
[Exhibit A and Exhibit B and Exhibit C]

14. When discovering someone's post or comment too late to implement 2.-13. (because of wide-spread link and comment support) throw your toys out of the cot and point out, anonymously of course, that the National have not yet removed the draconian legislation affronting free speech and you will have their site torn down. Courtesy of Matt
[See most of the comments from the anonymous's on this thread]

15. If a woman says something you don't like attack her appearance and shaggability. Either call her a fat, ugly, smelly, ham-burger, stuffing heifer or make a llewd suggestions and set up a poll on her sex appeal.
[This was Critic's favourite line of attack against me, and Nexus's, but neither student mags have online examples anymore, though here are two: James Jenkins; Scalia (though Scalia I think is not trying to attack me)]

16. Psychoanalyse your opponent. Refer to their upbringing, their relationship with their father, how much they were breast-fed, their attraction to fire and their alleged sexual inadequacies.
[See here and here.]

17. Godwin's law; find an analogy between the person you disagree with and Hitler (or Muldoon if you want a kiwiana version).
[I think we have all seen examples of these]

We have tapped a rich vein here, the latest three offerings are from Madeleine again

18. Start referring to excreta in your post or comment. i.e. "Pooping in the mouth of democracy". OH DEAR, this "offering" courtesy of OECD

Extrapolating from Tumeke's October 2008 stats, the top 10 Christian Blogs on Public Discourse in New Zealand are:

1. NZ Conservative (23 +1)
2. Something Should Go Here, Maybe Later (34 +2)
3. The Briefing Room (35 -5)
4. MandM (50 +27)
5. Samuel Dennis (79 +1)
6. Kiwi Polemicist (92 new)
7. Gavin Knight (95 - 4)
8. Put up Thy Sword (114 +1)
9. Contra Celsum (125 -31)
10. Say Hello to my Little Friend (a.k.a Beretta Blog) (126 +2)

Of Note:

• No change in the number 1 spot, well done NZ Conservative.
• Newcomer Kiwi Polemicist debuts at number 6 (92 on Tumeke's stats).
• The gap between the top 4 narrows; over the past 3 months MandM have climbed 76 spots on Tumeke's rankings.

Other Christian blogs making the top 200 NZ blogs on Public Discourse are:

• Section 59 Blog (155 -8)
• NZ Debate (156 ?)
• Definitive (181 ?)
• The Voice of Reason NZ (184 ?)

(Numbers in brackets show the overall NZ ranking of each blog)

Note: This list does not include Christians who blog but whose blogs are not identifiably Christian and is based on Tumeke's classification and ranking methods.

If you think your blog should be on the rankings click here.

The October NZ blog rankings are out and MandM, as predicted, is one of the top 3 movers and shakers, climbing 27 places to number 50:

Unfortunately whilst Tim did update our URL to http://www.mandm.org.nz/ he failed to do so for our Alexa and Technorati Stats and went off our old and defunct blogspot url that we left behind nearly two months ago.

To see the difference, compare both these stat-lines:

nz 18,531 * 4,732,054 (old blogspot url stats)

nz 1,694 * 1,783,797 (current mandm.org.nz stats)

As you can see in the last two months we have climbed significantly; 3 months ago that Alexa traffic rank stat (the second, bigger number) started with a 7 and our NZ traffic stat (which measures our popularity within the international community) is equally strong.

So thankyou everyone for your support. Your visits, your comments, your links have all helped us to achieve this result (of course we appreciate your contribution because of the contribution to the dialogue it makes first and foremost).

If you are still linking to our old blogspot url, the one with all the mandmandmandmandm's in it, please, please, please update it :-)

In my last post, What About the Poor? Sustenance Rights Examined, I noted the position of Nicholas Wolterstorff that, “If a rich man knows of someone who is starving and has the power to help that person, and chooses not to, then he violates that person’s rights as surely and reprehensively as if he had physically assaulted the sufferer.” I argued that as stated, this position is subject to three problems; first, that it leads to absurd consequences, entailing that I have a duty to give to every poor person I know about. Second, that it has totalitarian implications and third, that acceptance and practise of this principle would destroy any incentive people have to work.

