Garth George on freedom
An extraordinarily good column by Garth George about the election and freedom:
This election is all about freedom – the freedom of the individual to live his or her life with as little interference as possible from the state, its politicians and minions.
It’s all about being loosed from the tyranny of dogmatic “do-it-my-way-or-else” socialism, which contends that the state knows best how to spend our money, how we use our property and how we run our families.
It’s all about freedom from fear – from the anxiety generated by the doom and gloom merchants, the Greens in particular, who demand that we circumscribe our lives in certain ways because if we don’t the world will melt and come to an end.
It’s all about freedom from guilt. We want to be able to fill up our cars, turn on our heaters, light our homes, run our taps (and showers), eat our food, smoke a cigarette, have a few drinks, sell land or buy or develop property without being made to feel guilty.
The freedom from guilt and fear – so true.
There are times I want to strangle Mr George for what he writes, and times I want to buy him a beer 
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:10 am
I don’t believe that most of the working for families (middle class benefit) actually want a tax cut in lieu.
most I have spoken to love the payments and want them to continue.
a couple don’t see the stupidity of it and resented me saying it was wealth distribution aka Marxist style.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 am
He’s right on the button today. People can take hold of these ideals. They’re uplifting, they aren’t designed to oppress anyone, they offer hope.
Nothing the Left have to offer can beat that.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:13 am
I have never felt like strangling Garth George, I regard him as one of the best, and this column is one of the best. The fact that the Herald actually runs a columnist like him at all is like a bright spot in the midst of MSM overwhelming darkness.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:18 am
“The fact that the Herald actually runs a columnist like him at all is like a bright spot in the midst of MSM overwhelming darkness.”
They (and other papers) could do with running a few more. The balance is way out. Opinon columns are ninety per cent left liberal crap.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:22 am
Turpin, what someone (Mike Moore I think) pointed out recently about “Working For Families”, is that everyone in NZ on between 40 grand and 80 grand per year, with kids; that is a lot of people; now have a relationship with their boss and their job that is of less relevance to their life than their relationship with the State. It makes very little difference to them whether they get a raise or a pay cut, promotion or demotion; marginal tax movements are so steep that they will lose most of what they gain, or recoup most of what they lose.
The number ONE principle of economics that socialism chooses to ignore, IS: “INCENTIVES MATTER”.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:23 am
“It’s all about being loosed from the tyranny of dogmatic “do-it-my-way-or-else” socialism which contends that the state knows best how to spend our money, how we use our property and how we run our families.”
Absolutely brilliant. The whole piece is one of the best defenses of genuine liberty I have read in years.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:25 am
Socialists look at this policy and that policy and say, surely there can’t be much harm in that, if any, let’s do it. Trouble is, it doesn’t take long before the cumulative effect of all their “harmless” policies is driving an economy down when it would otherwise have been going up, and in the absence of ALL the policies, it would have been going up LOTS.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:26 am
Agree with PhilBest, I always read Garth George and enjoy is view on things.
I would like to add another comment in support of and along the same lines, as Garth’s column:
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” –Nelson Mandela
Nelson, the darling of the left wingers in NZ, is bang on…..and if you agree with his comment, then you will agree that NZ’s socialists have no real concept of freedom.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:30 am
An incoming socialist trifecta (red,green, brown) govt would likely ban Garth so I think we may need to have a whip around for him in any case
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:35 am
wealth distribution aka Marxist style.
State ownership of all means of production is Marxist-style, not taxation of capitalism and welfare redistribution.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:41 am
Red green and brown is actually the corps colours of the armoured corps mike.
Not a bad concept actually. Think of them as a tank just rolling over your rights.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 am
Makes fuck all difference to me Sproull when it is my wealth that I work for that is being taken and redistributed to people who have not got themselves motivated enough to get a well paid job. I would be better off earning 30G less a year and then having my income topped up by the “state” redistrubuting other people’s wealth. But I have too much self respect. I am “entitled”, on my income to $57 a week from WFF. I’d rather die than take it. You want to be finicky about a definition of marxism – fine. If they take from me and give to someone else it is Marxism to me. Passes the smell, taste and appearance test.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
The trouble for New Zealand many have sold their freedoms for forty peces of silver and are to fucking dumb realise it. If this cabal is not tossed out on their arses come November all hope will be lost for the country. The socialists and the commie melons will have a feild day and all those that have sold out will wonder how they could have been so thick. I wouldn’t count on NZ1st to stand up and speak out, NZ1ST lives for NZ1st and is happy to take any leftovers the socialists throw them. I just love it when the socialists call themselves social democrates, if ever there was a oxymoron then a social democrate fills the bill perfectly. They sometimes speak of freedom, freedom nowdays is nothing more then an ancient word in the dictionary to these arseholes.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:51 am
What we have in New Zealand under Labour is authoritarian socialism mixed with Gramscian cultural Marxism. Marxism is still the primary problem, its just that Labour/Greens try to hide their devotion to it with dishonest bait and switch tactics such as talking about a “third way” or pretending to be concerned about the environment.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:51 am
You want to be finicky about a definition of marxism – fine. If they take from me and give to someone else it is Marxism to me. Passes the smell, taste and appearance test.
Oh, it’s totally cool that you don’t like the redistribution. I was just letting you know that it doesn’t pass the smell, taste and appearance test, because it’s not remotely Marxism. It’s a whole different kind of taking from you and giving to someone else. It’s taxation.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:54 am
Buy that man a CRATE of beer, but make sure that it ain’t Speights!
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:55 am
Agree entirely. This one is about freedom and democracy. Sadly concepts that do not seem to excite the average punter but the EFA will just be the start if Labour gets back in.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:55 am
Bull crap. I can be taxed and my money used for health care or defence spending. Just taking it and handing it other people is marxism to be – “spreading the wealth” as the Messiah says.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
“State ownership of all means of production is Marxist-style, not taxation of capitalism and welfare redistribution.”
Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, Socialist, Communist, Dictatorial, Totalitarian … is there any of it we are not getting to at least some degree?
Thank goodness there are people like Garth George and his editor who are prepared to counter this prevailing and manipulative nonsense.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:57 am
Nothing wrong with Speights Damned Angry. Superior Piss Enjoyed In Great Hotels Throughout Southland…
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Garth George’s column sounds like the sort of stuff journalists write around the time of the Olympics. You know the sort of thing. They start like this: “The Olympics is about…” followed by one-thousand words on nothing more than what the journalist wishes the Olympics were about.
