Perhaps I'm being old fashioned here, but isn't there more for governments to consider than creating the freedom for individuals to pursue economic gain? Is that what better health and education is all about? The assumption appears to be that the guard rails should be removed so that individuals can have their way with water, air and the land, without concern for their fellow citizens. Economic prosperity is important, but the humble recognition that the natural world wasn't simply delivered up for our consumption needs to be recognised. Government has a role to play here. Clean water for example, isn't just something required for human health, so that individuals can maximise their economic output-- it goes beyond economics and individual freedoms.
Thanks for your comment. In answer to your first question I would refer to Jefferson - Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Trouble is that too much Government gets in the way of that objective.
I favour individual freedoms.
As a small and insignificant example the classification of movies with a Restricted Category meant that I could not take my 15 yr old grandsons to see "Gladiator 2" because it is R16. My view is that the Censor should recommend and leave it to the invividuals to make up their minds whether they should see or read or whatever. My lads spent the year studying Latin and Classics at school. They knew what they would be in for. And I know them well enough to know that they could handle what Ridley Scott threw at them. I don't need a Wellington bureaucrat to tell me.
There is much to admire in what you say about freedom and the proper role of government. And while I agree that wealth, or the lack of it, plays a part in determining happiness, to be happy I need also to go into wild places where I chase trout and listen to the sound of running water and of birds chirping. Government has a role to play in preserving these places, because unfettered individuals will destroy them in pursuit of their own economic gain. I do agree with your comments regarding censorship.
To guard against government becoming a job scheme or enabler of job schemes at all times focussing on nurturing durable employment growth in private enterprise while being constantly vigilant against public sector bloat.
The present reactive systems are not protecting citizens, least not the most vulnerable. As I said in my book - My story has taught me that we cannot have freedom without truth –
for we cannot allow people the freedom to lie.
We can not have diversity without unity – the only unifying force we have in society is the law.
Today the law is not being applied equally to all.
Where does compulsory fluoridation of out water fit in with duties of governments ? You said that govts job is to provide clean uncontaminated water for us, but now Councils are being ordered to contaminate all our water with fluoride. People could easily choose to supplement their own fluoride, but govt over reach is forcing it on everyone. They claim it is safe and effective, but who is taking responsibility if something goes wrong ? We saw how that worked during Covid so I dont want it, or the extra costs involved.
Depends on whether you consider fluoride as a contaminant. It could be said that flouridation is part of the health duty and is of a preventative nature against tooth decay and associated disease. But I do see your point about the compulsory thing.
Perhaps I'm being old fashioned here, but isn't there more for governments to consider than creating the freedom for individuals to pursue economic gain? Is that what better health and education is all about? The assumption appears to be that the guard rails should be removed so that individuals can have their way with water, air and the land, without concern for their fellow citizens. Economic prosperity is important, but the humble recognition that the natural world wasn't simply delivered up for our consumption needs to be recognised. Government has a role to play here. Clean water for example, isn't just something required for human health, so that individuals can maximise their economic output-- it goes beyond economics and individual freedoms.
Greetings Dougal
Thanks for your comment. In answer to your first question I would refer to Jefferson - Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Trouble is that too much Government gets in the way of that objective.
I favour individual freedoms.
As a small and insignificant example the classification of movies with a Restricted Category meant that I could not take my 15 yr old grandsons to see "Gladiator 2" because it is R16. My view is that the Censor should recommend and leave it to the invividuals to make up their minds whether they should see or read or whatever. My lads spent the year studying Latin and Classics at school. They knew what they would be in for. And I know them well enough to know that they could handle what Ridley Scott threw at them. I don't need a Wellington bureaucrat to tell me.
Greetings to you
There is much to admire in what you say about freedom and the proper role of government. And while I agree that wealth, or the lack of it, plays a part in determining happiness, to be happy I need also to go into wild places where I chase trout and listen to the sound of running water and of birds chirping. Government has a role to play in preserving these places, because unfettered individuals will destroy them in pursuit of their own economic gain. I do agree with your comments regarding censorship.
I would add a fifth responsibility:
To guard against government becoming a job scheme or enabler of job schemes at all times focussing on nurturing durable employment growth in private enterprise while being constantly vigilant against public sector bloat.
The present reactive systems are not protecting citizens, least not the most vulnerable. As I said in my book - My story has taught me that we cannot have freedom without truth –
for we cannot allow people the freedom to lie.
We can not have diversity without unity – the only unifying force we have in society is the law.
Today the law is not being applied equally to all.
https://detective.nz/news/07-12-2024/building-trustworthy-systems/
Where does compulsory fluoridation of out water fit in with duties of governments ? You said that govts job is to provide clean uncontaminated water for us, but now Councils are being ordered to contaminate all our water with fluoride. People could easily choose to supplement their own fluoride, but govt over reach is forcing it on everyone. They claim it is safe and effective, but who is taking responsibility if something goes wrong ? We saw how that worked during Covid so I dont want it, or the extra costs involved.
Depends on whether you consider fluoride as a contaminant. It could be said that flouridation is part of the health duty and is of a preventative nature against tooth decay and associated disease. But I do see your point about the compulsory thing.
Fluoride a contaminant??? Dear oh dear!