In a more recent article “Christianity and Social Justice,” Wolterstorff attempts to defend his thesis against the three criticisms I mention above.

Turning to the first problem, Wolterstorff’s response is to note that “acknowledging a person’s right to some good does not imply laying on everyone else a duty to extend to that person that good.” This seems odd, if a right to sustenance on the part of the poor does not mean we are obligated to give them the means to sustenance, what bite does it have?

Wolterstorff puts forward an interesting suggestion. Turning to the paradigm of a right to not be assaulted, Wolterstorff suggests that while we have a duty to not assault people we do not have a duty to protect every person against assault. However, he goes on to note that in addition to having a right to not be assaulted, people have a right against their society “to have practises” and “social structures” that protect them from assault. In particular, such things as a police force, courts and an army. Clearly, if the right does not just mean that members of society refrain from attacking people, it also means that these members have a duty support the police force. Further, if the police force is ineffective, people have a duty to try and improve it (through such things as voting and lobbying).

Moreover, Wolterstorff suggests if “I see you about to get mugged when no policeman is in view - then I may be obliged to offer you my protection in a direct way.” Wolterstorff’s argument is that sustenance rights are analogous to the right to not be assaulted in this way. People have a duty to support whatever institutions or charities exist that alleviate poverty. If they are ineffective, they have a duty to reform them. Further, if one encounters a person in extreme necessity one is required to assist them in a direct way.

Turning to the second criticism, Wolterstorff makes three points to get around the totalitarian implications sketched previously. First, he states that,

the general idea behind having such a right to some good is that individual actions and social practices ought to be such that one enjoys that good. But the role of the government in practices which secure that right may be nil or negligible. Not all rights are enshrined by law. Sometimes in the early church the care for the poor of society was principally in the hands of the bishop.

He goes on to note, correctly I think, that,

Far from acknowledging that there is such a right, nothing directly follows as to what, if anything, governments should do by way of securing that right. In particular, it does not follow that the poor should be put on a dole supported by public taxation. In principle there is a wide variety of other practices which would undo the violation of this right, some of which the government would have little or no role.

Accepting sustenance rights then, does not entail accepting massive public ownership or redistribution.

Second, he tries to mitigate the objection by appealing again to the analogy with assault; “in our fallen world… we do not suppose that, in the face of all the aggressive impulses of human beings purely voluntary arrangements would suffice to secure our freedom from assault.” He goes on to note, “why should we suppose that, in the face of acquisitive impulses of human beings, purely voluntary arrangements would suffice to secure our right to sustenance?” Finally he notes, “it is true, indeed that there are dangers lurking when governments try to ensure that the rights of the poor are respected. But who would be so foolish as to argue that the armies and police forces that we assemble propose no threat?”

Wolterstorff makes some pertinent points here. However, it is worth noting that if one takes the assault analogy seriously, several things are evident. First, the police and armed forces actually do not play as big a role in protecting us from assault as it may appear.

The Police do not patrol everyone’s houses at night, nor does it have 24/7 video surveillance cameras set up on every home, nor do we have publicly funded burglar alarms. If people want any of these things, they hire private security guards, install privately owned cameras and buy their own alarms. The police are called when these systems fail and there is immediate danger.

It is also worth noting that the ability of the Police to catch and prosecute assailants is limited by such things as the presumption of innocence, the need for warrants, probable cause, etc. In societies with lower crime rates, police typically have more sweeping powers, powers our society rightly rejects precisely to avoid the danger of excess state intrusion and its subsequent abuses. As such, if the state is to secure our rights to sustenance similar limits should apply.

Turning to the third criticism, Wolterstorff states that while people do not earn their basic human rights by merit, such as the right to be free from assault or the right to liberty, the same is true of the right to sustenance. Wolterstorff notes correctly that a person can forfeit these rights by misdeeds; if a person attacks another his right to be free from assault is forfeited and I can strike him if necessary to defend myself. Similarly, if a person commits a crime they forfeit their right to liberty and can be imprisoned.

