After a week of limp dick John Boy Key's wet blathering -- sample, "I'm like the Inland Revenue. Firm but fair" -- I've decided to amend the Team Blue part of my blogroll by shifting all Key supporters to where they now belong. Team Red.
Naturally, all those bloggers filed under Team Libz on the blogroll stay put (I'd say "once a libertarian, always a libertarian," but unfortunately Deborah Coddington gives the lie to that one), and ACT types stay put in Team Blue (Rodney has cleared that one up today).
Bloggers rightly outraged at being unwittingly caught up in this peremptory shift may may make application to be reinstated to Team Blue by a carefully placed Cactus or two placed under the arse of what the "reasonable, sensible and curiously attractive" Cactus calls this "Keynesian soft cock Socialist leaning IRD apologetic point man."
Go on, let yourself go. Say what you really think, or else stay sitting there in the Team Red clubhouse.
UPDATE: One year on, Stephen Franks gets moved to Team Red for this.
LINK: National strategy - Cactus Kate
ACT working to woo back National's right-wingers - NZ Herald
RELATED: Politics-NZ, Politics-National
26 comments:
Your link "Rodney has cleared that one up today" didn't work. I got a 404 error page when I clicked it.
Re reshuffle of bloggers - absolutely right, DPF has to go - but what a shame about IP - I hope he will see the light.
Thanks for being one of the best.
Still a libertarian but not a utopian. Better by degrees is still worth pursuing. But shaking the 'right-wing' label is a dilemma.
For Libz as well as ACT.
I'd love to be a paid-up voting libertarian, except that again and again in discussions with people who describe themselves thus, they turn out to be libertarian only within certain very narrow parameters.
It would be good to see more public discussion among libertarians so those of us with one toe in the water could get a better picture of the movement.
(a thought that was prompted by DPF's comments on taxing tobacco just this morning)
You can put me down as disgusted by his comments.
"It would be good to see more public discussion among libertarians so those of us with one toe in the water could get a better picture of the movement."
True enough. It's been pointed out to us by 'libertarian strategists' that the ideal debate is one between two libertarians, which casts the debate in libertarian terms, whatever the debate might be about, and whichever debater is the winner.
so your libertarianism is just another religion. have faith. Never mind logic, just have faith in the ideology. on what basis is your ideology any better than catholic dogma that condoms are immoral or that GE is bad for us..
John Key has a highly successful personal enterprise. Proven. Happy family, loads of money, no obvious flaws.
He has chosen to try to extend that success to New Zealanders through parliamentary democracy.
And do you give him the benefit of the doubt? No you start white anting him for not sticking to the religious dogma of libertarian politically correct speech.
Really PC, on this one you are no better than the most dogmatic environmentalists & religionists that you used to take the piss out of. Can you do that any longer without feeling that it is just your faith that is superior rather than your logic?
What counts is what works in the real world, not what is ideologically pure.
This action is just as bad as the Jordan Carter and Tony Milnes that you used to be able to take the piss out of. The idea comes from the right therefore it must be immoral.
So I am happy to be part of the centre rather than out in the ideological extremes.
"So I am happy to be part of the centre rather than out in the ideological extremes."
The "centre" is my idea of an ideological extreme. Because the centre stands for nothing, creates nothing and is poised to jump either way depending on selfish opportunism.
The centre never built anything and never fixed anything. Show me a centrist and I'll show you a person perched nervously on the fence.
One "Centrist" comes to mind. The infamous Kent Parker from the NZ E-Party.
PC, I agree on the reshuffle of the blog roll. The loss of Don Brash and the coming of John Key is a harsh blow for National, because they really are now a different shade of Labour. It just seems like a game to garner votes, with no policy or substance.
Anyway. At least the Rodders is still there. Sort of.
Fecksakes.
Phil Sage has earned himself a permanent spot in the Red clubhouse with John Boy Key, letting his political opponents set his political agenda for him.
The tidal wave of wetness continues.
so your libertarianism is just another religion. have faith. Never mind logic, just have faith in the ideology. on what basis is your ideology any better than catholic dogma that condoms are immoral or that GE is bad for us..
Um, no it isn't based on faith. It is based on the exact opposite: reason. It respects individual rights. Those 2 things is why it is better than catholic dogma.
no obvious flaws
Wrong. He has his irrational crap as an obvious flaw.
He has chosen to try to extend that success to New Zealanders through parliamentary democracy.
Well with his irrational crap he will fail at that.
And do you give him the benefit of the doubt?