It’s true that the election should be about freedom — “the freedom of the individual to live his or her life with as little interference as possible from the state, its politicians and minions.” But there’s bugger all evidence that it is.
That would in any case presuppose there’s a popular alternative banging that drum. And there ain’t.
There’s no evidence at all that the most popular alternative to the present Nannies, the Blue Team, are interested in being that alternative, and none at all that the Blue Team represents anything different in either substance or substantive approach from the Red Team — whom one presumes Garth is (correctly) criticising.
Is the Blue Team about to do anything different, anything at all, that will make a blind bit of difference to to filling up your car, turning on your heater, lighting your home, running your taps (and showers), eating your food, smoking a cigarette, having a few drinks, or selling land or buying or developing property without being made to feel guilty?
No, it’s not.
The Blue Team has its own Emissions Tax Scam on ice, ready to dispense guilt and strangle producers.
They’ve said nothing to indicate they’ve repeal the stupid ban on decent light bulbs; or abolish the bureaucratic nightmare that is the Department of Building and Housing, from whence the nannying shower impositions derived (and note that the bureaucrats who want to ban Christmas crackers, the Environmental Risk Management Authority, are the buggers who Nick bloody Smith wants to enlarge into his beloved Super-Nanny, the Environmental Risk Management Authority).
Nothing at all about repealing pathetic tuck-shop bans on tasty food, or plans to raid school children’s lunch boxes; no plans at all to repeal the fascist anti-smoking bans (all of which National voted for); no plans at all to stamp on council development levies on land, or to change the RMA to protect property owners in any way.
Nothing that indicates in any way that they’d be any bloody different to the present mob, and no evidence at all that they wish to be.
Which means there’s just no evidence, none at all, that “this election is all about freedom” — much as I wish it were otherwise.
Fact is, Garth is guilty of superimposing his own wishful thinking upon a party that has no interest at all in his programme of freedom.
More’s the pity.
And so, it seems to me, are most of the Blue Team supporters guilty — all those of you who’ve never bothered to investigate how little your favourite party gives a rat’s arse for what you claim to value — guilty in exactly the same way as Garth.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Bull crap. I can be taxed and my money used for health care or defence spending. Just taking it and handing it other people is marxism to be – “spreading the wealth” as the Messiah says.
It’s just that the word “Marxism” already means something. You can’t take it and change its meaning to whatever you like – or “whatever you don’t like”, which seems to be your working definition.
Like…
“What kind of ice cream do you want?”
“Oh, I’ll have rum and raisin. Orange chocolate-chip is a bit Marxist.”
“You mean you don’t like it?”
“That’s what I said! It’s Marxist!”
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
“it doesn’t pass the smell, taste and appearance test, because it’s not remotely Marxism.”
As I said, it is in the Gramscian cultural sense, and over the last three years, especially with the train set buy back, it is beggining to look like the economic form as well.
I understand the distinction your trying to make, but a look at the over-all history of Marxist thought will show that it is less clear than your trying to claim.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Yes it’s all about freedom for rabid friar – freedom for the rich to get richer and poor to be trapped in poverty (high wealth inequality causes low social mobility levels). Freedom for employers to hold the livelihood of workers in their palms, with the threat of instant dismissal forever hanging over their heads should they choose to assert their rights.
What a beautiful, free society our host advocates.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I think it would be a splendid idea for National, John Key, to re-set the Agenda for this election.
Helen Clark set the pace early, and National; have no rallying point
Helen Clark said it was all about Trust. We all know that we can’t trust her.
Kohn Key needs to rally the troops around the call to Freedom.
FREEDOM. FREDOM. FREEDOM
This will really resonate with the electorate, and Liars/Banners/Scampi Man will hate it
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Ah Roger Nome.
The work, shy Know it all.
What will you do after the National Victory.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
roger nome thinks freedom comes in a can called Helenade Spittle Juice.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Brain Smaller agree with most of what you say but unlike you I was talked into taking WFF, we get a lump sum of around $15,000 a year. Like you I at first refused WFF as I saw it simply as a election bribe and could live without it. But some friends talked me into taking WFF for several reasons
1) I loath this government and all it stands for but by refusing to take WFF you do no one any favors except the government, you and the hundreds of thousands of other taxpayers will not get a one cent back should I refuse WFF. Your taxes still goes into Sullens piggybank.
2) Why help these corrupt bastards by trying to be a “good Kiwi”, take the money and run. It will help you cover some of the tax you will have to pay later in the year.
3) The main point for me. The people running this country are morons and are clearly living beyond their means if we take every bribe offered by these slime then just maybe we may bankrupt the country. Yes I know this not the the sort of attitude one should take but anything to remove these tossers does it for me.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
roger is clearly into Nineteen Eighty Four style New Speak. Freedom for him is slavery to the state.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Roger nome – I have achieved a measure of wealth by working hard. I don’t drink up on pay day at the pub, smoke or gamble and I don’t waste my money on “stuff” that I don’t need. My father was a painter and my mother cooked in shite hotels and cleaned other people’s toilets. I wanted more than that out of life. You want my desire of a better life than my parents to subsidize people with no desire to better themselves. Well if you have your way there will be one less taxpayer to fleece as I am off and taking my wealth with me.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Roger Nome the drone!
Where is thge poverty trap or restraint?
Do we have a caste system here or something?
What is to stop any employee striking out on their own?
Lack of Talent, Risk Aversion, Laziness, Comfort Zone, Jealousy.
Instant Dismissals are interesting. It never happens in Socialist Utopia.
When any thieving, incompetent civil servant can do as they choose here without fear of consequence.
At least in China they execute corrupt officials. Here they get retired on full pay.
Or like the bauble keeper Winston. Corrupt and hypocritical. Still got the chauffered BMW though.
Any news on the SKYHAWKS Roger?
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
“It’s all about being loosed from the tyranny of dogmatic “do-it-my-way-or-else” socialism”
Sounds like a little political theorist who needs to get a life, get a job, walk the streets and see how much “do-it-my-way-or-else socialism” he REALLY sees in real life, instead of impotently pontificating about life from his bedroom at his mother’s place
“It’s all about freedom from fear – from the anxiety generated by the doom and gloom merchants, the Greens…”
Sounds like a pretty weak, wilting little flower of a guy if he really gets grounds for “fear” and “anxiety” out of endeavours to be greener
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Brian – it isn’t all about you and your experience. People have diverse experiences, and are born into different situations. Your narcissism unfortunately leads you into a kind of fascist, one-size-fits-all mentality. But luckily your kind is rare, and exists only on the fringes of the political spectrum (both left and right).
