Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Voting Green

>There could be no more lobby groups, as that woul...

2005-09-21T03:11:00.000-04:00

>There could be no more lobby groups, as that would be discriminatory.

And indeed I oppose lobby groups and those aspects of organizations that discriminate - I would wish that did not happen. But of course one cannot change the world in a day nor can one be absolute in ones policies sometimes perfection is imposible. I would like my house to be clean but I certainly wont spend all day bleaching every square inch. Having said that I wont shovel dirt into my house either.

> Because we think that those things are worth having discrimination per se is not bad

oh nothing is "bad" in itself. Killing can be good if you kill the right person and the options are limited enough. Dont think of me as an absolutist.

>I hold that those forms of discrimination that seek to improve the prospects of a certain party are justified.

I suggest if your goals are utilitarian it is no problem but the implication above is that the goals are discriminatory. I would support you improving the lot of humanity and accidentally helping a sub set - but not helipng a sub set and hoping it will incidentally help humanity.
I hope the difference there is clear.

"helping Jewish people" does discriminate against ...

2005-09-20T20:47:00.000-04:00

"helping Jewish people" does discriminate against non-Jews, but I don't think this form of discrimination is an intrinsically bad thing.

Discrimination is not bad because things are discriminated against, but because of the consequences that discriminatory behavour produces. To say that discrimination is wrong in and of itself would mean many facets of our society should change. There could be no more lobby groups, as that would be discriminatory. No one would ever be able to promote the interests of a minority, such as deer farmers, chess players, open source developers or 3rd world aid workers because that is discriminatory. We should abolish multi-party democracy, because any party that stands for the interests of a minority (such as low income earners or business owners) are discriminatory.

Because we think that those things are worth having, discrimination per se is not bad, but discrimination that results in bad consequences for members. This does not necesarily imply utilitarism, cost/benfit analysis, but that model suits this best. Could also incorporate a wider range outcomes than utility including societal, cultural, economic, political,spiritual wellbeing, as well as things such as having a sense of autonomy, empowerment and identity. (Anything positive thing you can think of really)

I hold that those forms of discrimination that seek to improve the prospects of a certain party are justified, because they produce a good net result. Discrimination is unjustified when it seeks to disempower a certain party. Of course, we cant impress everyone, and many anti-Semites would be disgusted by attempts to improve the wellbeing of Jewish people. If I have to take these opinions seriously, which I don't think is necessary,* then I think the group who is promoting Jewish interests should use methods which are not likely to incite anti-Semite fervor, or methods that can counter that fervor.

*Don't have a justified reason for this, an incredulous stare is the best I can come up with.

> PROVEN approach.I think the question is "proven ...

2005-09-19T02:45:00.000-04:00

> PROVEN approach.

I think the question is "proven to do what?".
I think you may have a different core value.
Dor example lets say your aim was "helping jewish people" (a minority) --> if that is your aim discriminating in favour of jews is quite likely to achieve it but it wont impress everyone.

"But still, the Left needs to give up its racial s...

2005-09-17T13:55:00.000-04:00

"But still, the Left needs to give up its racial separatism and recognize the goal of a colourblind future (even if they think it's too early to dispense with our concept of race quite yet)."

Which is kinda funny because in the previous paragraphs your accusing them of dogmatic romanticism and emotive language ("racial separatism"?). Positive discrimination is in fact a pragmatic and PROVEN approach.

Maybe you need to practice more of what you preach?

Not really - they put themselves outside of govern...

2005-09-17T03:52:00.000-04:00

Not really - they put themselves outside of government.

Discussing legislative and executive achievements ...

2005-09-16T22:22:00.000-04:00

Discussing legislative and executive achievements is a bit off the mark for a party that is outside of Government, isn't it?

What are the greens achievements? (cant think of a...

2005-09-16T07:48:00.000-04:00

What are the greens achievements? (cant think of any)
and how do they stack up against the much smaller progressives? (I can think of the kiwibank for one)
almost time to stop talking about politics ~!

(I already posted this on the Frogblog, but it's a...

2005-09-16T06:51:00.000-04:00

(I already posted this on the Frogblog, but it's appropriate here)

Excellent article, Philoffiser. I agree with quite a few of your points… and I’m a GP member…

BUT, remember that the Greens are a minority party. An excess of pragmatism makes you toothless. You’ve got to DEMAND a yard, BOTTOM LINE a foot, to end up with maybe an inch and a half. That’s politics.

In a political party, the usual dynamic is that the base is more radical than the politicians. This leads to endless tensions and extensive internal blood-letting, at least in parties where the base have any say in anything … what I find admirable in the Greens, is that the MPs manage to stay radical. In fact, they are probably less pragmatic than I would be, in the same situation (with the possible exception of Rod). More power to them!

Being pragmatic all the time gives you ... what? Peter Dunne? So damn reasonable, completely ineffectual (except on "moral" issues, where he's got a broomstick up his arse).

We should distinguish two senses of 'ideology'. Th...

2005-09-16T05:18:00.000-04:00

We should distinguish two senses of 'ideology'. There's the sense that just means "values" - the sort I discuss here, and that's fine. But then there's also the sense of factual assumptions, e.g. whether government or private businesses are better at getting things done. That's not a question of values, it's a matter of brute fact, and as such it's something we should keep an open mind about.

My criticism of the Greens is not that they have the wrong values. It's that they don't know how to achieve them.

I wish to defend ideology. I don't have much of an...

2005-09-16T04:40:00.000-04:00

I wish to defend ideology. I don't have much of an argument, but here goes. I think that if you have values you should stand behind them. They're not really values if you just talk about it. Have written a small piece here. Sure, it's going to cause aggregate disutility, but if you have a value system that is focused on an ideology - then go for the ideology. The Greens arn't utilitarians, therefore they should stand behind their ideology and opponents should attack that, not them.

As a side note, s59 wouldn't shift the balance of power away from jurors. The police already have disrectionary power. The jury could still come back with a verdict of not guilty just as easily, in effect there could be a pseudo-s59. Repealing s59 is a very important step in giving all New Zealanders freedom from assault and battery. If you want a race blind country Richard, you should have an age blind one too.

> negitive for the idealJust to explain I suggest ...

2005-09-16T04:23:00.000-04:00

> negitive for the ideal

Just to explain I suggest there is a left and a right vote.

1) a party like ACT dose nothing except subtract 3% from the major party and risks that they will waste that vote.
2) a party like act provides a strong potential for that 3% to represent a group outside the government - in fact a smart national leader will exclude them to promote their own "mainstream" appeal. same for greens and labour.
3) small parties can promote ideals that are positively moronic and since they wil NEVER have to deliver they can get away with it, worse yet much of the public may come to to believe their rubbish.
4) they promote extreemism and polarization in the public

Okay, so that's why the Greens suck. Most of those...

2005-09-16T04:13:00.000-04:00

Okay, so that's why the Greens suck. Most of those criticisms apply to Labour too.

Surely not nearly so bad. the reasons you state are the reasons I would NEVER vote green. Worse yet i see the greens and act being negitive for the ideals they propose.

"They may not be perfect utilitarians, but they're the closest thing on offer."

Im unconvinced - I think their lack of pragmitism makes them LESS utilitarian than most.

> only the Greens can be relied upon to focus on the real issues.

The greens do mention real issues and you are right about the other parties - however their problems just lie elsewhere. i find it hard to see why you pick the greens over the progressives which represent largely what the greens do and yet are much more pragmatic about it. Better yet they dont risk wasting the vote.