Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Fifty-odd questions for National

By the time you read this post, I'll be holding up one end of the Libertarianz stand at Fieldays -- helping promoting reason, freedom and less government to an expected 150,000 punters strolling past our stand.

And since we'll be just three stands down the road from the National Party stand, we thought we should encourage passing punters to stop in and see them too, and ask any passing MPs some pointed questions.  In fact, for those so inclined, we'll be offering them some very pointed questions to ask.  Who better to ask them of, we thought?

And since we believe in fairness, we'll even give them advance notice of some of the very fair questions we've prepared for them ... 

Fifty-odd Fieldays questions for National

Q: RED TAPE: Which government departments will the National Party abolish to reduce government, in accordance with the stated aims of the National Party's constitution?
LIBERTARIANZ says: The Libertarianz unemployment policy is clear -- unemployment under Libertarianz would increase dramatically ... among bureaucrats, consultants and jobsworths. Start with the Ministries of Women's, Youth, Maori and Pacific Island Affairs, and NZ Rail and OSH, and then keep working on down ...

Q: SMACKING: At the anti-smacking rally outside parliament last year, National MPs stood up and said they were AGAINST the anti-smacking bill. One week later they all marched into parliament and voted FOR the Bill. Is there a word for that?
LIBERTARIANZ are opposed to the nationalisation of New Zealand children. Your children are YOUR children, not Sue Bradford’s – or John Key’s.

Q: RMA: You Introduced the Resource Management Act in 1991, and Simon Upton and Nick Smith oversaw it unchanged for eight years. Are you proud of that?
LIBERTARIANZ says: Private property rights provide the strongest possible protection for the environment and property owners. Libertarianz will repeal the fascistic Resource Management Act, and uncover the common law that decades of planning legislation have buried.

Q: COMPULSION: Is it true you are not a party of compulsion, as National's Kate Wilkinson said recently -- just before she was silenced for saying so?

Q: VOLUNTARISM: Do you support voluntary student union membership?
LIBERTARIANZ says: Supporting voluntarism on campus is a litmus test of freedom. If you don’t support students being allowed to choose with whom they associate, then what does that say about your support for freedom of choice.

Q: GLOBAL WARMING: You signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1998. Are you still proud of that?
LIBERTARIANZ says: Emission reductions required under the Kyoto Protocol will throttle New Zealand industry and energy production. Libertarianz advocate immediate withdrawal from this anti-industrial handbrake on prosperity.

Q: LABOUR-LITE: Is there any law introduced by the Clark Government that you WOULD repeal? Anything at all to which you wouldn't say "Me too"?
LIBERTARIANZ says: ‘Me too’ government is rotten government. Policies should be based on principles, not platitudes.

Q: ELECTION BRIBES: National originally said it would oppose interest-free student loans "with every bone in its body." Now you SUPPORT them! Where are those bones now -- in particular the 33 vertebrae?
LIBERTARIANZ says stop taxing students, and they can pay their own way through their studies. And keep your promises.

Q: EDUCATION: Three years ago National said bulk funding was "the first step towards providing the flexible education system that parents wanted." You've now abandoned even this timid first step. Do you no longer believe in a flexible education system that serves parents and children better?
LIBERTARIANZ says the separation of school and state is urgently necessary to liberate youngsters from the factory schools that are failing in everything but politically correct indoctrination.

Q: FOREIGN OWNERSHIP: Why won't you immediately overturn the pathetic ban on foreign ownership of so called strategic assets that saw the sale of Auckland Airport shares to Canada Pensions made illegal by this Government?
LIBERTARIANZ says it's not the Government's job to intrude upon a willing seller and a willing buyer. A principled party would know this.

Q: WELFARE: Why won't you immediately overturn Labour's Welfare for Working Families programme that is turning so many of the country's middle class into welfare beneficiaries?
LIBERTARIANZ says the moral cannibalism of enforced welfare should be abolished immediately, and beneficiaries urgently reacquainted with the ethic of self-responsibility – as should the National Party.