I don’t usually quote people to make a point but there’s some bob dylan lines that seems to be particularly pertinent here.
Advertising signs that con you
Into thinking you’re the one
That can do what’s never been done
That can win what’s never been won
Meantime life outside goes on
All around you.
While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society’s pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he’s in.
But I mean no harm nor put fault
On anyone that lives in a vault
But it’s alright, Ma, if I can’t please him.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
You’re completely right. Totally right.
But my question to you is this: Do we realistically have another option?
We could all vote ACT, which would be a great start, but what we really need is to totally change the way that various issues are viewed in society.
The left has done that over the past forty years. They’ve infiltrated government, education, health, even your own homes to bring New Zealand round to its twisted way of thinking. They did it through the back door via ideology, and through the front door via regulation, taxation and activism.
So, you ask, why can’t the Right do this as well?
Three reasons:
1. The Right, specifically true classical liberalism, holds respect for individuals and personal autonomy above all other things (including the right to private property, though these concepts are linked).
2. Those on the Right are, by and large, forthright, honest individuals who think to persuade people by reason and example, rather than fear, oppression and sabotage.
3. Those on the Right don;t have the time for activism. They’re too busy working, providing for their families, creating jobs and opportunities for those who aren’t so fortunate as them. They don’t have time to write essays, or parade in the streets, or hand out fliers. They have nobody to support them but themselves, and they bloody well like it that way.
So given that the best we can do is exercise our democratic right to vote, and hope that their fellow citizens, by some mircale, see the light.
Likely to happen? No. But if voting National is the best some people can do, then I’ll take it.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I wish Garth had used his airbrushed image that I saw published somewhere recently though it may have detracted from the obvious veracity of his prognosis… The alternative to National would firmly establish NZ as the reddest Goverment in the OECD something I wasn’t aware of, until I read the bio’s of the Greens in the excellent article by Ian Wishart in the latest issue of ‘Investigate.” The prospect ofa coalition of Clark’s team of trade unionists and teachers and the died in the red Commies that have infiltrated the Green Party is very scary indeed.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Roger Nome, after all my efforts to enlighten you……..sigh.
You just will not learn, will you, what are the MAIN causes of increasing inequality and lower social mobility. It is FIRSTLY, the State itself, and strangulatory regulations, hindering people from getting ahead, especially the poorest; and SECONDLY, the erosion of traditions that at one time limited the amount of self destructive behaviour in society.
I won’t waste my time any more putting up links to essays that might help you see reason, you are clearly beyond help.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
roger,
people are born into different circumstances, which is completely beside the point. All people have the right to be free. All people have the right especially to be free from arrogant fascists like yourself and the Labour/Green axis who are so narcissistic that you believe you are wiser and better than the rest of us and therefore have the right to rule over us and dictate every aspect of how we live our personal lives.
Bob Dylan was a rebel who believed in real personal freedom, not the authoritarian nanny state.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Yet earlier in the year he was fairly keen on them because we “need the sort of passionate, principled input only the Greens can provide. Just so long as there aren’t too many of them.”
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Peter Cresswell doesn’t deserve all that negative karma. There is a lot of truth in Christopher’s analysis of what Peter says, but nevertheless that does not reduce the frustration that is appropriate to the situation on the part of thinking people like Peter. I share that frustration.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Garth George: “I would, perhaps, have used “tyrannical” rather than “repressive”, for repression has undertones of the regimes of North Korea, China and the old Soviet Union. We haven’t got that bad – yet – although our Dear Leader would probably be happy to oblige.”
So the Herald prints “articles” that could pass for Kiwiblog comments now? Jesus. The descent into election hysteria is surely complete.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Christopher, if voting National is the best some people can do, then they deserve all they get.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
lee. You don’t know what the hell you’re going on about.
There are freedoms that both left and right policies constrain, which is why a balance is needed. This is why i’m fairly centrist. Barking dogmatists on both side of the debate lack a balanced perspective. Rather than think about what the other side’s saying they ignore it. That behaviour indicates a kind of emotional immaturity, ignorance and/or psocho-pathology.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
“That behaviour indicates a kind of emotional immaturity, ignorance and/or psocho-pathology.”
Neat summing up of Obamania and socialist thinking generally there, Roger Nome.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
“psocho-pathology” Is that what species of nome you belong to?
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
roger nome (3894) 1 15 Says:
….. “freedom for the rich to get richer”
I say YES, YES, YES! bugger you, you are such a loser, get off your lazy socialist butt and get a job……..
THATS how people get rich, by earning it, not by whining on other peoples blogs to fill in your sad little life.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
“And so, it seems to me, are most of the Blue Team supporters guilty — all those of you who’ve never bothered to investigate how little your favourite party gives a rat’s arse for what you claim to value — guilty in exactly the same way as Garth.”
I’m sick of your fucken lies- trying desperately to carve a political niche for your telephone box cult you’re as big a propagandist as the Labourites. Why don’t you cease trying to put words in the mouths of others and fuck off.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Et tu, Redbaiter.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Garth is to some extent correct but IMHO its up to each individual to make themselves free.
My late father taught me from an early age just as his father and his father had that our job was to ensure we were not a burden on the society we lived in That we contributed to that society That we provided fiscal and other support for our family
That we were financially independent. He taught me that freedom is a state of mind. That by being financially independent and following the rules of our society we had the right and the responsibility to speak up and speak out against those things we objected to.
That if we had good ethics and good morals we could take the high ground. So for that reason I have and will always feel free.
Crazy Clark and the Fiscal Fool cannot take away my freedom I regard both as sad immoral unethical human beings who have failed.
Hell at least I can balance a cheque book and budget to live within my income
They cant
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
No, if I say you’re a labourite propagandist, then you are. The fact that I am Ratbiter is reason enough. Filthy lying leftie socialist propagandists, always trying to steal our freedom with “facts” and “points” and “evidence” and “reasons” – so typical of the left.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
nome — If you look closely you’ll see there’s no ‘humour’ tag to this post. It’s ok though, I laughed
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
“The fact that I am Ratbiter is reason enough.”
I can imagine you too be rather obese, as many rats lurk in Level 9 Ministry of Venom and Rodents.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Redbaiter, enlighten me, what is your aversion to Peter Cresswell? We need solidarity in our anti-socialism if we are going to make a difference, and a lot of what he says about the Nats, I would have thought that you would have agreed with.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
What the hell is a “superior” establishment in the South Island anyway?
One that has an indoor toilet with a door?
