I'm probably expected to be upset because the Whig and his associates far and near have called Ayn Rand "boring." Oh, yawn. This from a group that still reveres New Zealand's most boring speaker for several generations, Roger Douglas, as "The Godfather" (tell me that's irony, please) and who are outraged today at an MP engaged in principled protest against the RMA -- "all the participants should be prosecuted," whimpers the Wimp.
What a sad bunch. Says Cathy: "I just don't fucking get libertarian philosophy. And I don't care that I don't get it." Fine Cathy, just stick to fucking married men then; that's about as much revolution as you seem able to handle. As for ACT's Liberal Project -- about which Cathy clearly has her knickers either in a twist or stuck to the wall -- the actual content was always a sad and boring joke, but at least someone in ACT did once recognise that if you want support for what passes for your ideas, then you do have to try and expand the market for those ideas beyond the 7% peak ACT once enjoyed. But quite how anyone could confuse the Liberal Project's tepid offerings of warmed-over inanities with real red-blooded libertarianism, which explicitly seeks a revolution inside people's heads, is beyond me.
What is perhaps even sadder however than Catherine Judd thinking the Association of Compulsion Touters were ever by any stretch 'liberal' is that the latest crop of young ACT conservatives confess that ideas per se bore them rigid. Remind me again what libertarians are supposed to have in common with these people?
10 comments:
I knock ACT for lots of things, Cathy, but not for "having just 2 seats this time and its '7% peak'"
I'm saying that if you or ACT ever want to expand beyond people that already agree with your ideas, that you've somehow got to convince more people to agree with them. Flawed though we both agree that it was, at least Judd (or someone recognised) it was worth a go.
"How many New Zealanders actually understand what the hell you are on about?"
How many understood, just for an example, that we were living in an essentially separatist country before we starting banging on about (and running a petition to implement) the idea of One Law for All and the abolition of the Maori seats?
Have you noticed the frequency with which the words 'individual liberty,' 'freedom,' 'responsibility' and 'property rights' have appeared around the hustings? Shame none of the wankers using the words intend to do anything about them, but lip service is at least progress.
You can stop an army of soldiers, but you can't stop an army of ideas.
As I've said many times before, it's not important that ~we~ get to parliament, just as long as the ideas that promote and support freedom do. And in my judgement, they are.
Frankly, I don't care who takes them there. I'd certainly much rather it was someone other than I. :-)
Shit, I've said all this before in Brushfires of Liberty.
Actually PC, upsetting you was the last thing on my mind. But it's interesting that you mention Roger Douglas and Graham's posting in response. While I revere Douglas for his work as Finance Minister, I confess the thought of hearing him at an ACT conference again still touting his compulsory super scheme is better than any valium for inducing sleep. And while Graham writes on the same blog, I happen to disagree with him on the issue of clearing mangrove swamps. Besides, he is a member of the National Party.
And don't call me a conservative because I happen to think libertarian philosophy can be summed up in two sentences while I wait for the bartender to pour my beer.
Oh crikey. It's getting hard to get a decent blog war going these days, isn't it. :-)
Don't you know we're supposed to hurl invective at each other? Haven't you been reading your friend, young James Jenkins? ;^)
So, um, do you want to share your two sentences? Would PJ O'Rourke recognise them:
There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
How's that beer coming?
"As I've said many times before, it's not important that ~we~ get to parliament, just as long as the ideas that promote and support freedom do. And in my judgement, they are."
Four years ago,on the NZ newsgroups, nobody even knew who the Libertarianz were.
They certainly know now!
Libertarianz cop more flack than all the so-called 'minor'parties together. Shows that the ideas are getting out there. We just tend to hear from those whose own 'morals' are challenged...
Poor attempt to create a blog war Peter. Your use of ad hominem does your argument no good.
If you and your fellow libetarian purists want to go and live in a world where you can do what you want, including illegal activity without consequence of prosecution, do so in your own minds because it won't happen in the real world.
Reality. Transparency. Consistency.
No ad hominem. End of story.
"Poor attempt to create a blog war Peter."
Um, that was a joke, Graham. Sheesh. I did't realise joining the Nats made one prissy.
Graham said: 'if you and your fellow libetarian (sic) purists want to go and live in a world where you can do what you want, including illegal activity without consequence of prosecution, do so in your own minds, because it won't happen in the real world'.
Why should it bother you what, how, where & why I do something, provided it's not defrauding or harming anybody else?
More, why should that same non-fraudulent, non-forceful, voluntary activity be illegal, anyway?
Surely *that's* the point, Graham?
Sus, you're wasting your time. That stuff is far too "abstract" for someone who's bored with ideas, and who takes umrage at being called a wimp.
They know what you're talking about, they just don't give a shit. I'd expected better.
Hahaha,
Thats right Peter, despite being sympathetic to many of the principles I find Lib ideas very predictable, boring and impractical.
We got past that in the first year of my undergraduate philosophy degree, and were well beyond it in my Masters specialising in political philosophy.
Our discourse was at a more abstract level, not the dinner party converstaion level of the chattering classes that permeates your blog.
If you can come up with something a little more original I may engage. That is of course you can refrain from ad hominem expressions, which don't cause me the slightest umbrage but cast an interesting light on your debating capabilities.
Graham, the title wasn't ad hominem. It was a statement of fact.
"...despite being sympathetic to many of the principles I find Lib ideas very predictable, boring and impractical. "
E tu Brute.
Post a Comment