Who says minor parties can't work together.
Thursday, 14 June 2007
Party Pills Petition presented
The Libertarianz/Act on Campus petition opposing the banning of BZP party pills was presented on the steps of parliament at noon today to Heather Roy. Presenting it to her was Libertarianz drug spokesman Dr Richard Goode. Details in this press release.
Who says minor parties can't work together.
Who says minor parties can't work together.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Good thing to finally see ACT and Libertarianz working together on common ground.
Takes a bow.
I'll second that. I was at Victoria when signatures were being collected. Interesting to see that many people's initial reaction was against signing, thinking they were giving approval to party drugs. Yet when you talked about the problems associated with prohibition they could see the futility of the exercise.
Excellent to see the Libz supporting ACT & Rodney. That's how it should be. Despise the Greens and not ACT and also the Libz should stop the usual frequent sniping at Rodney .
FF, you need to distinguish between working together on common ground, and "supporting."
They ain't the same.
I think what FF is suggesting is focus on the *real* enemies of freedom.
Rather than wasting time attacking the few friends that the libz have.
Which is why I've never joined the libz, there seems to be more focus on attacking ACT for being heretics as they aren't all randian objectivists as opposed to those who are actually passing freedom destroying regulation left right and centre.
Obviously this has decreased since the more conservative members have left.
I'd suggest working on common ground more, get those things through... and then work out the rough spots later on. A lot more will be achieved that way.
Far be it from me to spoil this rare moment of ecumenical public agreement, but since the attacks have already begun from the rightward direction, it only seems fair to lob back a defensive salvo from the north ...
... do you really think it would be necessary to attack these "friends of freedom " if they were truly and consistently friends?
As I've said before, I'd be more than happy to stay quiet if we were to hear ringing declarations from the so-called party of freedom that loudly call for:
1) Repealing the RMA;
2) Legalising marijuana and and end to the War on Drugs;
3) Extensive privatisation;
4) Abolition of the Treaty of Waitangi, superseding it with a rights-based constitution tying up government; and
5) Ending the DPB in three years.
In the meantime, and in the absence of such ringing declarations, I'm happy to work with ACT on the few rather timid occasions when we do agree.
Balls in your court, guys. Always has been.
I wish Libz would join ACT and form a Libertarian caucus within it.As there are many libs already there it makes sense.The trouble would come with certain people trying to make it an Objectivist party...wrong move and doomed to fail.Mixing in the non political elements of Rands philosophy would cause division and splintering...no...just bring the Libertarianism thanks.
What on earth would be achieved by a libertarian caucus with ACT? far better to be a libertarian caucus OUTSIDE ACT and the Greens and National and ....
Look, you're welcome to pinch our policies any time - anybody's welcome. That's what they're for.
Just think of us as a combination of two things:
1) an external libertarian caucus; and
2)a hairshirt.
The trouble would come with certain people trying to make it an Objectivist party...wrong move and doomed to fail.Mixing in the non political elements of Rands philosophy would cause division and splintering...no...just bring the Libertarianism thanks.
It's the other way around I'm afraid. Get rid of the libertarians and bring on the Objectivists. Libertarians as most know them have a susceptibility to associating with right-wing extremists of a broad variety of stripes. This doesn't mean they are right wing of course, but it demonstrates unquestionably that they often have extremely poor judgement, especially regarding whose ideas and agendas they help promote.
Libs now have to deal with a new variey of wingnut - "Christian Libertarians" - on the rise in the US as well as here. Their ideas are absolutely bizarre...they wouldn't get a look-in if it was an Objectivist party.
"Libs now have to deal with a new variey of wingnut - "Christian Libertarians" - on the rise in the US as well as here. Their ideas are absolutely bizarre...they wouldn't get a look-in if it was an Objectivist party."
An Objectivist party is not required or really desirable as Libertarianism is already the practising political arm that Objectivism .Objectivism as a philosophy takes positions on things that are not within the proper scope of politics,Art,Theism/atheism,private morality etc.
A problem I see here on this blog and in Libz in NZ in general is the overlapping of Libertarianism with Objectivist philosophy causing conflict with other libs/liberals where it shouldn't be.Not all Libertarians are Objectivists...Libertarianism has a far longer history before Rand with Mencken,Spooner et el.There seems an unfortunate trend to want to purify/argue the non Objectivist heretics out of libertarianism,not always by choice but by force of argument and wanting to 'win".Its Peikoffism writ small...
The result is people who would be libertarian allies are driven away by Objectivist dogmatism.The trick is to balance the two so that Lib sympathisers are not discouraged and made resentful for not being "pure" enough.In other words when are we wearing our Lib hats and when are we wearing our Objectivist one and how not to cause unnecessary conflicts while doing so.
Sorry, who's this "we" of which you speak, James?
Sorry, who's this "we" of which you speak, James?"
The we "who" repels and cause the Libertarian movement in NZ to limp along gaining no ground and indeed getting smaller and more marginalised PC...Libz and former Libzs like me.What's been done up to now has been a failure and it must change.
"What's been done up to now has been a failure and it must change."
It most certainly has not been a failure. Libz were doing very well until a few years ago, considering NZ's population. They started to lose ground when *Objectivists* were no longer in leadership positions. Judging by the comments on this blog they now have spokespersons who think atheism is faith, that rights apply to the potential, not actual -- in short people who live in an up-is-down, Bizzarro Universe. Go figure - the electorate isn't as dumb as you think.
