New Zealand Immigration Officer Making Wild Claims

[noelex 77]

Just to clarify
A lot of cruising boats carry a couple of potted plants. Its a great way of obtaining fresh basil, mint etc.
We sometimes also have an African Violet too just because they are pretty.

They lead a hard life with the salt spray and occasional falls, but they mostly seem to survive.

I did have an interesting conversation with a port policeman at one stage. He arrived for a routine inspection. He did not get out of his boat, but asked a few questions and checked passports etc.

On leaving he said "nice plant"with a wink which puzzled me then I saw what he meant. I had put the basil plant under the solar panel (because it was falling over in the wind) it looked for all the world like a hidden POT plant.
Why anyone would have drugs on a boat when the penalties usually include confiscation of the vessel is beyond me, but that's obviously what he thought it was.

Those lucky boats with a wood burning heating stove also collect driftwood for them.
These are not common but I have seen a few beautiful examples including a custom aluminium motor cruiser that had two hand made stainless steel models.

I have no idea if the OPs boat is seaworthy. There are many boats that meet all the requirements that personally I would not sail offshore. (Note: my life, my decision) However the presence of potted plants and driftwood would not deter me, if anything they are characteristics of cruising boats that have been sailing for many years.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Delfin

(...) that presumes that there are no objective morals to appeal to.(...)

There are no. That's what I say.

For once that we say there is something called 'objective morals' then we put ourself in the position to say what this particular 'objective' morals is and next step is to expect otrhers to obey such objective 'morals'.

Oh but can't you see this is the source of all power?

I do!

Otherwise I think we ARE on the same wavelength - as I may share your concerns and findings much as I do not share the way you spell them.

Big hug,
b.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

There are no. That's what I say.

For once that we say there is something called 'objective morals' then we put ourself in the position to say what this particular 'objective' morals is and next step is to expect otrhers to obey such objective 'morals'.

Oh but can't you see this is the source of all power?

I do!

Otherwise I think we ARE on the same wavelength - as I may share your concerns and findings much as I do not share the way you spell them.

Big hug,
b.

Not so sure. The existence of objective moral reality would be independent of whether there was an observer to note them. This would be the all time thread drift to address this, but deductive logical arguments for the existence of a personal God exist and have existed for a very long time. Never refuted either, by the way, but if God exists, then objective morality also exists. Many use the existence of objective morality as a basis for a belief in God, but it's not one of my favorite arguments to make that case.

Cheers!

[nimblemotors]

One problem with the nanny state thinking is that when something bad happens, it must not be your fault. It must be someone else's for letting it happen, the government for letting it happen, the boat maker for its design, etc, etc.

Rescue persons sign up for their job, if they think it is too dangerous, don't sign up.
My nephew is a fireman, he will put the fire out at a crack house, it is his job and obligation.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by nimblemotors

One problem with the nanny state thinking is that when something bad happens, it must not be your fault. It must be someone else's for letting it happen, the government for letting it happen, the boat maker for its design, etc, etc.

Rescue persons sign up for their job, if they think it is too dangerous, don't sign up.
My nephew is a fireman, he will put the fire out at a crack house, it is his job and obligation.

So there would be no basis outside of a Nanny state for a fire marshal to require the removal of a pile of oily rags next to the crack house because your nephew's job is to put out the fire and he is being paid to do so?

See the problem?

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by nimblemotors

One problem with the nanny state thinking is that when something bad happens, it must not be your fault. It must be someone else's for letting it happen, the government for letting it happen, the boat maker for its design, etc, etc.

Rescue persons sign up for their job, if they think it is too dangerous, don't sign up.
My nephew is a fireman, he will put the fire out at a crack house, it is his job and obligation.

Well said, I was a volunteer National Sea Rescue Institute member for 2 years. I enjoyed not only the challenge and adrenaline rush, but also enjoyed the satisfaction of knowing I was helping sailors in need of assistance. Not once did any member of the team anywhere have any thoughts about whose responsibility/fault etc etc it was (except to learn from any mistakes). We just got on and did the job and enjoyed the challenge. Thanks to those that got into trouble ... glad we could help. Our condolences always to those we could not get to in time. Oh, how I detest the squealing that goes on and on in these nanny states!

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by nimblemotors

Rescue persons sign up for their job, if they think it is too dangerous, don't sign up.
My nephew is a fireman, he will put the fire out at a crack house, it is his job and obligation.

+1

and folks who sign up to that sort of job do so knowing they will be taking higher risks, including for benefit of numbskulls!, albeit in all cases they always have own ability to say no.........and of course the higher risk will simply be part of the attraction! (and no paper cuts!).