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
From “The Culture War For The White House” by Melanie Phillips
“…….On the Maze Oliver Kamm said the financial crisis was not about morality but about incompetence and stupid decisions, and he did not agree with me that at root what lay behind it was, in the words of his fellow witness the Abbot of Worth, ‘militant atheism’. In direct contrast to Oliver I cannot understand how, along with every other form of human interaction, the administration of capitalism cannot have a moral dimension. It is surely important that bankers behave ethically, that politicians behave responsibly and that ordinary people behave prudently.
I see this financial breakdown, moreover, as being not merely a moral crisis but the monetary expression of the broader degradation of our values – the erosion of duty and responsibility to others in favour of instant gratification, unlimited demands repackaged as ‘rights’ and the loss of self-discipline. And the root cause of that erosion is ‘militant atheism’ which, in junking religion, has destroyed our sense of anything beyond our material selves and the here and now and, through such hyper-individualism, paved the way for the onslaught on bedrock moral values expressed through such things as family breakdown and mass fatherlessness, educational collapse, widespread incivility, unprecedented levels of near psychopathic violent crime, epidemic drunkenness and drug abuse, the repudiation of all authority, the moral inversion of victim culture, the destruction of truth and objectivity and a corresponding rise in credulousness in the face of lies and propaganda — and intimidation and bullying to drive this agenda into public policy.
The financial crisis was brought about essentially by a public which threw away all notions of prudence and committed itself to spending today what it could never afford to pay back tomorrow, and a banking, regulatory and political sector which ruthlessly and cynically exploited and encouraged such catastrophic irresponsibility with a criminal disregard of the ruinous consequences for the poor. The financial crisis and our social meltdown are thus combining to form a perfect cultural storm.
The link between all that and the US presidential election is – as Oliver himself acknowledges – the figure of Sarah Palin. It seems to me that the reason she has sparked such an unprecedented campaign of lies, smears, abuse and dangerously unhinged hatred (if you think that’s an exaggeration, just look at the readers’ posts on this very site) is because, as I wrote in the Mail on Monday, she stands against the tide of secular nihilism in the culture wars. Oliver and I dare say Hitchens (although I have not discussed this with him) may be shoulder to shoulder with me on foreign policy but they stand on the other side from me in the culture wars – what I see as nihilism, I suspect they view as progressive — and it is no coincidence that they both stand also for militant (or in Oliver’s case, rather less militant) atheism which they assume (falsely, in my view) is synonymous with rationality…….”
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
the Greens in particular, who demand that we circumscribe our lives in certain ways because if we don’t the world will melt and come to an end.
I wish George would stand on the side of freedom ALL the time, instead of just when it suits him.
Because when it comes to certain issues – like abortion, or drugs – he would love to circumscribe our lives in certain ways that suit him.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
“Et tu, Redbaiter.”
That is not only very unfair. It is hypocritical.
Furthermore, the Libertarians are on very weak ground criticising those who actually do something when they do fuck all themselves.
I don’t know why you continue with this bullshit about no difference between left and right. The National Party in no way represents the right. Have you been reading Mr. Farrar’s interviews??? They’re all too many light years away from right wing ideas of small government and maximum individual freedom and responsibility. Some of them are so fucked up ideologically they even cheer for Barack Obama for Chrissake.
Your continual portrayal of the National Party as being the right APPEARS TO BE deliberately dishonest. I reluctantly withdraw my somewhat intemperate allegation of lying, (and replace the word with exaggeration, which is all I can think of right now). You’re actually a hero of mine. Strange as it may seem, I admire you for your persistence in going after your objective, but for fuck’s sake, don’t you ever question your party’s lack of progress???? Why hasn’t it grown??? Why hasn’t it attracted funding?? Why don’t you have an organisational structure of sufficient strength that it can make the Libertarian Party a real electoral choice?
I don’t understand why you continue to undermine the efforts of those who recognise that the left’s social and cultural grip on NZ is so complete it can only be broken the same way it was imposed- bit by bit by bit.
I don’t understand why you weave the uncomplicated idea of small government into the ridiculously complex religion of Objectivism.
I don’t understand why so may of your party, who profess to care about tolerance, display such terrible bigotry toward Christians, and let this bigotry colour their judgments at the same time as they preach the value of objective rationale.
Spit on those voting for National if you must, but if all you can offer as an alternative is rhetoric and the deceit ridden scenarios I outline above, you’ve got more than a damn cheek mate.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“Redbaiter, enlighten me, what is your aversion to Peter Cresswell? We need solidarity in our anti-socialism if we are going to make a difference, and a lot of what he says about the Nats, I would have thought that you would have agreed with.”
Phil, please read my later post which I wrote before reading your message. Mr. Cresswell’s simple little admonishment stung me in an unexpected manner. You are right in that we need solidarity, and that is why I criticise Mr. Cresswell who seems to not understand that the only way back is in incremental steps. If he has a better plan (OF ACTION not rhetoric), he’s welcome to share it. For myself, I believe one must always have a better and workable alternative in one’s mind before one criticizes the efforts of others. PS- I was too harsh in what I said and I regret it, but I am frustrated with his continual undermining of the right with false claims about what we want and believe.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
One with a view and honest conversation – both of which are in short supply in the North.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
This ‘intellectual’ point scoring is wasted on me.
What I do know is that the current administration is evil, corrupt and bad (and they are its good points) and come 8 November NZ will be a better place with a National-ACT government taking charge …. and steering us into the bright sunny uplands of a decent future (with apologies to WSC) …. whooops, let myself get slightly carried away there but I think you know what I mean.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Thank you for that clarification, Redbaiter. I agree with what you say about many Libertarians attitudes to Christians. I actually had that in the back of my mind when I posted the extract from Melanie Phillips above.
I certainly think the Libertarians need to lose that attitude if there is going to be an effective opposition to socialism. Having said that, Peter Cresswell is one of the best political commentators on the “Right”, the problem we have is that people like him are NOT writing in the DomPost and people like Chris Trotter ARE.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Nome – “Brian – it isn’t all about you and your experience. People have diverse experiences, and are born into different situations. Your narcissism unfortunately leads you into a kind of fascist, one-size-fits-all mentality. But luckily your kind is rare, and exists only on the fringes of the political spectrum (both left and right).”
So, by your reasoning, and I use that term very carefully, It is narcissim for me to not want to clean other people’s shit like my mother? What you are saying is that I should have accepted my place in life and left it to you and the comrades to look after me by taxing class traitors? My life is everything about me and my experiences. You are a raving fuckwit and that is no error.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“Why hasn’t it attracted funding??”
