Saturday, 4 June 2005

Greens losing their freedom mojo

Many, many New Zealand Green supporters are enthusiasts for personal freedom. It's true. They want government busybodies out of their bedrooms, government hands away from their films, magazines and books, and government agents out of their pot plant patch.

Every time we run a 'World's Smallest Political Quiz' booth, Greens supporters consistently score in the 40s to the high 90s for personal freedom, yet the only place this is reflected in Greens policy is their cannabis policy -- and their only MP advocating relaxation of cannabis laws has been demoted in their list in part for doing so.

And one thing more: on the conviction and sentencing of Schapelle Corby, New Zealand's Greens have been studiously silent when all logic surely tells them that -- guilty or innocent -- poor Schapelle is a martyr to the War on Drugs to which their principles shoudl tell them they should surely be opposed. What better 'poster-person' for legalisation do they want, and just in time for an election in which they're struggling to find the king-hit issue they found in 2002?

The Australian Greens have been more vocal, but even they have refrained from pointing out how the War on Drugs has martyred Schapelle. Speaking on TVNZ's 'Agenda' programme Australian Green Senator Kerry Nettle (here to speak to the Greens conference) defended the unproven assertion of Australian Greens' leader Bob Brown that Schapelle Corby "would never have been convicted in Australia," but failed to even mention the iniquity of the drug laws that convicted her. It's okay for Greens to criticise the Indonesian justice system it seems, but not the injustice of their own country's laws.

The Greens have lost their freedom mojo, if indeed it was ever really there.


  1. IMNSHO you are drawing a long bow comparing Greens to Libertarians.

    Sure they cry about people being able to do what they like,but you never hear them talking about personal responsibility. Bye bye welfare, bye bye social support, bye bye astronomical taxation. You rely on yourself, and those willing to help you. You never hear the Greens talk about that. They want everyone to be free to do as they choose, AND they want *your* tax dollars to pay for it.

    I doesn't inspire me to vote Libertarian if you people think they're brothers-in-arms.

  2. Martyr, come on PC. If a country decides to ban drugs, they sure should have the liberty to do so, or not? Are countries not allowed to state what visitors to their country can import or not?

    I don't understand the libz obsession with brain changing chemicals. What's the point? They're highly dangerious and destructive as study after study points out. Any non-harmful effects are dubious at best.

    It's a non issue.

  3. I have one question Mr Berend de Boer:

    What gives you the right to decide what I can put inside MY body?

  4. >> I don't understand the libz obsession with brain changing chemicals.

    That's because there isn't one, Berend. Libertarians are obsessed with *freedom*, and the right to do what you wish with your own body is simply one facet of that concept. I do not think you will find most libertarians are into drugs - they're mainly quite focussed and successful people who don't have the time or inclination to get stoned.

  5. Interesting idea of Liberty you have there Berend; that countries should have the "Liberty" to impose whatever cruel or unusual punishments imaginable for victimless crimes.

  6. It is bullshit that most Libs are not into drugs. You will find recipes for freebasing LSD and the benefits thereof on most Libs blogs. Many read my site and most are druggies.

    Piekoff is right - most Libs are just conservatives who want their drugs legalised. Rand was right.

  7. I believe some drugs should be legalised, but not all drugs. If a drug has been proven to be absolutely fatal, then it needs to be banned for the safety of other.

    And I would say that if we dig up some research on these banned drugs, we'll find that many of them are harmful anyway.

    Also, I don't think we own our body 100%, why?

    We are part of society, therefore we have responsibility to other member of society, for one, not to spread preventable known disease (be it mental or physical). Its different matter if you live in a remote island by yourself.

    Its about a balance between individual rights, responsibilities, and common sense (yes, don't forget the later).

  8. This is the sort of crazyness that drug laws lead to:

  9. Ruth said...
    It is bullshit that most Libs are not into drugs. You will find recipes for freebasing LSD and the benefits thereof on most Libs blogs. Many read my site and most are druggies

    Let me know how many drug recipes you find on these libertarian sites, Ruth...

  10. Sid, if we know a drug is fatal, surely banning it is redundant?

    You also say that we don't own our bodies 100% then suggest nobody has a right to violate that ownership by infecting someone with a disease. Which is it, Sid? If you are asserting that "society" should control my life in some circumstances, you need to be specific about what those are, because the example you give is a defence of individual liberty, not "collective responsibility".

  11. hi blair,

    we know smoking kills (self and others), how many people still smoke?

    we know drinking too much alcohol kills (self and destroy families), how many people still do that?

    In the instance of people doing harm to themselves, it is easy to say that they don't affect us, so its their business. But, in reality, they do affect the society, and in turn affect us.

    Its all in the number. If a large number of people do stupid things, even in their own property, it will still impact the society (hence us) significantly.

  12. I completely agree Sid. If a large number of people choose to harm themselves it does impact the society significantly. Where we disagree is that you seem to think this is a bad thing.

    Personally, I think the more stupid people that can kill themselves before breeding, the better. It improves the intelligence and productivity of society no end.


1. Comments are welcome and encouraged.
2. Comments are moderated. Gibberish, spam & off-topic grandstanding will be removed. Tu quoque will be moderated. Links to bogus news sites (and worse) will be deleted.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say it, it's important enough to put a name to it.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.