In the same way, Wolterstorff suggests that the right to sustenance can be forfeited if a person is capable of providing for themselves but refuses to do so; just as a needy person has a right against society to sustenance, society has a right against those it supports that they will take responsibility for themselves when they can and not pass of their responsibilities onto someone else.

As far as I can tell, Wolterstorff’s responses enable him to accept sustenance rights without falling into the problems mentioned in my previous post. It is worth noting, however, his response makes the claim that the poor have sustenance rights significantly qualified.

What it means is that individuals in a society have a duty to support various institutions that aid and assist those who are unable to provide for their own needs. These institutions may or may not be run by the state but if they are, the state plays a last resort role and is subject to careful checks on its power. This picture may differ from that some proposed by certain types of Libertarian, particularly those who believe we have no obligations to support the poor at all, but it is hardly the charter for statism or massive public ownership

Colin Espiner really should be more careful about what he writes on his blog.

Though I must admit I love the irony of him having to eat his words; last election he shot his mouth off too.

Good on him for following through. He is talking about writing a book of recipes if enough people decide they would like to contribute so I have offered him my news-print paper, speed-kills sign.

Lately I have been thinking I must write a post about the sacred cow of homosexuality and how it can turn the most ardent liberal into a lefty. I am not the only person to have noticed this phenomena.

As Matt once commented, “Christians should be very concerned with people who will sell out their commitment to liberty before they would side with a Christian [or a moral viewpoint typically ascribed to a Christian]. Such people cannot be relied upon to defend my rights at all.”

Matt was alluding to the so called principled liberals whose principles dissipate the minute they encounter someone who shares most of their views but whose moral code differs from the narrow point of view they define their liberality by.

If you ask them to defend their views and offer a critique they cannot. I doubt they know why they hold their views they just know they are supposed to so they just repeat their mantra.

Their blind adherence to the “correct” moral views are not based on principle or reason, if you point out a flaw in an argument for one of their sacred cows they intolerantly froth and deem you to not be a member of the club. They will jump on the “correct” side regardless of whether the arguments used are sound.

This bigoted intolerance from the right is not completely reserved for Christians; anyone secular daring to voice a flaw in an argument advanced by the sacred cows of the-state-must-endorse-gays-movement is also slammed as illiberal.

Look at all the fuss and bother over David Garrett's comments on paedophilia [note the comments were NOT on homosexuality, learn the difference between an analogy and an identity claim]. In Real Bigotry Versus Mere Opinion Blair Mulholland notes:

Today's Herald has two separate stories dealing, in a roundabout way, with the issue of homosexuality.

In one, we have an elected official actively condoning violence because some of his constituents regard having their town labeled a "gay capital" as an insult.

In the other, we have a barrister, who was not an elected official at the time, pointing out that, in his view, both homosexuality and paedophilia are unchangeable psychological phenomena.

Guess which elected official has had their head called for?

Seriously, this is bullsh*t. The blogosphere, and I am looking at you too David Farrar, needs to get their priorities straight... so to speak. A small town Mayor says it's allright to give Jeremy Wells the bash for a comedy piece he did ten years ago and we shrug our shoulders. A new MP makes a crude observation about human behaviour and the crowd demands crucifixion.

It's not acceptable.

Consider Lucyna's argument in Finding Socialists in the Darndest Places, she cites Lindsay Mitchell's argument that one spots a socialist by their walk, not their talk or the ribbons they wave.

Want proof of how support for homosexuality turns liberals into lefties?

Compare Blair Mulholland, who says he is "more attuned with the Libertarianz" than ACT's, endorsement for Wellington Central with Cactus Kate's, one of the last, self-proclaimed, bastions of complete right-wing bias, hero worshipper of ACT's Rodney Hide.

Blair's endorsement:

Stephen Franks was worth about ten regular National MPs when he was last in parliament, so if you put him in their caucus he will kick some arse. My wholehearted endorsement for the National candidate here.

Cactus Kate's are here, here and here:

Grant, You are the only Labour candidate I am endorsing at this election

and:

With great humour I see all the National Party candidates are now MP's and yet none of the Labour candidates made it through. Oh dear. Crying a river. With
such a vicious swing Nationwide to National that result was a fait accompli.