I assumed ‘The Free Radical’ ran at a loss (maybe wrongly), so had donors to keep it afloat…?
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“Peter Cresswell is one of the best political commentators on the “Right”, ”
You do understand that this is a comment that would insult Mr. Cresswell, who maintains that he is not of the right, and that the right are as bad as the left???
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
By the way, Redbaiter, concerning winning the war in increments, I said this a few days ago:
“We need a clean victory over socialism. I am afraid that requires a total “bust”, categorically, undeniably overseen throughout by the socialists themselves. Here is a very relevant suggestion from Milton Friedman:
“….only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable…..”
“Small government” and low taxes, is a politically inevitable conclusion to the current crisis. Government will become small by default, when the government simply can no longer pay its bills.”
Perhaps a time WILL come for an abrupt total victory for freedom? Have you read “Atlas Shrugged”? Peter Cresswell is sure to have.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Here is something I said to Roger Nome months ago:
“I have a few theories on increases in inequality myself, actually, roger nome. The following are causes of increasing inequality.
Breakdown in traditional marriage. The obvious thing is the disadvantage to children brought up without a father, or with a string of perverse male role models in their lives. But also, marriage across socio-economic groups, and subsequent “inheritance”, were powerful reducers of inequality.
Provision of services, etc, with public money, that primarily benefit the wealthy, and the neglect of infrastructure that was a greater benefit, proportionally, to lower income earners. The neglect of roads, and time wasted in congestion, has a disparate impact on the poor. The subsidy of cultural centres and art galleries benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor. New Orleans was a classic illustration of the consequences of concentration on trendy cultural vibrancy and the like, by the local administration, at the expense of vital infrastructure that was fought tooth and nail by chardonnay greenies and NIMBY-ists.
The “conservation” of land, and restrictive zoning, has a disparate impact on the poor, on the young and those who do not own properties, in favour of the more well-off who maintain their nice views and surroundings, while property values escalate out of reach of all who are not already on the gravy boat. An excellent article in this respect, is “Green Disparate Impact”, by Thomas Sowell. (The “poor” population of California is actually being driven out of state by escalating property values).
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/01/15/green_disparate_impact?page=full&comments=true
Increases in regulatory expense, like RMA costs, and the costs of obtaining licenses for commercial activity and the like, tend to inequality. A James Wattie could start up a food canning business in his garage. DEFINITELY NO LONGER.
This phenomenon is well covered in the book “The Mystery of Capital” by Hernando DeSoto. Interestingly, well-established larger businesses like this phenomenon, as it keeps competition to a minimum, hence the little-publicised support of many wealthy people for regulatory, socialist politics. Incidentally, that is not “Capitalism” although the cunning socialists “spin” the issues so it gets blamed on “Capitalism”. (The correct term is Socialist Parasitism). More recommended reading, rogernome; “Intellectual Class Wars”, by David Horowitz.
The subsidy of tertiary education with public money. Tertiary education itself, tends to increase inequality. To use taxes, which must remain necessarily high on low income earners, to subsidise this, only worsens the situation. An outright free market situation with all students paying fees, and a broader use of direct student-based “scholarships”, would actually produce less inequality than the system we have now, and would produce much better results in terms of relevant qualifications. I suggest too, that many of the poorer folk who do make it to Uni under the current system, could be tending to make poorer choices of qualification, which would be eliminated by better guidance under a scholarship-based system especially scholarships funded by private enterprise which knows of its needs for people with certain qualifications.
I will probably think of more later, but there you have a few causes of inequality which are peculiar to our age. I trust you will respond with the same civility with which these thoughts are proffered.
(Later)Another factor not on my list above; The trend for wealthier people to have children later in life, and have less of them, while poorer people still have larger families, tend to start earlier, and the worst of all are the early-starting solos.”
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:36 pm
# Redbaiter (4031) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“Peter Cresswell is one of the best political commentators on the “Right”, ”
“You do understand that this is a comment that would insult Mr. Cresswell, who maintains that he is not of the right, and that the right are as bad as the left???”
Oh no, not one of those political spectrum definition problems again. If we define the spectrum as “Left” = Stalin and “Right” = Hitler, O.K., Peter Creswell is not on it at all and neither am I and neither are you. But THAT spectrum was defined BY the ilk that you and I call the LEFT, and we include at the “Left” end, BOTH Stalin AND Hitler. At the “Right” end, my presumption is, is Ayn Rand. I put the founding fathers of the USA somewhere between Ayn Rand and the Centre, and THAT is where I would like to think I sit. I certainly don’t believe the USA today is anywhere NEAR where the founding fathers were, it is closer to the Centre, and in fact much closer to NZ and Sweden than it is to its own founding fathers.
I’d like to know what Peter Cresswell himself thinks, sorry, I restrict my already limited time to “Kiwiblog” simply because more people visit it, and what’s more, people who are open to ideas and lack exposure to right ideas if it wasn’t for the better commentators here. If someone knows a more appropriate forum, say so, but for all my respect for Peter Cresswell and his fellows, the “swinging audience” sure isn’t visiting his site for advice on why they perhaps shouldn’t vote for Labour this time.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
“You are a raving fuckwit and that is no error.”
No point arguing with someone who is as emotionally unbalanced and one-eyed as you Brian. As I said, I’m just relieved that most people are much saner than you.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Phil- Communist governments have grown from collapses. There is no guarantee at all that such a collapse will result in a less oppressive government. The left are vicious and obsessive adversaries who will do anything to obtain power.
(Yes I have read Atlas Shrugged- Although the ideology is fine, I found it tedious and wordy. It could have been said in half as many pages. Actually I was once an enthusiastic supporter of the Libertarians. There would not be many around who were so enthusiastic they had tapes of Perigo’s radio shows posted overseas so that I could listen in my car as I drove across the African desert. I feel that the Libz became distracted by Objectivism at the expense of actually achieving any real change and I ceased to be a supporter)
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Redbaiter:
“Communist governments have grown from collapses. There is no guarantee at all that such a collapse will result in a less oppressive government. The left are vicious and obsessive adversaries who will do anything to obtain power.”
I am afraid you are right. Isn’t it ironic that there have never been any VIOLENT free-marketeer seizures of power? It really is true that the means define the end every time. Seize power with massive bloodshed, and proceed to ruin your country from there to eternity. Our problem really is one of ignorance of the great majority, because they are being taught all the wrong things about history by our state schools and our media.
