Y'all actually aren't voting hard enough.

[idiom]

Oh noes, agenda 21 hobbit homes .

Or just a hard core prepper community? Who can tell any more.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Or just a hard core prepper community? Who can tell any more.

I don't know what the problem is with so called 'hobbit homes'. To me it seems like it's pretty close to nature and a smart use of the environment. These houses are well insulated, don't cost a whole lot in heating and with a bit of creativity you can get a lot of sunlight inside.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/real-life-hobbit-houses-look-6979720

That's a pretty interesting article on a type of hobbit house. While I'm not sure if I fully agree with the materials and methods in that construction, this is pretty cheap and it looks pretty cool.

I really like semi-underground houses but I think I'd go with reinforced concrete instead of some type of polyester laminate.

 

[loveshiscountry]

There is only one "land of the free, home of the brave"

And its america

where at least I know I'm free

 

[loveshiscountry]

I'm so tired of your constant gloating over how "superior New-Zealand is". It's just so typical of any of the common-wealth states that lacked the balls to fight for their own independence from the British. All they ever talk about is "we are better than the United States because of A B C D...". Where were the balls of any other former colony when in actually mattered like in 1776?

And I won't forget the men who died, who gave that right to me.

 

[Danke]

You don't even have the means to defend your territory, who gareentees that? China would take you in a day.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Democracy is not the problem.

It most certainly is; there are structural incentives driving state-growth in a democracy (essentially a tragedy of the commons situation).

That said, it's not impossible to move against the trend, as New Zealand did in recent history. I'd like to know more about how it was done. I skimmed through the Wikipedia article on the '84 election, and it looks like Labor basically just changed its mind and decided to enact these reforms (as opposed to existing politicians being replaced by reformers). If that's right, why did they change their minds? Was it an attack of conscience (so rare among politicians), or some kind of pressure campaign? If the latter, how was it organized?

 

[idiom]

It most certainly is; there are structural incentives driving state-growth in a democracy (essentially a tragedy of the commons situation).

That said, it's not impossible to move against the trend, as New Zealand did in recent history. I'd like to know more about how it was done. I skimmed through the Wikipedia article on the '84 election, and it looks like Labor basically just changed its mind and decided to enact these reforms (as opposed to existing politicians being replaced by reformers). If that's right, why did they change their minds? Was it an attack of conscience (so rare among politicians), or some kind of pressure campaign? If the latter, how was it organized?

Central planning was falling apart as it always does, as it is doing right now in the US.

It would be like Sanders and the democrats getting in, taking both houses, then deciding to reform the US to RP's platform because schools, medicare, the VA, the military, everything is breaking down and RP was right.

If you are electing responsive politicians they pay attention to results.

The US has like a 9% approval rating of Congress. Ergo the machinery is completely gummed up to allow such a low approval rating to be possible. But it hasn't completely failed yet, it can be turned around.

Most of the examples of countries turning to shit that I have seen come not from free and liquid democracy, but from the access to power freezing up. Where the burdens of socialism become too great the people actually back it off. A majority comes to realize the over reach and things turn around.

In the US it is not democracy keeping the over-reach going, but the entrenched interests keeping spending increasing.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Where the burdens of socialism become too great the people actually back it off. A majority comes to realize the over reach and things turn around.

Government Spending as % of GDP, Western Europe, since 1960

Show me where the majority got tired of socialism and "turned things around."

And keep in mind, government in the West was already massive by 1960.

 

[Danke]

New Zealand sounds like a wonderful place, we should be sending the refugees and migrants there.

 

[TheTexan]

New Zealand sounds like a wonderful place, we should be sending the refugees and migrants there.

Yes, I don't think the refugees like the massive number of gays in Europe. Does NZ have the same problem?

 

[idiom]

Government Spending as % of GDP, Western Europe, since 1960

Show me where the majority got tired of socialism and "turned things around."

And keep in mind, government in the West was already massive by 1960.

Per your graph

Ireland went from 22.5% in 1980, to 15% in 2000, then got fucked when the EU made it buy the private debt of banks in 2008.


There are a few others that flat-lined or were trending down but the 2008 crisis fucked them all with their *widely protested* bank bailouts.

Clearly though 15% or even 10% targets are achievable, but you need the combination of the people wanting it *and* entrenched interests letting it happen.

Also there are many more measures of from than just the GDP burden.

Margaret Thatcher led significant reforms in England in the 80's. Other countries have done the same.

The perennial war on drugs and now the war on terror really are preventing further reform in terms of individual freedoms. Nut most of the western world has given up centralized economic planning to some degree or other.

 

[idiom]

Yes, I don't think the refugees like the massive number of gays in Europe. Does NZ have the same problem?

We are doing pretty well with assimilation and avoiding ghettoisation for the most part. Our per capita immigration is slightly higher than The United States.

