“French philosophers of the Enlightenment saw these islands, especially Tahiti, as the original natural society where people lived in a state of innocence and food fell from the trees. How wrong they were,” said Patrick Kirch, professor of anthropology and director of UC Berkeley’s Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology.

“Most islands of the Pacific were densely populated by the time of European contact, and the human impact on the natural ecosystem was often disastrous - with wholesale decimation of species and loss of vast tracts of indigenous forest.”

Moreover, he pointed out, Tahitian society was engaged in endemic warfare, with ritual human sacrifice to a blood-thirsty god named Oro, when French explorer Louis de Bougainville came for a two-week trip in 1769 and thought he had arrived in paradise. Bougainville’s description of Tahiti became the basis for Jean Jacques Rousseau’s concept of l’homme naturel, the nobel savage. ”
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2000/05/08_pacific.html

which suggests over population is a possibility (in theory anyway) and I was trying to make the point that social justice doesn’t necessarily mean we over extend ourselves to those who don’t practice ecological wisdom. As I have said before you can drive a hummer* through the Four Pillars (impressive though they are).

http://www.hummer.com

the same could be said about “British” New Zealanders”? That was the rationale used to justify the establishment of British colonies in Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand during the 19th Century, but its about as bunk as now.

The fact is elites all over the world since the establishment of the U.S. republic have ensured that small landholding agriculture is impossible or uneconomical dating back to Roman times.

The problem is that hundreds of millions of people have been deprived of their economic base and have been forced to rely on the whims of the marketplace or rather the Industrial Economy.

Its a misconception that the common people don’t know how to provide for themselves or manage their own environments.

The phrase, “teach a man to fish… is one of the most patronising that I’ve ever heard and I cringe whenever I hear it.

They don’t need to be taught how to fish. They fuc*en been fishing for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Its when misguided Westerners show up who have little knowledge of local conditions or capablities and imposed their belief or agenda, only then do problems happen.
http://tinyurl.com/4uugy7
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3308231.stm

The distortion is even greater for PT funding than for road improvements. Something that Greens should be addressing.

The money isn’t gone yet - I was talking about the next ten years not the last ten years. That means we’ve got a lot to lose if we don’t stand up and demand that our elected representatives behave honourably.

The fact that the Nats haven’t raised any questions in Parliament or the media or used it to divert attention from the hollowmen allegations does suggest they will be just as bad if they get elected. On the other hand it was the Nats who began this dispropportionate capital investment in Auckland motorways back in ‘91

You may have missed the main point I was originally trying to make. That MSM simply reported the government’s words with no attempt to check their honesty. If they had done some basic checking they would have found that the government was planning to take five times more than it was giving. In fact it surprising that the MSM haven’t checked the claim that the government is spending more on transport than any previous government. Although it is only easy to check the portion being spent on highways that definitely reveals that 10 of the 14 highway regions have received more capital investment in highways from at least one previous Labour government, the West Coast did better under every previous Labour govt. Railway capital investment is only readily available until the early 1960s, but that does reveal $300m a year in the decade after WWII falling to $150m by the end of the ’50s. Funding of buses and trams was a local council matter until 1969 which means realisticly capital investment in buses and busways can be excluded to arrive at a meaningful “most ever” figure of $600m p.a. incl Ak, $300m p.a. excl Ak, compared with $450m p.a. in the 1950s. Maybe the reason Cullen smirks when he’s bragging about this “biggest spend up New Zealand has ever seen” is either that he knows he getting away with murder or else he actually thinks “New Zealand” and “Auckland” are the same place and he believes he’s telling the truth.

Glad to see we’re in agreement on funding land transport on an egalitarian basis - from those who can afford it to those who need it. ie from cities with lots of ratepayers and not a lot of roads (or railways) to districts.

You didn’t even answer me question about seperating equitable resource distribution and a finite environment, Jh. State welfarism is indeed a prominent approach to equitable distribution of resources, and isn’t about being fundamentally lazy like the National Party seem to believe. The amount of people currently bringing up children relying on the state is lower than ever, and the statistics back up pretty soundly that most of them are geuinely in need of assistance. (I’m with you on getting EVERYONE’s house insulated and making it mandatory in the future, btw) That said, none of this explains how you can justify taking the Greens to the centre by seperating equitable distribution of resources from the acknowledgement that they are limited.

BP- You didn’t exactly mention what you’re replying to and I’ve lost track. That said, I would quickly like to point out that the greens aren’t exactly “far left”. They’re not a centrist party with vaguely left leanings like Labour is, for sure, but the Green party doesn’t really follow the stereotypes of radical anti-capitalists that people try to evoke with terms like “far left”. The Greens are, however, definitely the further left on the political spectrum of all the parties currently in Parliament, though.

As for broadening appeal- as I’ve said, the progressive greens never got even a single percentage point. How would it broaden our base to try their approach? The Greens have been pretty open to most policies- it’s only absolutely out if it has consequences that work against the policy pillars. Completely abandoning equitable distribution of resources will probably never fly.

Kevyn- tax isn’t theft, and the fact that Canterbury isn’t getting in what it’s paying to LTF is because Auckland uses up more funds than it needs with unsustainable road development. I agree that more development funds need to go into transport for smaller cities and rural areas so that they’re not paying for more Auckland motorways- but that’s an issue of whether Canterbury is subsidising Auckland, not simply the fact that the money is gone.

I also doubt the Nats have any big plans to change this dynamic, anyway.

http://peterquixote.blogspot.com/

Incidently maybe that’s why most of the rural North Island haven’t noticed that they’re being ripped off just as much as Canterbury, all to headoffice benefit pen pushers in Wellington and Auckland.

If you listen to your base, you’ll only ever appeal to your base.

Frog was concerned about “the 6% zone”. Do you really think a significant proportion of voters are going to swing to your extreme positions, or do you think you need to move closer to them?

BTW: The “calling Labour to task” is mere window dressing. Such empty posturing is insignificant compared to enabling the Labour government, which is what the Greens have chosen to do.

And when the finance system engineers more hardship, they will then push through merging our currency with Australias, and things will improve for a while to justify it….

TAke the money supply away from them and give it back to the people who it should be the servant of, not the master.

DSC 08.