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
# Turpin (82) Vote: Add rating 6 Subtract rating 3 Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:10 am
“I don’t believe that most of the working for families (middle class benefit) actually want a tax cut in lieu.
most I have spoken to love the payments and want them to continue.
a couple don’t see the stupidity of it and resented me saying it was wealth distribution aka Marxist style.”
Speak of the devil, I just saw THIS in the Wall Street Journal:
* OCTOBER 22, 2008
Obama and the Tax Tipping Point
How long before taxpayers are pushed too far?
By ADAM LERRICK
“What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.
Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.
Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.
In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million — 40% — paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama’s cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What’s more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes — less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.
In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama’s plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.
The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the “very rich” — the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill — will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.
What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts — those educated professionals who applaud the “fairness” of their candidate’s tax plans — will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income.
Calculating how far society’s top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners — at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.
Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and found that reward without work is a recipe for decline. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth and jobs in Great Britain. In Germany a few years ago, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party’s dogma and loosened labor’s grip on the economy to end stagnation. And more recently in France, Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy.
The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.
The economic tides will not stand still while Washington experiments with European-type social democracy, even though the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency will buy some time. Our trademark competitive advantage will be lost, and once lost, it will be hard to regain. There are too many emerging economies focused on prosperity and not redistribution for the U.S. to easily recapture its role of global economic leader.
Tomorrow’s children may come to question why their parents sold their birthright for a mess of “fairness” — whatever that will signify when jobs are scarce and American opportunity is no longer the envy of the world.”
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I havent been around much, has Nome addressed the Winston debacle?
He disappeared around that time; too embarassed to try to defend the indefensible one would expect. And because he cannot bring himself to say anything bad about the current government, he decided to say nothing at all.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
nome…you have honestly offended me by this nonsense & you don’t even know me!
“freedom for the rich to get richer and poor to be trapped in poverty (high wealth inequality causes low social mobility levels). Freedom for employers to hold the livelihood of workers in their palms, with the threat of instant dismissal forever hanging over their heads should they choose to assert their rights.”
I have worked bloody hard all my life, been further left & back again than you will ever understand, I have found the center path that brings wealth, happiness & balance to my families life.
Yes I am one of the “rich pricks” and bloody happy to be so, you sanctimoneous little twat.
We employ 25 staff, pay them hellishly well because we like them, they are bloody good at what they do, and we want them to succeed in life as well, we give them every opportunity to strengthen their positions in life.
To have an obviously young , no real life experience person like you, deride me and those like me for becoming wealthy, employing people and giving them those opportunities makes my blood boil.
I would love to talk to you again in 30 odd years, but I will be long gone, but hopefully our staffs children and even some of our present staff will be enjoying the fruits of our endeavour.
Even if I have it wrong and you are an older person, your mind has not kept up with your body.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
roger,
“lee. You don’t know what the hell you’re going on about.”
Um..yeah, I kinda do.
There are many things I do not like about Obama, but he is not advocating the kind of authoritarian nanny state that Labour and the Greens want in NZ, especially with regards to peoples personal lives. So I stand by my view that your mis-using Dylan’s music to support here in NZ something that I do not think he would be happy about.
Being a “centrist” is meaningless. You just pick and choose whatever policy suits you at a given time. It proves that your political philosophy has no moral centre. People are either free (and freedom means freedom from the initiation of force under any circumstances) or they are not. A well fed slave is still a slave.
Your centrism is just an excuse to keep people in slavery based on a supposedly “moderate” stance that is merely an excuse to keep the practice of slavery going.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Luke H,
“Because when it comes to certain issues – like abortion, or drugs – he would love to circumscribe our lives in certain ways that suit him.”
I agree with you about the drugs. I think people that take them are foolish, and I disagree with their use on a personal level, but they are a form of consenting adult behaviour, therefore the state has no right to criminalize it.
However, to be truly free all human beings must be free from others initiating force against them, including the unborn. This thread is not the place to get into that however so I’ll just leave you with a helpful link:
http://www.l4l.org/
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Being a “centrist” is meaningless. You just pick and choose whatever policy suits you at a given time. It proves that your political philosophy has no moral centre. People are either free (and freedom means freedom from the initiation of force under any circumstances) or they are not. A well fed slave is still a slave.
Lee, what’s your stance on cannabis legislation?
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Lee
“Being a “centrist” is meaningless.”
I don’t see it that way Lee, as I said in my post to nome I have been way left and back again, I think being a centrist allows me the freedom of choice that you say is missing. Being able to pick & choose policies is what one should be able to do surely, this gives one that freedom to make informed choices.
If as you say one should subscribe to a “moral centre”, which sounds dogmatic to me, you must lose your freedom.
E.g. I will not vote left this election because I have weighed up the options and made an informed choice, that is freedom.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
“Lee, what’s your stance on cannabis legislation?”
Mr Sproull- why does your debating style always consist of inane questions? Here’s another one for you. Why, when liberty is the issue, is your first concern the right to avail oneself of mind altering drugs??
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Mr Sproull- why does your debating style always consist of inane questions? Here’s another one for you. Why, when liberty is the issue, is your first concern the right to avail oneself of mind altering drugs??
For me, it is not my first concern. But I am interested in whether or not someone claiming to be concerned with liberty is consistent in his or her application of the value.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Are you unhinged Ryan? I can’t understand that rhetoric but then again I wasn’t born on a highway.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
“For me, it is not my first concern. But I am interested in whether or not someone claiming to be concerned with liberty is consistent in his or her application of the value.”
No you’re not. You merely are so damn tiny minded that when it comes to the meaning of liberty, all you and your trend following ilk can think of is smoking weed, and that’s a much bigger problem than any concerns you may have with the actuality- ie that your concept of liberty is so damn puny is a big reason why we have so little of it these days.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Ryan thinks Liberty is a melting ice cream. Poor chap. Don’t be to hard on him as he cries easily.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Are you unhinged Ryan? I can’t understand that rhetoric but then again I wasn’t born on a highway.
D4J:
No you’re not.
Redbaiter: Yes, I am.
You merely are so damn tiny minded that when it comes to the meaning of liberty, all you and your trend following ilk can think of is smoking weed, and that’s a much bigger problem than any concerns you may have with the actuality- ie that your concept of liberty is so damn puny is a big reason why we have so little of it these days.
It’s just interesting to find out whether people who talk about liberty actually want people to be free, or actually just want people to be free to act the way that they think others should act.
Rodney Hide is an example of someone who consistently applies his idea of liberty.
What about you, Redbaiter? Should people have the liberty to grow and/or smoke weed? Or does the state know what’s best for them?