But like everyone here is an immigrant.

People can be westernized pretty quickly. They need to be actively engaged by the community though. Where refugees get to settle is controlled. The get plonked in the whitest locations basically, so they get immersed in the deep end. Think giving them farms in the middle of Kansas or Idaho, instead of big city ghettos.

It quota controlled, but its a big enough quota.

In Europe its hardly the gays that are the problem, its the existence of women.

There are Christians on this board, all about liberty and freedom who are also campaigning to kill gays. So clearly some things can't be overcome. People can learn to be civil though.

 

[Rad]

New Zealand has the population size of North Carolina. It lacks the diseases of financial capitalism and empire. It does not have a centralized government ruling over 300 million people with only a handful of politicians somewhat representing their interest. We should all move in with idiom!

 

[Danke]

We are doing pretty well with assimilation and avoiding ghettoisation for the most part. Our per capita immigration is slightly higher than The United States.

But like everyone here is an immigrant.

People can be westernized pretty quickly. They need to be actively engaged by the community though. Where refugees get to settle is controlled. The get plonked in the whitest locations basically, so they get immersed in the deep end. Think giving them farms in the middle of Kansas or Idaho, instead of big city ghettos.

It quota controlled, but its a big enough quota.

In Europe its hardly the gays that are the problem, its the existence of women.

There are Christians on this board, all about liberty and freedom who are also campaigning to kill gays. So clearly some things can't be overcome. People can learn to be civil though.

Oh really? Lol

How many poor African or Syrian, Afganistan, Latin America, Iraqi, etc. does New Zealand take every year?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Clearly though 15% or even 10% targets are achievable

Yes, I agree.

All I've been saying is that the long-run trend, the path of least resistance in a democracy, is for the state to grow.

This makes sense theoretically and the historical evidence bears it out.

As far as practical political strategy, I'm all for working through electoral politics to eek out whatever reforms we can get.

At the same time, though, I'm resting my hopes for liberty in the long-run on a return to non-democratic government.

 

[idiom]

New Zealand has the population size of North Carolina. It lacks the diseases of financial capitalism and empire. It does not have a centralized government ruling over 300 million people with only a handful of politicians somewhat representing their interest. We should all move in with idiom!

Ergo North Carolina could run pretty well as a democracy if the fed can be devolved somewhat and representation increased.

 

[idiom]

Oh really? Lol

How many poor African or Syrian, Afganistan, Latin America, Iraqi, etc. does New Zealand take every year?

About 700+ asylum seekers each year. That's equivalent to the US taking 60,000 refugees every year which is roughly what the US achieves.

Last year about a quarter each from Syria, Colombia, Myanmar and Afghanistan and lots of other odd and ends.

 

[idiom]

Yes, I agree.

All I've been saying is that the long-run trend, the path of least resistance in a democracy, is for the state to grow.

This makes sense theoretically and the historical evidence bears it out.

As far as practical political strategy, I'm all for working through electoral politics to eek out whatever reforms we can get.

At the same time, though, I'm resting my hopes for liberty in the long-run on a return to non-democratic government.

I think the biggest factor here is not actually structural incentives, but actual beliefs of intellectuals. To many are economically illiterate. We had even the leader of the Greens (super left wing party, 14 out of 121 MP's) say that Quantitative Easing was a good thing and we should try it here. He was rubbished by everyone including his own party for it, but it made my jaw drop.

When growing the state is the answer toeverything, it tends to happen. What happened in New Zealand is the belief switched to thinking that wherever possible free market solutions should be sought because they come up with better answers.

The government see the country as having to fight tooth and nail to be economically competitive. The went whole hog for example trusting that New Zealand farmers would be more competitive without government support and they were right. We now have the most efficient farmers in the world whereas they used to be pretty pudgy.

Nobody is telling Iowa farmers that they would be better farmers without subsidies or that subsidies make them weak. Our government left and right genuinely believes that subsidies make industries weaker and the majority of people believe it.

 

[Danke]

About 700+ asylum seekers each year. That's equivalent to the US taking 60,000 refugees every year which is roughly what the US achieves.

Last year about a quarter each from Syria, Colombia, Myanmar and Afghanistan and lots of other odd and ends.

Exclude Myanmar. So a how many of the ~150 came from those other places?

 

[idiom]

Exclude Myanmar. So a how many of the ~150 came from those other places?

Don't know why we are excluding Myanmar which was 160. Syria 80, Afghan, 126.

It was about 15% of net migration, 5500. Equivalent to the US accepting ~400,000 legal immigrants which is about half what the US actually takes in although... legal immigration tot he US is a hard stat to google... maybe I am just tired.

Making me dig hard into stats

http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7930#

Oddly enough we have more native born people who don't feel like they belong than immigrants who feel that way. Yay stats