Sunday, September 12, 2010

In need of a ' home for life'

On first reading this is a heartbreaker but on second thoughts it might be the best thing that could have happened. Let's hope Paula Bennett can find these two a ' home for life'.
Posted by at

7 comments:

Mark Hubbard said...

Just to take a dig at your post two down Lindsay, the first post you've put up which I have a major disagreement with, these two children are the result of the State trying to create egalitarian results. Under an unfettered free market, the children would either - most likely - have not been born (or conceived because their mother may not have been born either), or have been put up for adoption to parents who would have been responsible for them (with a responsibily born of love and duty).

1:06 PM
Anonymous said...

Excuse me, Mark Hubbard, I dare to disagree. These two abandoned children are the result of a mother who gives not a jot, a system who supports her in her selfishness and a father who is also absent. Heart wrenching, all right, the two and a half year old will already be internally scarred, but I bet the Mum will get a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket, as usual, in child-hating NZ. Dogs get better treatment, and sad is just a word.

6:14 PM
Lucia Maria said...

Mark,

Except the children do exist.

In an unfettered free market, maybe the mother would have been sold into slavery and then the problem would have been transferred to whoever owned her.

Free market does not always equate to the best outcome.

6:36 PM
Anonymous said...

in an unfettered market the 2children would have been sold as sex slaves to the japanese market, creating profit and moving the problem offshore. The mother not affording of the pill as the state does not subsidise any healthcare or contraception continues to have more children she can't feed and is thus coerced into providing children to a lucrative sex trafficking industry. Inequality is never a moral issue as the option bad luck of unwanted pregnancy through sexual connection befalls the woman.....

12:11 AM
Mark Hubbard said...

Goodness me.

Anon at 6.14pm, then from what you say it looks like you agree with me (even though I was generalising)?

Lucia, thanks for bringing out the absurd argument. I mean unfettered free market in a classical liberal minarchy that most certainly has the rule of law; ergo, the role of the state, one of the few roles, is to protect an individual's freedom via the policing of the non-initiation of force or fraud principle. So slavery won't be a problem will it? (Although the advocacy of any form of planned economy is necessarily the advocacy of a planned society, which in our democracies is the enslavement of the individual to the tryanny of the majority. It is the Nanny Staters who a promoters of slavery, not the laissez fairers.)

Equally contemptible Anon. at 12.11am, per above again.

But thank you both for showing once again why civilisation and freedom is destined to the 'could have beens' of history, in our modern welfare states that breed the very under-class they are supposedly lifting up. The humanist classical liberal West has been lost, because it was not fought on the only level it could have been won: philosophy.

9:10 AM
James said...

What Mark said.

Anon 2 and LM....major fail.Try again.

10:16 AM
Richard McGrath said...

Mark is dead right. 'Unfettered' does not mean anarchic. It implies the rule of law under a government that is charged with protecting freedom.

Anon @ 12.11's argument is simply naive - why should healthcare or contraception be expensive in a free market?

7:10 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)