Well done Sam, Aaron, Simon and Nikki. I hope all your dreams come true. And Grant Robertson who managed despite this massive swing to Toryism, to upset
Stephen Franks in Wellington Central. Brought a wee glow to the cheeks.

For the benefit of our overseas readers, Grant Robertson was the Labour (left-wing) candidate and Stephen Franks was the National (right-wing) candidate in the Wellington Central electorate in the recent NZ election.

Robertson is a unionist and state services flunky from way back; a hard-core left wing activist. As an example of what I mean, when he was National President of NZUSA he organised an activist training conference and invited and sponsored a speaker who advocated vigilante assaults on the private property of those they disagreed with.

Franks is a former ACT Party MP (more right-wing than National), is a Classical Liberal, has years of experience as a lawyer working in NZ’s top law firms, is considered across the political spectrum as being one of the sharpest, most competent and most ethical MP’s in recent times. Franks is secular and, from conversations I have had with him, does not share my view that homosexual conduct is immoral or that abortion, far from being liberal, is homicide.

So, I ask you, why would the uber-right wing Cactus Kate be pleased to see Robertson trump Franks? I asked her that and as yet she has not answered. As she moderates her comments, she has seen my questions, so I must assume the silence is deliberate.

I speculate, with good reason, that the answer is Robertson is gay and that to the socialist-liberal being gay forgives every other flaw; especially when Franks, during the NZ debate to have the state endorse gay relationships through the passage of the Civil Unions Act, made some critical observations on some of the reasons advanced by the defenders of the Bill.

This of course renders Franks a homophobic hate-filled conservative (liberals by definition are pro-everything gay, no matter how inconsistent it renders them and will turn and blacklist their own in heartbeat at the first sign of a betrayal) and elevates the statist Robertson to the position of the better candidate. [I am reminded here of Matt’s blog: Bigotry as Tolerance: Homophobia as Orwellian Double Speak.]

Right-wing socialists loudly claim to be principled yet to avoid being associated with a perceived affront to their moral values they would sell their freedom on the basis of knee-jerk ignorance, straw-men and stereotypes.

So now I turn to Glenn's latest offering where he suggests that the state has no role to play in endorsing any relationships. Something liberals have always claimed on every other, non-homosexual, issue. This is a concept I endorse accross the board. Marriage existed for centuries without the help of the state. State endorsed marriage is a fairly recent phenomena.

Extract from: Homosexuality and Socialism?

It might seem like a very odd connection until you consider… well, actually no matter what you consider it still seems like an odd connection, but in the recent song and dance about Proposition 8 in California, that very odd connect has been reinforced yet again. I’m sure that there are plenty of homosexual people who don’t choose to identify as socialist, so don’t take me to be saying that they all do. But when it comes to the public scrap about marriage, for some of them the red comes to the surface quicker than you can drop a hat.

As evidenced here, here, here, here and in many many other places, some outspoken homosexuals actually believe the following slogan:

Marriage is a civil right.

Now let me very clear what’s being said here. They’re not saying that they have the right to live together as a couple. They already have that right in California, and it was not under threat. They mean legal marriage, and I don’t mean a relationship that is legally permitted (again, they already have this, which is why Keith Olbermann is lying in the second link above when he says that all homosexuals in California who opposed proposition 8 want is the ability to be “a little less alone in the world” by having a relationship”), I mean a relationship that is created by law. What they are actually saying is this:

I have a basic right for the government to create a type of legal relationship and to confer upon my relationship the status of being one of those relationships.

Excuse me? There exists no such civil right, for anyone - homosexual, heterosexual…. or otherwise! What kind of nannyish rubbish is this? The government does currently create such a relationship and confer upon many heterosexual relationships the status of being one of those relationships (and it refuses to do so for others - e.g. close relatives, relationships with more than two people etc, which is why Representative Anthony D. Weiner is lying in the third link above when he says “We are not going to rest at night until every citizen in every state in this country can say, ‘This is the person I love,’ and take their hand in marriage”). It’s like thinking that the right to bear arms means that you have the right to arms, that is, the government has the duty to buy you a gun!