ACT's positions is little more than the straight conserative line prettied up a little for mass consumption --just goes to show the poverty of political alternatives in this country when some libertarians find themselves having to corral people towards ACT in this way.
Just because we currently have a kakistocracy doesn't mean libertarians should give up and go down with the ship.
"Judging by the comments on this blog they now have spokespersons who think atheism is faith, that rights apply to the potential, not actual -- in short people who live in an up-is-down, Bizzarro (sic) Universe. Go figure - the electorate isn't as dumb as you think."
Any mention of "rights", coming from a Key/Bradford/Clark supporter, is almost funny.
FYI I am no longer a Libertarian - nor do I support Bradford or Clark. I DO support the right to live free of violence however, and strongly believe the decision to hit children is not a matter of personal choice like choosing what shoes to wear in the morning. And my oh my what a PR disaster your support of it has been.
I have an interest in the fortunes of Libz as a foundation member of the party, foundation subscriber to TFR, member of the shortlived Free Radical Foundation and sponsor the Fountainhead College Essay Competition.
So you disagree that Libz have lost support since being invaded by those with contradictory premises? Facts are inconvenient things Sus - and YOU are part of the problem.
Mike E "Which is why I've never joined the libz, there seems to be more focus on attacking ACT for being heretics as they aren't all randian objectivists"
Hardly. Non-Randian Objectivists (of which I am one) are more than welcome in the Libz.
Also, the Libz, at spend hardly any time "attacking ACT" Look at this search...
http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/?search=ACT
I can't spot a trend.
Ruth "Libertarians as most know them have a susceptibility to associating with right-wing extremists of a broad variety of stripes. This doesn't mean they are right wing of course, but it demonstrates unquestionably that they often have extremely poor judgement, especially regarding whose ideas and agendas they help promote."
This doesn't sound like a very smart strategy. Not to promote what you believe in because some nut-jobs might tag along? And the fact that they might won't be aleviated by extra Objectivists. The spekaer at the recent anti-anti-smacking rally attended by many gob-bothering lunatics was an Objectivist - Lindsay Perigo.
James "The result is people who would be libertarian allies are driven away by Objectivist dogmatism."
Here, as with the sniping about sniping about ACT, you are living in the past James. Both assertions had some merit three or more years ago, but under the current leadership I can't see how this is happening in the party at all. Quite the reverse in fact. It's safe to come back James :-)
What you should do, to paraphrase a friend of yours, "is focus on the *real* enemies of freedom.
Rather than wasting time attacking the few friends that [ACT] have.
Ruth, you don't need to tell us that you're no libertarian.
But once again we disagree. There is no place for contradiction within libertarianism. Libertarianism is about removing the state from people's lives. That's it. You either understand that, or you don't.
Ironically, it's you who seems to be contradictory more often than not. You openly support John Key who doesn't seem to know whether he's Arthur or Martha. He makes all the right sounds in supposedly making things easier for producers, while calling for such action as govt-imposed carbon levels and continuing greenie-red RMA nonsense. Typical middle-road mush.
And as for 'anti-smacking PR disasters', I sometimes wonder what you're on. Clark and Bradford were on the political ropes. Bradford had backed herself right into the corner by stating that she would "pull" her bill should any amendment be tagged onto it ... and at the eleventh hour, your man steps in to save them! He single-handedly saved their bacon!
And as for libertarian 'decline', you ignore that prior to the last election, Lib policy became Act policy became Nat policy in a number of important areas.
When did you last see the Nats screaming 'Nanny State' and 'property rights matter' and 'freedom matters', etc, before then? Eh? They started to fucking remember just what it was that 'mattered'!
It's about ideas! It's certainly not about compromising principles.
Facts *are* inconvenient, aren't they.
Eric - Perigo is a conservative with the serial numbers filed off. Check out SOLO for his views on immigration etc. He is the reason why I stopped supporting Libz. Peter needs to be party leader again - he has the media exposure via this blog and is a TRUE Objectivist, even though I don't agree with him on some issues.
Sus - you are a joke. I know more about libertarianism and objectivism and have more political contacts than you ever will - and you are full of contradictions.
Go back to sleep.
Ruth,
You have a habit of popping up and attacking the Libz, and then vanishing when I start asking you to produce some facts to substantiate your venom.
Here is the post I made to DPF's blog, which appeared to exorcise you from that particular thread:
Ruth,
I'm not exactly in the Libz loop any more, not being a New Zealander any more. But I'll fire P.C. an email and ask him to remove you from the mailing list.
Once again, though, I note you didn't respond to any of my questions. Your reply on NRT was actually quite polite & detailed (& so I replied in kind), but you still haven't provided a shred of evidence regarding:
- your previous claims re. the Libz [That we have had to expel neo-NAZIs from our membership]
- your claim that I am a racist
- your implied claim that I am an anti-semite for hating John Key (an odd claim given that I turned up to protest in favour of Israel, but what the hell, don't let facts get in the way of a good story)
> Your politics in respect of this Subway issue
> are the typical extension of the ego of a
> particularly spoiled two-year-old
Leaving aside the fact that that is an ad-hominem attack, and another neat sidestep around the issues at hand ... how exactly would you characterise the politics of someone who is caught stealing, files a personal grievance for being fired, and is then happy for a bunch of socialists and unionists to protest on her behalf?
Any chance of some answers this time around, or will you once again run off with your tail between your legs?
Oh, for goodness sake. I couldn't give a toss about your 'political contacts'.
You've openly supported state interference, and then talk about understanding libertarianism.
Go away, Ruth.
Post a Comment