Q: DEFENCE: Why has the National Party capitulated completely on defending New Zealand? Isn't it true that the National Party's defence policy is now best summarised by the title of our national anthem: 'God Defend New Zealand'?
LIBERTARIANZ says: A country worth defending must be able to defend itself. New Zealand's woeful defence capability must be urgently upgraded --meaning more frigates, more Orions, surveillance aircraft for border protection, and rebuilding the strike wing of the Air Force.

Q: MONEY: After eight years of Labour, we are paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world -- how EXACTLY will you change that?
LIBERTARIANZ says the idea that governments can print money to create false prosperity must always be paid for in the long run.

Q: WAGES: The gap between NZ wages and those in Australia and around the world is getting bigger and bigger -- how EXACTLY will you change that?
LIBERTARIANZ says getting the government off your back and out of your business will light the blue touch paper of prosperity!

Q: MONEY: Grocery and petrol prices are going through the roof -- how EXACTLY will you change that?
LIBERTARIANZ says abolishing GST and ending the theft of motorists through hefty petrol taxes (nearly a dollar of every litre) will begin to make life affordable again.

Q: HOUSING: Every city around the world that has made town planners into kings has made housing seriously unaffordable for hardworking kids, whereas un-zoned cities like Houston are the most affordable places in the world to buy a house. What will you do to reduce the power of town planners in New Zealand?
LIBERTARIANZ says the rule of the town planners will only end with a stake through the heart of the Resource Management Act.

Q: EDUCATION: Ten years after Lockwood Smith introduced the NCEA, 300,000 Kiwi kids are functionally illiterate. Are you proud of that? And why is he still on your front bench?
LIBERTARIANZ says the separation of school and state is urgently necessary to liberate youngsters from the factory schools that are failing in everything but politically correct indoctrination.

Q: ENVIRONMENT: Why is Nick Smith more concerned with cutting greenhouse gas emissions and protecting Maui dolphins than he is in protecting hardworking New Zealanders who are losing their livelihoods by the throttling of industry and the closing down of fisheries? Isn't he in the wrong party?
LIBERTARIANZ says the environment is best protected with strong private property rights, not their destruction.

Q: GLOBAL WARMING: Why has National climbed on board the anti-industry bandwagon in calling for "strong action on climate change" – which means government action to stop private action. We know that socialism doesn't work at fifteen degrees, so why do Nick Smith and National think it will work at seventeen?
LIBERTARIANZ says New Zealand should drop the Emissions Trading Scheme forthwith, withdraw from Kyoto, and leave folk free to make their own choices on global warming.

Q: HEALTH: Even with billions of extra dollars poured into it, the die-while-you-wait health system hasn't improved -- how EXACTLY will you change that?
LIBERTARIANZ will end socialised medicine, allowing providers of all forms of prevention, treatment and therapy to compete in an open market. Tax relief leaves money in your pocket to spend for your own family's health care as you see fit.

Q: TAXES: Cutting taxes without cutting spending makes economic sense? Do you think anyone believes you when you say serious tax cuts don't require serious spending cuts to match?
LIBERTARIANZ says: Your money should be left in your pocket. A Libertarianz government will abolish all duties, tariffs, taxes and levies - except income tax, which as a transitional measure will be set at 25%, with an income threshold before payment of $50,000. And unlike National, Libertarianz has spending cuts to match.

Q: CRIME: We know that violent crime against innocent New Zealanders is continuing to soar -- how EXACTLY will you change that? Why will you not recognise the right of New Zealanders to defend themselves and their families?
LIBERTARIANZ says real crimes with genuine victims like rape, robbery, murder and theft should be vigorously pursued and the rights of these victims enforced and upheld. The NZ Bill of Rights should be amended to uphold your right to self-defence and the right to possess the means thereof.

Q: WELFARE: We know that when nearly 300,000 New Zealanders are dependent on welfare that it's a lie to say unemployment is at "record low levels" -- how EXACTLY will you change the endemic welfare dependence that is the legacy of both National and Labour policies?
LIBERTARIANZ says the moral cannibalism of enforced welfare should be abolished immediately, and beneficiaries urgently reacquainted with the ethic of self-responsibility – as should the National Party.