If I stood up in public and said that my wife and I had a civil right to a free house from the government, what would you say? And how crazy do you think I would look if I went further and said that if the government did not provide one then it was somehow displaying hatred or contempt for me or for my relationship?

I’m a conservative Christian, and I take very seriously the teaching of the Bible. So if you tell me that I have no choice and I must accept the fact that all marriages must be state-endorsed, then obviously I’m going to think in terms of my traditional understanding of marriage, since I don’t want the government creating and then endorsing things that are immoral. We’re going to clash and war over that. But here’s a radical thought: If you want to get married then get married, and let’s not let the government have a part of it at all!

But what about incest, polygamy etc? Well firstly, people in the USA are already legally permitted to have sexual relations with multiple people and commit adultery. If you think that’s so horrific, then support a law banning it. And incest is already illegal, so the question of incestuous marriage isn’t an issue. The act is banned. Let’s just say that anyone can get married, as long as they don’t commit any acts that are themselves illegal (like incest or marrying a minor or any other illegal sexual practices). Enter into whatever property contracts you like, regardless of sexuality.

Issues of sexual practices are determined on their own (e.g. the notorious “anti-sodomy law” issue in Texas). But the suggestion that you have a civil right for the government to come into your bedroom and give you a nice certificate and pat your relationship on the back (so to speak)…. Please don’t do that to my language. “Rights” are important things, and you’re dragging that word through the mud when you use it like that.

(This is to say nothing of the misleading claim that currently, different individuals have different rights based on their sexuality. They don’t. No individual is excluded from getting married in California based on gender, race, or sexual orientation. That’s why emotive comparisons to interracial marriage being banned just have no substance.)

When I began university I had strong socialist leanings. The reason was that I believed, as a Christian, we had a duty to help the poor. Studying at Waikato University, however, brought me face to face with socialist academics and left-wing activists and I discovered a hostile and dangerous social agenda that I could not in good conscience embrace.

That, however, left me with a burning question. What about the poor? If the classical liberal or conservative view is correct. What about the poor?

In the next two posts I want to discuss my thoughts on this a bit. I will do so by examining Nicholas Wolterstorff’s defence of welfare or sustenance rights. I will argue that, as initially stated, Wolterstorff’s position is subject to three problems. In my second post, What About the Poor? More on Sustenance Rights, I will suggest that while Wolterstorff’s position can escape these problems, it does so only by qualifying itself in such a way that there is no necessary link between accepting the poor’s right to sustenance and the kind of statist re-distributionary policies favoured by the left

In, When Justice and Peace Embrace, Nicholas Wolterstorff suggests that “If a rich man knows of someone who is starving and has the power to help that person, and chooses not to, then he violates that person’s rights as surely and reprehensively as if he had physically assaulted the sufferer.” Wolterstorff suggests further that this conclusion is orthodox Christian teaching. He provides citations from Basil, Ambrose, John Chrysostom and Aquinas to substantiate this claim.

One immediate problem with this line of analysis is it ignores something of the context in which these theologians wrote. They were addressing the situation of alms-giving. A wealthy person living in a small town or village in the Roman Empire would come across destitute people in his community whom would ask for assistance in most cases a wealthy lord would be able to do so. In the age of the mass media, however, things are quite different. It is not just about the poor person down the road; I am regularly bombarded with stories of poverty and suffering of thousands of people all across the globe when I turn on the new or surf the web.

In this context, to suggest that failure to alleviate any poverty I know about violates the person I fail to help and is analogous to assaulting them is problematic for a couple of reasons.

First, take my duty (and corresponding right on the part of others) to not assault people. This duty applies 24-7, it is not like I can refrain from assault on Fridays but smash peoples heads in on Sunday. There are 6 billion people in the world, as I have a duty to not assault anyone I owe that duty to all these 6 billion people. Moreover, each one of them holds a right to not be assaulted against me. This is not problematic, because discharging my duty to all 6 billion is not hard, I can do so by refraining from assault.

Discharging such a duty and its corresponding right, is unproblematic because the duty to not assault is a duty to not do something

A claim right; a right requiring me to do or give assistance, however, is different. Clearly I cannot give assistance to all 6 billion people in the world at all times. I simply do not have the resources or the ability to do that. Hence, each individual poor person cannot hold a right to assistance against me. At best, I have a duty to help some people, some of the time, with some of my resources.