Benefit of the doubt? When reason tells us his crap will fail? When experience of Labour trying it shows the same?
What counts is what works in the real world, not what is ideologically pure.
True libertarianism (as opposed to the fake stuff that exists world wide) protects the concept of individual rights and as such works in the real world because rights are a mandatory of human survival according to our nature, therefore works in the real world.
The idea comes from the right therefore it must be immoral.
That is not the view of libertians. Our view is that it attacks individuals rights therefore it is immoral. Left, right, or center doesn't matter. The views of the wings matter not the wing itself.
So I am happy to be part of the centre rather than out in the ideological extremes.
In other worlds you are happy with not standing up for individual rights, which makes you just as bad as the left and the right.
The "centre" is my idea of an ideological extreme. Because the centre stands for nothing, creates nothing and is poised to jump either way depending on selfish opportunism.
The centre never built anything and never fixed anything. Show me a centrist and I'll show you a person perched nervously on the fence.
I concur.
The tidal wave of wetness continues.
Of course it does. Wetness is the normal state of this country. Dryness is rare.
I think the whole fiasco is hilarious - given ACT are currently polling less than the margin of error where does this leave the NZ Right - Perhaps National Front need to get their act together next election.
It just goes to show what a pack of lame obese apathetic pack of wussies kiwis have become. No one stands for anything, and everything is a side show to nothing of any interest.
The cluster round the middle is starting to resemble a pack of blowflies swarming round a warm turd.
I never for a second ever thought Key would be of any consequence. He always looked like a soft gutted wannabe to me. Posing in front of his unbelievably ugly monstrosity called a home. He reminds me of John Campbell on too much coffee. He's definately a glass half full kinda guy, happy with mediocrity.
What we need is a decent Commodore in this country to give us all a wake up.
Key is one of those people that even if he was as capitalist as his non Govt credentials were, he would sell National as far left as he could if it got them back into the trough.
Good on ya for putting them in Team Red.
kane - i think you missed my point. try reading my comment. Key has been successful. i assume that libertarians (or I used to) believe the best way to individual & societal enrichment, personally and professionally is through libertarianism. but here we have an example of a man who has been successful without necessarily having followed the true faith.
So cast him out as an infidel.
Do you think any of you could get off your ideological high horses for long enough to explain how comrade key could have done better personally by being more ideologically sound. Using REASON of course.
short cutting all the bs, you cant. And that is my point. Perhaps there is a non idelogically pure way that works better in the real world. And give Mr Key some credit for getting to the nub of it. he has proven it worked for him personally.
Do you want me to put it all in words of one syllable? or do you understand now?
and pc I can think of many situations where I would prefer wetness to a dry nun.
Yeah Sage, what we need is a (Kane Bunce annoited) true believer that can assure us that the growth in burning of fossil fuels will continue unabated (cos we should be free without hinderence to burn that shite - and anyway it's debatable whether it's affecting the planet or the atmosphere - we need more research into that) and that the shite and useless trinkets and baubles will continue arriving in containers from China to fill the Warehouse shelves and eventually occupy our landfill space and also that the flood of asians immigrants will continue to pour in through ALK Intl so that the property market will continue to grow so we can all hoc the house for a new SUV or LCD screen TV thus perpetuating the ridiculous cycle - ah capitalism, it's the answer to all our problems Sage - in'it a wonderful thing to behold.
"Ah, capitalism. It's the answer to all our problems".
It would be if we had it, but we don't.
We have a govt that insists upon interfering wherever possible. That ain't capitalism. It's middle-ground mush.
Still, I suppose the bastards have to do something to justify their existence.
As Reagan once said about his treasury officials:
If it moves, tax it.
If it continues to move, regulate it.
And if it doesn't move, subsidise it.
kane - i think you missed my point. try reading my comment. Key has been successful.
I know, but business success does not equal political success.
Do you think any of you could get off your ideological high horses for long enough to explain how comrade key could have done better personally by being more ideologically sound. Using REASON of course.
The more rational businessmen have always done better than their less rational counterparts. It's history. Also in a more libertarian society he would do better than in our current one.
And give Mr Key some credit for getting to the nub of it.
No, idiocy like his deserves criticism not credit. He has made it clear he stands for nothing and that deserves only hate.
Do you want me to put it all in words of one syllable? or do you understand now?
I understand all to well: you're an idiot. Business success does NOT port over to political success. Besides more an issue to me than success is MORALS. Key is immoral so deserves hate, not credit.
and pc I can think of many situations where I would prefer wetness to a dry nun.