Whether the specific NZ official has the authority to detain a foreign vessel (likely someone does) is kinda missing the point, it's the fact that the mindset (that da Gubberment knows best / has a moral(?) duty to stop folks taking risks) has already been approved in law (albeit only for the locals - 95% of the boats!) so that mindset now considered as "normal" that has created the problem for OP by leading this official to at least think he should be doing "something" (and then going off to find out what! and if not him, who).

The road to hell etc etc........

[noelex 77]

I suspect the majority of people think crossing oceans in a small boat with limited crew is foolhardy.

If we insist everyone has the moral duty to prevent other sane adults from engaging in activity perceived as excessively dangerous, then cruising in pleasure yachts is doomed.

[jeanathon]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I suspect the majority of people think crossing oceans in a small boat with limited crew is foolhardy.

If we insist everyone has the moral duty to prevent other sane adults from engaging in activity perceived as excessively dangerous, then cruising in pleasure yachts is doomed.

+1 well summarized.
You of course could add private planes, motorcycles, etc.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

+1

and folks who sign up to that sort of job do so knowing they will be taking higher risks, including for benefit of numbskulls!, albeit in all cases they always have own ability to say no.........and of course the higher risk will simply be part of the attraction! (and no paper cuts!).

Whether the specific NZ official has the authority to detain a foreign vessel (likely someone does) is kinda missing the point, it's the fact that the mindset (that da Gubberment knows best / has a moral(?) duty to stop folks taking risks) has already been approved in law (albeit only for the locals - 95% of the boats!) so that mindset now considered as "normal" that has created the problem for OP by leading this official to at least think he should be doing "something" (and then going off to find out what! and if not him, who).

The road to hell etc etc........

But, but, but...Are you saying that if you DID have the authority to prevent this vessel from leaving and you DID honestly believe you were dealing with a vessel that wouldn't make it or a person who might be just a teensy weensy bit nutty, you'd wave goodbye on the basis that the fellow has every right to put his life at risk and the guys who will respond to his rescue aren't your problem either?

The road to hell is also paved with indifference, among many other surfacing materials...

Anyone familiar with the story of typhoid Mary? She felt she had every right to pursue her chosen career as a cook, and no one was comfortable locking her up, but since she refused to stop spreading typhoid and killing people they felt they had no choice. Was that the beginning of the nanny state, do you reckon?

[jeanathon]

Delfin,
So what happened to your "clueless, stupid hippy friends "?
Did some mortally superior rescuer die trying to save them? Genuinely curious.
PS. Never said I wasn't proud, just less arrogant. Hopefully I'll eventually get the pride down to confidence.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by Delfin

But, but, but...Are you saying that if you DID have the authority to prevent this vessel from leaving and you DID honestly believe you were dealing with a vessel that wouldn't make it or a person who might be just a teensy weensy bit nutty, you'd wave goodbye on the basis that the fellow has every right to put his life at risk and the guys who will respond to his rescue aren't your problem either?

Can't speak for anyone else, but yes, I would say exactly that. I would try to explain the dangers to him, but in the end the decision would be his.

Like others have said, the guys who respond to rescue calls already know that most of the time they are going out to rescue someone who was an idiot for being there in the first place. That's part of the job, and a choice they make.

You give people all the information that they need to make their choice, and then you let them decide. If they make a bad choice, that's on them, not on you.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jeanathon

+1 well summarized.
You of course could add private planes, motorcycles, etc.

So, if you're an FAA inspector with authority to ground airplanes, and someone wants to take off in an airplane with potted plants attached to the wings in a hurricane over a populated area, you'd wish them bon voyage rather than succumb to nanny statism and presume that the crash scene would be investigated and mopped up by people getting paid to do that job anyway? An besides, the chances of the fool crashing on a school are minimal.....

I'll leave off now, but one of the reasons why the nanny state is taking over our lives is that the spokespeople for freedom so often resort to arguments that only would be put forward by people who can't differentiate reasonable from reprehensible, so no one pays any attention to their arguments.

[Bashleys]

People must be free to succeed or fail...freedom comes w/a cost and its important for people to be responsible for themselves...who determines the quantitative value of, "Sea worthy". If we leave it up to government soon only 200' yachts w/the latest in electronics will b allowed to cruise, because only they are, "Safe enough". This is simple enough! No one should have any right to dictate my goings. If I need rescue, that becomes my prob. and government rescue authorities may have to make a costly rescue (If they choose), but that's the price for freedom. Try not to be too responsible for me...thanks!

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jeanathon

Delfin,
So what happened to your "clueless, stupid hippy friends "?
Did some mortally superior rescuer die trying to save them? Genuinely curious.
PS. Never said I wasn't proud, just less arrogant. Hopefully I'll eventually get the pride down to confidence.

Nope, from what I found their boat sank at anchor. Guess they got lucky, although it did deny them the ability to shout sic semper tryrannus whilst slipping beneath the waves with their Labrador.