A related problem is that unless I live just above the sustenance level and force my family to do the same, and donate every cent I earn above that level to the poor then I will be failing to discharge my duty. Hence, accepting Wolterstorff’s claim would quite literally imply that everyone has a duty to live just above the poverty line. Wealth of any sort is a sin, a conclusion at odds with scripture which commends many wealthy people (like Job and Abraham) as Godly people and not as mass murderers.

A second problem is the quite oppressive political implications of Wolterstorff’s claim. Given what I have outlined above, if failure to give to a poor person when we can is analogous to assaulting them then every person who does not live just above sustenance level and does not donate everything they own and earn to charity is in fact a serious criminal. A just government would then be required to lock all these people up, their children would end up in foster care and all their property confiscated and given to the poor as restitution. The implications of accepting a right of the sort Wolterstorff affirms is totalitarianism; a system where everyone is poor and anyone else is arrested and detained. The state would be obligated to take almost everything.

A third problem, which follows on from the first and second, is that if everyone must be self-frozen in their income to just above sustenance level and any falling below it grants one a right to receive what’s needed to get above the sustenance line wouldn’t this destroy all incentives to work or be productive in any shape or form?

The problems with the idea of ‘sustenance right’ were not lost on Aquinas, whom Wolterstorff interestingly cites. In the Summa Theologica Aquinas addresses the question of whether a destitute person who steals food to avoid starvation has committed theft. Aquinas’s answer is no and he cites with approval the claim of Ambrose of Milan that the poor have a right to sustenance and any property given to those unable to maintain themselves is money they are owed.

However, Aquinas goes on to offer some important qualifications. First, in the articles prior to this section of the Summa, Aquinas defends the concept of private property and argues that those who claim the private property of others are in sin, further, those who claim we are required to renounce property to be Christians are expounding a heretical doctrine. Second, Aquinas states that;

Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all
to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the
stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of
those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that
it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at
hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no
other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by
means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this
properly speaking theft or robbery.

Aquinas observations are worth noting. Because there are so many in need and I cannot give to all I am not required to give to every needy person I know of. Instead I have a duty to give some of my money to some needy people and it is my choice to decide who. It follows from this observation that giving to the poor is an imperfect duty. Unlike the duty to refrain from assault it is not a duty to be discharged to all people at all times, but rather it is a duty to give some money to some poor people. But it is at the discretion of the property owner to decide who.

While there is a duty to give to the poor there is not a duty to give to any specific poor individual and hence no individual poor person has a right to my property (although I will be in serious dereliction of duty if I give to no-one).

Aquinas does provide an exception; what has been called the case of extreme necessity. As Donagan puts it, if a person “encounter[s] another who then and there needs help, which only he can give without disproportionate inconvenience” then such a person has a duty to give it and the other has a right to such help.

The medieval position Aquinas expounded is well summed up by Donagan in The Theory of Morality. Donagan suggests that all people have a duty of beneficence, “it is impermissible not to promote the well-being of others by actions in and of themselves permissible, in as much as one can do so without proportionate inconvenience.” By promoting the well-being of others, Donagan means things such as [paraphrasing Donagan] promoting the well being and up-bringing of those who are not adults, especially orphans; helping those who have duties, which owing to bereavement, injury, illness or desertion, they can’t perform without help; restoring to a condition of independence those who have been incapacitated with illness, accident, or injury and caring for those who are crippled, deaf, blind, are chronically ill, or senile.

However, the principle of beneficence is an imperfect duty. No individual poor person has a right to my assistance except in cases of extreme necessity. Donagan draws the appropriate conclusion; apart from cases of extreme necessity,

Duties of beneficence, seeing they are not owed to specific individuals generate
no enforceable rights; and apart from duties of beneficence, no innocent
person has any obligation to contribute to the wellbeing of others, except as he
may freely undertake.

Donagan suggests that the duty to benefit the poor is an imperfect duty to pursue a particular end and not based on a right that another may have. While one has a duty to pursue this end, it is at a person’s discretion as to how exactly they would pursue it.