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Ryan don’t try smart play words with me as I’ll blow you off the planet into freedom land.
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I don’t care what you do with me, Brer Fox. Just don’t throw me in that freedom land.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Oh what a luxury to be able to debate about something as trivial as smoking weed, trully a calm before the storm type of discussion.
Well ryan you and your chardonnay socialist buddies are in for a rude awakening either way this election.
If the left win and form this multi headed beast of a government, you will quickly find the left wing wells of wisdom running dry. You will have an economy in free fall and a country rapidly becoming broke, and at least 50% of the population in utter outrage at the digusting mutated excuse for leadership this election produced. You will dream of the days of discussing petty crap like dope smoking while drifting along in the security of the wealth that others have created.
We have a saying in christianity, “better to fall on the rock and be broken, than the rock fall on you and be crushed”
If NZers are silly enough to vote this monstrosity of a govt in, our country will be in serious trouble.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Homosexual marriage is another very important issue with you too right Ryan? Trend following microbe.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Ryan Sproull: What about you, Redbaiter? Should people have the liberty to grow and/or smoke weed? Or does the state know what’s best for them?
dad4justice: Ryan don’t try smart play words with me as I’ll blow you off the planet into freedom land.
OMFG!!! OWNED! Ryan, you’re my hero!
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Ryan Sproull: What about you, Redbaiter? Should people have the liberty to grow and/or smoke weed? Or does the state know what’s best for them?
Redbaiter’s “answer”: Homosexual marriage is another very important issue with you too right Ryan? Trend following microbe.
Just bait and switch, because you know you’ve got no answer to a rational argument. So typical of the right. What a joke you are Ratty!
Perhaps you should tell us all about the global socialist conspiracy again? And the MSM. That’s always good.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Homosexuals like that pommy arsehole Tim Barnett, toilet tapper Peter, ratbiter, farter Carter, Helen, Heather, Charles the poodle groomer and that Georgie twisted thing have fucked this country and restricted the freedoms of a normal kiwi !!
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Homosexual marriage is another very important issue with you too right Ryan? Trend following microbe.
Redbaiter, the question was:
Should people have the liberty to grow and/or smoke weed? Or does the state know what’s best for them?
I don’t think homosexual marriage is the same thing, because people aren’t going to get locked up if they declare themselves to be homosexually married. Lee said, “Freedom means freedom from the initiation of force under any circumstances.” I suppose a homosexual partner being prevented by the state from visiting their loved one in hospital would count, but that doesn’t happen any more.
So, again, Redbaiter, do you think the state knows what’s best for people who want to smoke weed? Or do you think they should have the liberty to grow and/or smoke it?
It stands out as an issue because it is one where so many people who preach liberty simultaneously believe the nanny state knows best when it comes to cannabis.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:50 pm
“So, again, Redbaiter, do you think the state knows what’s best for people who want to smoke weed? Or do you think they should have the liberty to grow and/or smoke it?”
Ryann, I spit on your preoccupation with such issues when your state is taking our income and our property and our liberty in so many other areas. I might get to legalisation of drugs one day, but its right down the list of my priorities, and I am not going to be diverted by something in reality so inconsequential whilst I struggle against the many real threats to our liberty that deserve much more priority than some piddling infantile desire to partake of mind altering substances.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I might get to legalisation of drugs one day, but in the meantime I’VE GOT NOTHING.
(But that’s not going to stop me from blustering impotently like the fool I am!)
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I might get to legalisation of drugs one day, but its right down the list of my priorities
I don’t think it should be that hard to have an opinion one way or another on the matter. If you have no opinion, because you’ve never thought about it much, that’s fine. But if you side with the nanny state while preaching liberty, you should at least have some reasoning behind that position.
I agree that it’s hardly the most important issue in the country, but I think that people’s natural habit of going along with whatever the state has told them is good for them or bad for them is possibly connected to a sheep mentality that plays a part in many of those more important issues to which you refer.
It is, after all, taxpayers’ money and taxpayers’ resources that are spent on enforcing this opposition to liberty. And it is this opposition to liberty that makes the cannabis black market a lucrative source of income to gangs who are involved in some issues far more important than the freedom to smoke weed.
I don’t smoke weed myself, though I take umbrage at the notion that the nanny state can force me not to if I happened to want to. And I also take umbrage at the fact that my tax dollars are spent on both telling me what to do in this case and spent on fighting the organised crime that is fed by the illegality.
The issue, by itself, may be quite unimportant, but it is reflective of and related to much more important things.
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:03 pm
“(But that’s not going to stop me from blustering impotently like the fool I am!)”
I can’t see anyone trying to stop you. Go for it.
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Nope, he’s still got nothing…
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Ryan Sproull above has zeroed in on the crux of the argument here, the very point that Peter Cresswell was trying to make also. ‘Freedom’ to many on the right means freedom of the individual to act as they will – within the confines of their own constructed morality. Redbaiter exemplifies this – he champions ‘freedom’ but then wishes to impose his own social mores on the population, as evidenced by his not-too-deft sidestepping of Ryan Sproull’s simple question on cannabis regulation. The answer is a simple ‘Yes, I would regulate,’ or ‘No, I choose freedom of the individual.’
For myself, I don’t buy libertarianism because I don’t trust polluters, I don’t trust greedy property speculators with an eye out for a quick buck, and I have always believed that a guaranteed safety net for the needy is a bottom line for a humane society. But having said that, I applaud Peter Cresswell for his continued efforts in putting his position with levity and intelligence. It is a crying shame that so many good debates on this blog degenerate into shit-flinging insult wars, but good on those of you who make the effort to rise above and engage the issues – you make it a worthwhile read.
MrHappy
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Well the problem is mrHappy, that quite often what left wing “freedom fighters” do is revoke others freedom of expression by claiming it is their “human right”.
An example is gay marriage, which would require a fundamental change to the long held tradition of marriage being a heterosexual union. Anybody that raises and objection is quickly dismissed as a red neck fundamentalist bigot or worse.
Aparantly what one group wants is more important than what another group would like to keep.
When freedom is linked to post modernist belief systems it is only freedom to those who hold those beliefs. The rest of us can see it is just an attempt by self centered left wing activists to take what they want and give the finger to those they are taking it from.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:58 pm
I agree with Peter Creswell that we are all guilty of thinking/hoping/imagining that National will somehow sweep into power and heal the radioactive wastelands that the Axis of Mordor have conjured up during their nine years of toxic pollution of our poor country … all this magic while at the same time not scaring the horses by removing rotting sores like WFF or the other life-threatening drains on our economy.
