After asking readers to help me decide whether or not to stand in Epsom for Libertarianz (see here), I now find that the poll I started on the subject is as ambivalent as I am.
At the time of writing 228 votes have been cast, 43% saying "Yes, Run for Your Life!" and 50% telling me" No! Don't Do It!" Not very useful, but more useful than the 7% wondering where Epsom is -- at least that's more than are wondering where ACT is in the polls. But I digress.
To paraphrase the prime arguments for each position, I have on the one hand been accused of seeking to destroy the ACT Party*! Well, shucks. If little old me is all it takes to destroy ACT then it's probably time they were made to walk the plank. As Ayn Rand once observed, when you hear cries of "Don't rock the boat!" it generally mean that there's a boat that need rocking good and hard.
The other camp have been arguing that I should save my time, energy and remaining funds and keep tapping away at this here keyboard, and keeping my blog full of good readable content.
So what to do? Well, here's my idea and it has two parts.
First, I have readers who constantly tell me that ACT is really a libertarian party. If that's true then I will surely expect to see fewer irrelevant personal attacks in Parliament, and policies from them this election that clearly call for an increase in both personal freedom and economic freedom. One of each would be 1) a call for an end to the disgraceful and disgraced War on Drugs, or at least for cannabis to be legalised (see Libz arguments here); and 2) a call for the abolition of the Resource Management Act and the reinstitution of common law protection of property rights. (See my arguments here.)
Second, if that doesn't happen -- is the Pope Protestant? -- is Act a 'liberal' party? -- I will undertake to do whatever the poll says when the first answer reaches 250 votes. That is, if the first to get to 250 votes is 'Yes! Run!' then that is what I will do; if it's 'No! Don't' then I won't.
You choose. Vote down there on the sidebar. Or in the Tip Jar. ;^)
------------------------------------------------------------------
*The argument here is apparently that ACT's poor general polling (eg., 0.8% in the Herald's last 'snap' poll) means that it needs to win a constituency seat in order to get back into Parliament. With ACT's rejection of John Banks's reverse takeover bid, that means they have to win Epsom -- every Epsom vote is therefore important. To ACT.
6 comments:
See - I told you "no" at the beginning.You should listen to me ;-) Only asshats stand for parliament and I have other plans for you, if you improve your taste in alcohol.
You can safely run in Epsom. The few votes the Libz would get there wouldn't damage ACT at all. But it's a waste of time, that's why I voted no.
And irrelevant personal attacks? The most consistent enemy ACT has are the libz, so put on the hat I would say. And ask parents to vote for drugs.
I'm trying to avoid pointless polls, but why the hell shouldn't you stand for Epsom if you have the time and energy to run a credible campaign?
If you convince people to vote for you, that's democracy. Worth and Hide will just have to suck it up, and remember that Epsom is an electorate in a parliamentary democracy not some Ruritanian kingdom.
Good points PC. Running in Epsom seems (to me) more of wasting energies.
I don't like the constant personal attacks trotted out, but I'm also realising al ot of voters don't think much about the in depth issues, and respond to confidence (or how it is presented). So do the financial markets to some extent come to think of it.
Assessing political strategy are not what the average mums and dads want to worry about, when juggling the rest of lifes challenges. Issues are reduced to impressions, and the nature of the persoanl allegations and how they link up with the real scandals - Te Wananga, Jobs Jolt, PM's calendar, Family Commission advertising budget etc etc start to have an impact.
Sad really. Good luck with whatever.
Yes PC would be an excellent candidate. Peter is a person of principle, his knowledge of common law and his commitment to expose the law of plunder, the RMA is an example of the socialists who have used the law to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists have used the law as their weapon against the productive.The Law by Frederic Bastiat 'The Choice Before Us'
1. The Few Plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody
3. Nobody plunders anybody.
We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The Law can follow only one of these three.
No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. And this I believe is what PC stands for.
PC for Epsom - bring it on.
After thinking this over in the weekend, I think you should run. If Rodney wins Epsom, the Libz get 10 votes, it would put certain issues finally to rest.
Post a Comment