It would seem then that social polices based on alleged welfare rights of the poor and the authority of the state to coercively uphold such rights are unjust. While we have a duty to aid the well-being of the poor as an end, no poor individual, outside of cases of extreme necessity, has a right to such assistance and hence one cannot justly be forced or required to give any individual such assistance.

In my next post I will look at how Wolterstorff responds to criticisms of this sort and how he qualifies his position to do so.

The new Cabinet has been announced:

John Key
Prime Minister
Minister of Tourism
Ministerial Services
Minister in Charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service
Minister Responsible for the GCSB

Bill English
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister of Finance
Minister for Infrastructure

Gerry Brownlee
Leader of the House
Minister for Economic Development
Minister of Energy and Resources
Associate Minister for the Rugby World Cup

Simon Power
Deputy Leader of the House
Minister of Justice
Minister for State Owned Enterprises
Minister of Commerce
Minister Responsible for the Law Commission
Associate Minister of Finance

Tony Ryall
Minister of Health
Minister of State Services

Nick Smith
Minister for the Environment
Minister for Climate Change Issues
Minister for ACC

Judith Collins
Minister of Police
Minister of Corrections
Minister of Veterans’ Affairs

Anne Tolley
Minister of Education
Minister for Tertiary Education
Minister Responsible for the Education Review Office

Christopher Finlayson
Attorney-General
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations
Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage

David Carter
Minister of Agriculture
Minister for Biosecurity
Minister of Forestry

Murray McCully
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Minister for Sport and Recreation
Minister for the Rugby World Cup

Tim Groser
Minister of Trade
Minister of Conservation
Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs
Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues

Wayne Mapp
Minister of Defence
Minister of Research, Science and Technology
Associate Minister for Economic Development
Associate Minister for Tertiary Education

Steven Joyce
Minister of Transport
Minister for Communications and Information Technology
Associate Minister of Finance
Associate Minister for Infrastructure

Georgina te Heuheu
Minister for Courts
Minister of Pacific Island Affairs
Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control
Associate Minister of Maori Affairs

Paula Bennett
Minister for Social Development and Employment
Minister for Disability Issues
Minister of Youth Affairs

Phil Heatley
Minister of Fisheries
Minister of Housing

Pansy Wong
Minister for Ethnic Affairs
Minister of Women’s Affairs
Associate Minister for ACC
Associate Minister of Energy and Resources

Jonathan Coleman
Minister of Immigration
Minister of Broadcasting
Associate Minister of Tourism
Associate Minister of Health

Kate Wilkinson
Minister of Labour
Minister for Food Safety
Associate Minister of Immigration

OUTSIDE CABINET:
Maurice Williamson
Minister for Building and Construction
Minister of Customs
Minister of Statistics
Minister for Small Business

Richard Worth
Minister of Internal Affairs
Minister for Land Information
Minister Responsible for Archives New Zealand
Minister Responsible for the National Library
Associate Minister of Justice

John Carter
Minister of Civil Defence
Minister for Senior Citizens
Minister for Racing
Associate Minister of Local Government

Rodney Hide
Minister of Local Government
Minister for Regulatory Reform
Associate Minister of Commerce

Heather Roy
Minister of Consumer Affairs
Associate Minister of Defence
Associate Minister of Education

Pita Sharples
Minister of Maori Affairs
Associate Minister of Corrections
Associate Minister of Education

Tariana Turia
Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector
Associate Minister of Health
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment

Peter Dunne
Minister of Revenue
Associate Minister of Health

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE:
Lockwood Smith

I will not be giving stats on the number of women or breaking down the portfolios races as this is irrelevant; ministers should be chosen on the basis of their ability.

No major surprises really, the only thing I would comment on is the sheer number of portfolios on issues the government has no business touching or that are just dumb or paternalistic - women's affairs is particularly grating as is broadcasting and arts, culture & heritage and the rugby world cup? does the government really have to run that?

National and United Future's confidence and supply agreement is out.

Portfolios outside Cabinet:
Peter Dunne gets Minister of Revenue and Associate Minister of Health.

