Dear National Party - it's not your vagina.
Contraception should be free and available to every single NZer in the country, but that's not what National are doing here. They are targeting a much maligned group within society and outrageously are expecting these women to discuss something as personal as their sex lives and reproductive intentions with anyone other than their doctor.
You want to give out free contraception - go nuts, make it completely free to go to your GP and discuss contraception, but to be directed in the conversation with a WINZ staff member who also has the yes or no over your benefit is bewilderingly authoritarian.
Meanwhile the screaming reality that the economy is tanking because of mismanagement by this Government and their failed free market asset sale dogma is out of the news headlines because the nations love of bennie bashing solo mothers has been allowed to blind all.
When the next unemployment figures go up and National need another distraction, will they announce beneficiaries need to become mandatory organ donors?
Reap. Hobbits. Sleepy. Sow. What. They. Make a sentence.
FACEBOOK TWITTER
posted by Bomber @ 8:31 pm
9 comments
9 Comments:
Helen State Nanny Black Kettle Pot
"Reap. Hobbits. Sleepy. Sow. What. They." Insignificance pales Yoda into.
Hey James, then how about showing some equality and having a say on all those funded penises as well.
And James, are you sure you are paying more in tax then you are receiving? If not (e.g. student loans interest right offs, student loans themselves until paid back, free medical and dental care for your children, free education for your kids etc)
then maybe the tax payers get to have a say in your sex life too.
Actually James it doesn't as many of those people currently on benefits paid taxes though out their working life to cover for such an event as needing to raise children alone or being unemployed... (a fact often forgotten)
Very likely while you were still in diapers enjoying free child health care and education paid for by such people..
Grow up and take care of your own sexual organs with your attitude a penis is all your likely to get close to.
So I expect you're happy for any legislation that tells you how to raise your kids who are in their state subsidised education system, James. Along with any that instructs you how to behave at your state subsidised doctor. Oh, and I imagine you won't mind if an official pops over and checks on what you're talking about at your picnic in our council funded park. I can see that you've got no problem with our state funded army setting up in your street and telling you when you can leave your house.
Im a Libertarian so naturally Im opposed to the state involving itself in any area outside its legitimate role of protecting individual rights from violation. I was just tickled at the blatant and ironical hypocrisy of hardcore leftys telling the state to remain hands off of beneficiaries vaginas considering he wants them to steal the money of the so called rich and to regulate their businesses and lives.
The fact remains that if you make choices that end up requiring the taxpayer to fund your lifestyle then you have by default consented to those same taxpayers being able to impose conditions upon you while you are in their debt.Don't like that...? then don't be in debt.
I am well ahead in being a net tax contributor while getting far less value back from the state thanks Ms Designs....sadly the bottom 50% of this country can't say the same.
Many DPB recipients have never earned a dollar in their pathetic lives....so don't try and claim they have "contributed" anywhere near what their lax breeding habits cost the rest of us in upkeep. A long term contraceptive jab in their flabby arse's and naming the Father as condition's of receiving the benefit would be a fantastic start.
"The fact remains that if you make choices that end up requiring the taxpayer to fund your lifestyle then you have by default consented to those same taxpayers being able to impose conditions upon you while you are in their debt"
Your argument crumbles around over-simplifying poverty, wealth, welfare, relationships (etc etc) to simply a matter of individual choices. This might make your worldview and your conscience clearer and simpler but it simply doesn't accurately reflect reality, and in a way that ignores and therefore legitimises all injustice.
Another issue is your understanding of public services as something paid to one individual and therefore taken away from other individuals. The implication is that there is only a certain amount of 'good' in the world, and good given to someone in need cannot increase and become good done to others, it can only be given to one and therefore taken away from others (Ironically you don't apply the same understanding to rich people making money at the expense of poor people).
You talk matter-of-factly as if this is the straightforward and obvious way of looking at it, but in fact it's a very specific (individualist) understanding that completely ignores any sense of collective benefit, collective responsibility, or increasing the common good - again completely over-simplifying reality to a simple competition between atomised individuals for scarce widgets (though again, and inconsistently, the people you call the 'so-called rich' can presumably be praised for increasing the widget supply). You might not believe in these concepts but the vast majority of people do, even in these neo-liberal times. The welfare system assumes and is based on these concepts, not on the alternate worldview through which you interpret it.
You evade the fact that for one person to gain benefit from a welfare state another must be put upon and "taken from" to allow it to happen...also you evade the fact that no person on this planet is born owing any obligation to another no matter that persons circumstances...slavery is not a duty.
The welfare state fails the basic non contradiction test and is therefore morally invalid and practically unsustainable.
Thanks for playing...
Post a Comment
<< Home