So, in other words, you prefer stupidity over intelligence. I thought so.
Yeah Sage, what we need is a (Kane Bunce annoited) true believer that can assure us that the growth in burning of fossil fuels will continue unabated(cos we should be free without hinderence to burn that shite
No it wouldn't. New technology will developed, and in fact already is being developed, that will make fossil fuel engines more efficient on less fuel, and to make replacement fuels. Just because we are more free to do something doesn't mean we will do it. It means we can do it if we choose to.
Steve, your wording seems to be saying you hate commercialism (what you refer to is commercialism not capitalism."
"Ah, capitalism. It's the answer to all our problems".
It would be if we had it, but we don't.
Indeed, it would, and indeed we don't.
We have a govt that insists upon interfering wherever possible. That ain't capitalism. It's middle-ground mush.
Indeed. Capitalism is leaving us to run our own lives.
There seems to some confusion over Key's success. He seems to have been rather successful in one particular realm of business and good on him.
But it is folly to suggest that this is enough to count as qualification to lead the country. Success in one area does not guarantee the same success elsewhere. Otherwise we should be lining up Graham Henry to run the show.
When it comes to trading Key may very well be the most rational person. But that doesn't mean he applies that rationality with the same consistency in other areas. In even if he does, he is open to honest mistake. With this in mind, it is only appropriate to judge his merits on the policies he advocates.
If he is found wanting, it is because his policies are unworkable in the actual real world (as opposed to this mysterious real world that only Key et el can see).
Sean.
"Also in a more libertarian society he would do better than in our current one." - thats just blind faith and repeating the mantras. Capitalism works. However we do not live in a socialist or capitalist utopia and are not likely to any time soon. As a small trading nation New Zealand would be more sensible to recognise the imperfect world and act according to reality rather than ideology. Kind of like currency trading strategy.
"No, idiocy like his deserves criticism not credit. He has made it clear he stands for nothing and that deserves only hate."
I can only guess at your feelings towards helen clark and genuine socialists. You have proven my point exactly. cast out the unbelievers!!!
Graham Henry has proven nothing yet. But why not harness his motivational skills if and when he stops the all blacks from choking next year. would you prefer a woolly collection of trade unionists and teachers running the country?
and btw - WTF does anyone get the idea that business is any different from politics?
what works is what works, not what has its mantras sung most loudly
"and btw - WTF does anyone get the idea that business is any different from politics?"
Exactly Sagenz! And the policies that Helen Clark and John Key advocate do not work. In reality. The empirical evidence is overwhelming! Expecting failed policies to work just because Key mutters them is an unbelievable act of faith. No amount of rationalism on your part will disprove the facts of the real world. John Key may be the one true saviour in your mind, but the rest of us will test his utterances against the facts of reality.
Furthermore, the differences between business and politics are manifest. At the most fundamental level one is about persuasion the other force. One is about economic power the other power from a gun. One deals with microeconomic matters the other macroeconomic. It is possible to be successful in both realms. But, as Key is currently demonstrating with his rejection of the facts of reality success in one does not imply automatic success in the other. And, No, I do not measure success by votes, but how policies improve the flourishing of individuals.
sean - i think(but hope not ) that you are the rationalists that has commented sensibly on my own blgo before.
WTF??? John Keys PERSONAL ENTERPRISE seems to be working wuote well. helen and cullen, you have a point,
But FFS do not try to tell me that black is white.
"Exactly Sagenz! And the policies that ... John Key advocate do not work. In reality. The empirical evidence is overwhelming!"
So you suggest that a personal wealth of $50m plus is not evidence, mkay, tui billboard on its way...
less of the religion, more of the empirical observation :)
wuote = quite
Sagenz,
I can assure you that I have not commented on your blog.
Just because JK is good in area A does not mean he is necessarily good in area B. It is simple logic. Great personal wealth suggests ability at making money, not an ability to create great economic policies. They are clearly different ares. To suggest otherwise is, in fact, to claim black is white.
Key has demonstrated success in his realm of enterprise. But in the realm of politics he is currently advocating policies that will harm individual flourishing and stifle the economy. The failure of such policies has been seen time and time again.
His personal philosophy may be very good and perhaps we should be advised to adopt it to our own ends, but to equate a personal philosophy with a blueprint for running a country is absurd.
Sean.
Thanks very much for not shifting us to Team Red but why aren't we in Team Libz?
We are not objectivists but we are definately considerably more lib than blue!
Madeleine, shoudl abortion be legal?
Post a Comment