I'm not sure there is a clash between "one person one vote" and "no taxation without representation" in the case you mention.
Nobody is getting extra votes in any given election simply through owning more property. Rather, some people get to vote in multiple local elections because they own properties in multiple districts (i.e. pay rates to multiple local governments).
That looks analogous to how people with multiple citizenships can vote in elections in multiple countries. Not sure that is necessarily a problem, or how it could best be solved.
You could strip voting rights from property owners (i.e. ratepayers) and limit voting in local elections to local residents. That would go down well in many quarters, but I'm not sure it's really fair. Of course ultimately it's residents who pay rates (whether directly or via their rent), so there is an argument to be made there.
Apologies for bringing up "metaphors of violence". I simply intended to demonstrate the emptiness of your marriage analogy.
In any case, people are free to view the Three Waters rort as "a good kind of rape", a la The Vagina Monologues.
Why do we need a conversation on co-governance? We already have universal suffrage, meaning everyone gets an equal vote.
Oh hang on. Actually we no longer have universal suffrage because the government has destroyed that pillar of our democracy in the name of co-governance.
Your marriage analogy was perfectly clear the first time. So was my response.
We disagree and that's fine.
One thing I've noticed is that when political types tell you there is a need for a "conversation", they generally have no actual interest in your views and simply want to ram something especially outrageous down your throat.
If you think the word 'control' is inaccurate, then please just say that. Whether the word 'control' is emotive is an entirely separate matter, and not really relevant.
'Aristocrats' is accurate. Again, whether or not it is emotive is a separate issue.
You used the marriage metaphor, which implies consent. I responded with the rape metaphor, because consent has not been sought or given.
Citizens of a democracy should not be getting shafted without consent. So yes, this 'touches a nerve' with me. That is, I have an opinion on it.
No idea what to do with your claim that my opinion is insufficiently 'grown up' for you. Do you consider all opinions that differ from your own to be childlike?
Why is 'control' suddenly an emotive word? I'm just noting a reality. Can't help it if that reality arouses emotions.
What 'marriage-type relationship'? What 'joint venture'? Those seem to me like bloody stupid analogies. It's not like the citizens ever gave their consent. If we're playing the analogy game, why not liken it to rape?
Why does this need to be 'talked out'? Does the rapist want to run some excuses past us?
Just endless attempts to obscure the reality that citizens are being robbed to privilege aristocrats. It's sort of like Robin Hood in reverse, but hey the costumes and swordfights are cool so we'll tell ourselves nothing's wrong here.
The reality is that control of water is being stripped from the public and handed to an aristocracy - a racial aristocracy unaccountable to the public.
Control of water is being removed from the public and placed in private hands.
Ownership means little without control.
Feel free to play word games about 'governance' versus 'ownership', but reality is what it is.
Of course, reality is being obscured by a blizzard of bullshit.
Transferring control over water from ratepayers to Maori aristocrats *is* privatization.
Seems like the blindingly obvious is being missed.
Marc C should have had the balls to simply say 'racism'.
'Reverse racism' my left foot. The very term 'reverse racism' is racist by definition.
That said, Marc C was correct in nothing how absurd the reaction to this thing has been. The media has published hysterical nonsense from one idiot after another. Pathetic.
In the Sunflower protests in Taiwan (which saw protesters occupy the national legislature for weeks) lecturers from various universities also gave classes in the street in solidarity.
Maybe Beijing could simply phase in actual democracy as promised?
They can then go ahead and buy the result, in the time honored fashion.
In a small territory with a homogeneous population, most of whom are obsessed with money, eating and shopping, this plan should be a piece of cake.
The KMT can be in the background to discretely advise if needed.
You might also want to consider that Taiwan's Sunflower protesters (and their various predecessors) may have provided inspiration to the current movement in Hong Kong.
Seems at least as likely as a U.S. plot to destabilize China by fomenting the dreaded 'splittism'.
Wonder if US meddling was a factor in the Scottish referendum?