Policy Concessions Include:

• Maintain the policy, research and advocacy role of the Families Commission whilst seeking to achieve administrative efficiencies between the operations of the Families Commission and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner.
• Reducing elective surgery waiting lists by greater utilisation of private hospital capacity, in a planned way where this cannot be met by the public hospital system;
• Progressing the long-term medicines strategy for quality use of pharmaceuticals in the health sector, Medicines New Zealand, including the role Pharmac should play in that strategy.
• Support Public Private Partnerships for major roading infrastructure developments where these are deemed to be the preferred options regionally and nationally, such as the Transmission Gully highway.
• The government notes that United Future has been committed to income splitting as a key part of their tax policy and agrees to support appropriate legislation to First Reading in Parliament.
• Proceed with the establishment of a Big Game Hunting Council as part of a national wild game management strategy with a view to it becoming a statutory authority.
• And the government acknowledges United Future’s ongoing support and interest in the development of the Seniors’ Gold Card, the Community and Voluntary sector, and advancing the interests of the disability sector.

Most of it is the usual centrist stuff *sigh* but I will comment of the standouts.

The Families Commission was a dumb idea and it has been a dumb bureaucratic nanny-state money-gobbler, just like the Children's Commission, ever since. So ugh! to that policy.

Income splitting is a positive move to lowering taxes but it adds complexity to the tax laws and does not benefit enough people. Lowering the top tax rates as the government are planning to to 30% would make the need for income splitting largely redundant.

National and the Maori Party's confidence and supply agreement is out.

Two Maori Party MP's get portfolios outside Cabinet:

Dr Sharples gets Maori Affairs Minister, Associate Education Minister and Associate Corrections Minister.
Tariana Turia gets Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, Associate Health Minister and Associate Social Development Minister.

Policy Concessions Include:

• National offered a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act to see if was working and whether there were any better alternatives.
• National will drop its opposition to the Maori seats and in turn, the Maori Party would drop its pursuit of entrenching the Maori seats and a group will be formed to look at constitutional issues including Maori representation.

Good on the Maori Party for pushing the Foreshore and Seabed Act issue. It is a shame to see that National has not framed the issue in terms of the affront to due process and instead is talking about all New Zealander's being able to access the beach, as if that is somehow more important than human rights.

I am relieved to see there is no deal to entrench the Maori seats. The status quo of race based representation is abhorrent enough.

I stumbled across this nonsense over at Socialist Aotearoa; the same old tired slogans from the student union movement are of course today's mantra for the grown-up ex-student flunkys who now work in the state sector or for the "real world" unions. The only thing that's changed is the number of wrinkles and the method of extracting funds from unwitting citizens.

"take the battle to Key and Hide"

"massive attacks on our rights and conditions as NAT-ACT implement the Shock Doctrine"

"JOIN THE FIGHTBACK." [Emphasis NOT mine]

I passed Socialist Aotearoa by thinking its just the extremists talking, the moderate left surely have grown up a bit, or at least invented some new tactics, but alas... see The Standard's latest offering in Nats step to the right with ACT, particularly check out this propaganda-pearler:

Flatter tax. That means any future tax cuts will go exclusively to the wealthy. Most people will get nothing. [Emphasis mine]

Really? Setting aside the fact that tax cuts to the top earners still potentially benefit everyone (as in let's pretend they do not) lets take a look at the confidence and supply agreement between National and ACT:

... National and ACT note that United Future favours reducing and aligning personal, trust and company taxes at a maximum rate of 30%. They agree that such a tax structure is a desirable medium-term goal.

Yes there is stuff in the agreement about long term goals but the only thing all the parties are agreeing on right now is to aim for a maximum rate of 30%.

So now, lets take a look at the individual income tax rates:

Ok, so that's a crap picture but if you squint or go here, you will see that reducing the individual tax rate to 30% will impact everyone who earns more than $40,001 per year.

So according to The Standard, if you earn $40k + $1 you are wealthy. What planet do they live on that makes them think $40k is wealthy? Try living in a main centre with a family on that income, you might be able to get by if you are frugal but there is no way you could be called wealthy.

I suppose if you are a single, state-servant and can tap into state sector fringe benefits $40k might keep you in chardonnay.