Truth is, even if JK were as gifted as Nelson Mandela, he couldn’t put all those pieces together successfully in an instant. And having to manage such Herculean tasks working with raw talent like Lockwood S (who can also boast naturally small … accomplishments) and Maurice (for whom the toll bells) suggests we could be in for the long haul.
But what we DO know — with a passion and a vengeance and a fury that surpasses understanding — is that if the seven-headed Medusa gets back into power in this country on November 9, there is absolutely NO chance of any respite from this totalitarian regime.
The National dream provides us with a faint hope — yes, very faint, but at least it is a hope.
October 24th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Ryan Sproull says on October 23rd, 2008 at 12:00 pm:
Careful there Ryan. You might get people accusing you of taking it up the Marxist.
October 24th, 2008 at 12:35 am
They don’t like it up ‘em!
October 24th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Ryan,
“Lee, what’s your stance on cannabis legislation?”
My stance is that the ONLY adult behaviour that the state can legitimately criminalise is behaviour that involves the intitiation of force (theft, child abuse, assault, rape, murder) or fraud.
Therefore I favour fully legalising all drugs.
That does not mean that I therefore support people using drugs personally. I think its stupid and destructive, and I would like to live in a culture and a nation where the vast majority of people did not use drugs. I also despise those who promote the use of drugs as something that is ok or “cool”.
But doing so should not be a crime.
October 24th, 2008 at 1:24 am
mus,
“If as you say one should subscribe to a “moral centre”, which sounds dogmatic to me, you must lose your freedom.”
No because real freedom arises from a moral centre. Without the moral centre, or ethical principal if you like, which says that initiating force against another person is always wrong, then you end up with a political system that does so, and therefore destroys freedom.
I am not using the word “moral” here in the religious sense, but in the political sense.
I don’t normally cut and paste but I think this explanation from the Libertarianz of the basic political principles I believe can explain things better than I can.
INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY
Each individual is the owner of his own life and has the right to live it as he sees fit, as long as he respects that same right in others.
PRIVATE PROPERTY
Each person has the right to create or lawfully acquire property – real, and intellectual – and to control its use.
VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION
All interaction among adult human beings, in all spheres of life, should be voluntary. Voluntary societies are civil societies, coercive societies are not.
NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE
Physical coercion must be removed from human affairs. The only acts that may properly be banned in a free society are those that involve the initiation of physical force or fraud by one party against another.
COMMON LAW
In a free society, laws protect people and property from the initiation of physical force or fraud, and uphold voluntary contractual agreements.
LIMITED GOVERNMENT
The only legitimate function of government is to uphold these principles.
CAPITALISM
The only economic system consistent with these principles is the free market.
October 24th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Thats my last post for a while. I have work commitments and I’m going to be away for the next two weeks. I hope that when I’m free to post here again we have a good election result to celebrate.
October 24th, 2008 at 1:56 am
Like John McCain being elected president of the US.
October 24th, 2008 at 2:15 am
Following Ryan’s line of reasoning, you can only assume he believes that there’s really no need for any laws at all! Now I really object to this line of thinking, as I DO expect the government to ensure that societies moral standards are upheld. What I do object to is radical MINORITY, anti-society bullshit agendas, been given the time of day!
October 24th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Ryan,
“Lee, what’s your stance on cannabis legislation?”
My stance is that the ONLY adult behaviour that the state can legitimately criminalise is behaviour that involves the intitiation of force (theft, child abuse, assault, rape, murder) or fraud.
Therefore I favour fully legalising all drugs.
That does not mean that I therefore support people using drugs personally. I think its stupid and destructive, and I would like to live in a culture and a nation where the vast majority of people did not use drugs. I also despise those who promote the use of drugs as something that is ok or “cool”.
But doing so should not be a crime.
Lee,
I agree.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Following Ryan’s line of reasoning, you can only assume he believes that there’s really no need for any laws at all! Now I really object to this line of thinking, as I DO expect the government to ensure that societies moral standards are upheld. What I do object to is radical MINORITY, anti-society bullshit agendas, been given the time of day!
DamnedAngry,
I strongly object to the idea that the state should be upholding “society’s moral standards” in situations where one is not harming another’s person or property. It is not the place of anyone, no matter how many they are, no matter what letters they have before or after their name, to force me or anyone else to live other than how I choose – so long as I am not imposing on that same freedom for others.
If you want to live in a country where the government “ensures that society’s moral standards are upheld”, I imagine that Saudi Arabia and North Korea have various job opportunities.
October 24th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
From “The Virtue of Freedom” by Theodore Dalrymple:
“…….The assault on freedom in Britain in the name of social welfare is an illustration of something that the American founding fathers understood, but that is not very congenial to the temper of our times: that in the long run, only a population that strives for virtue (with at least a degree of success) will be able to maintain its freedom. A nation whose individuals choose vice rather than virtue as the guiding principle of their lives will not long remain free, because it will need rescuing from the consequences of its own vices.
In Britain, it is not so very long ago that most – of course not all – people had an idea of virtue that was intensely focussed on their own individual conduct, irrespective of whether they were rich or poor. People did not in general believe that poverty excused very much. One of the destructive consequences of the spread of sociological modes of thought is that it has transferred the notion of virtue from individuals to social structures, and in so doing has made personal striving for virtue (as against happiness) not merely unnecessary but ridiculous and even bad……”
READ THE WHOLE THING:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=6584&sec_id=6584
October 24th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
“as I DO expect the government to ensure that societies moral standards are upheld.”
Currently our society has very little moral standards, so what are they supposed to uphold?
The problem with this line of thinking is that if you give the state the right to impose morality by force, then as soon as the government changes, say to a liberal-left one, then they use the same right to impose theirs (the human “rights” act being a good example, as well as the anti-smacking law).
We need to get nanny state off our back. I’m all in favour of a moral revival in NZ, as I have made clear in other posts, but it must be a voluntary one that arises from the people, not one imposed by the state.
True moral virtue is self-chosen by the individual. If it is imposed by the state it is not virtue, but mere obedience.
October 25th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Garth George’s column is often a treasure. But he resonates with times gone by’ers’. That was when the bible was the moral compass of choice and adults had authority over the children and youths and the UN stuck to it’s knitting. Could the trouble be that no really big issues like a 3rd WW has come along to focus power mongers on a narrow track? Perhaps it will take something of monumental proportions to get these dibbling pollies from meddling in things that don’t concern them. Their performances have been short sighted and without conventional wisdom.