Q; DPB: After watching case after case of unwanted children being murdered by their own whanau, when will you abolish the system whereby hard-working New Zealanders are taxed to pay for no-hopers to breed?
LIBERTARIANZ says: Recipients should be given three years notice that the failed DPB scheme will end, at which time it should be terminated forthwith.

Q: COMPLIANCE COSTS: Every government since Jenny Shipley's has promised to "reduce the burden of compliance and bureaucracy," but not one has yet managed it. How EXACTLY will you?
LIBERTARIANZ says there must be a separation of state and business. We must get the government's agents out of your business and out of your life, and slash the regulations that give them access.

Q: PRIVATISATION: Why will you not terminate wasteful dreck like NZ Rail and Maori TV, and sell off profitable enterprises like TVNZ? What happened to the National Party's principles of favouring smaller government?
LIBERTARIANZ says: State assets should be given back to those whose money paid for them - taxpayers - as shares to be sold or retained as you choose.

Q: NANNY STATE: Nanny State is going berserk. How exactly will you reverse the soft fascism of Nanny's onslaught?
LIBERTARIANZ says: The urgency of getting Nanny State out of our homes, out of our workplaces, out of your children's minds and out of our pockets should be understood now even by the National Party.

Q: EDUCATION: Why won't National allow tax credits for people paying for private education?
LIBERTARIANZ says if you withdraw your children from the state's factory schools, you deserve a refund.

Q: HEALTH: Why won't National allow tax credits for people paying for private health insurance?
LIBERTARIANZ says if you withdraw your custom from the state's die-while-you-wait health system, you deserve a refund.

Q: ELECTORAL CORRUPTION: Where was National when Libertarianz leader Bernard Darnton was suing Helen Clark for stealing nearly a million dollars of taxpayers' money to buy the last election?
LIBERTARIANZ says using taxpayers’ money to buy elections is corrupt, whoever is doing it.

Q: ENERGY: Will you repeal Labour's ten-year moratorium on the construction of new thermal power stations? Or would Nick Smith rather go hug a tree?
LIBERTARIANZ says the abolition of the Resource Management Act and withdrawal from Kyoto are urgently necessary to allow the long overdue construction of new, clean power generation.

Q: TRANSPORT: Why will you not sell off Michael Cullen's new train set so we're not in the hole even further for all its ongoing costs?
LIBERTARIANZ says all the government's white elephants should be sold off.

Q: PRIVATISATION: Why have you ruled out selling TVNZ, the power generators, all the SOEs and al the government's shares in Air New Zealand?
LIBERTARIANZ says all the government's assets should be sold off, or given as shares to long-term taxpayers.

Q: BUREAUCRACY: What will National do to make public servants our servants again, and not our masters?
LIBERTARIANZ says show them our unemployment policy -- unemployment under Libertarianz would increase dramatically ... among bureaucrats, consultants and jobsworths. Start with the Ministries of Women's, Youth, Maori and Pacific Island Affairs, and the Resource Management Act and OSH and work on down ...

Q: ANIMAL WELFARE: Why will you not rein in the maltreatment of farmers by the SPCA?
LIBERTARIANZ says a farmer's animals are his property, not the SPCA’s.

Q: RACISM: Don Brash stated that National believed in One Law For All. Does John Key?
LIBERTARIANZ says: Government should be colour blind. Law should be colour blind. There should be no favours based on race, colour, or 'treaty status.'

Q: RACISM: Why won't you abolish the Maori seats immediately? If it's right to do it in three years, why not now?
LIBERTARIANZ says: Mean what you say and say what you mean. Racist parliamentary seats should go the way of slavery and apartheid.

Q: WAITANGI: When will you end the corrupt Treaty Gravy Train and take power away from the corrupt Brown Table who are making millions from it?
LIBERTARIANZ says the politics of race and the myth of ‘partnership’ should be expunged from our legal system. Like good politics, good law is colour blind.

Q: GLOBAL WARMING: Why are you going to introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme of your own?
LIBERTARIANZ says: Throttling industry with feel-good law is wrong -- just flat out wrong.

Q: FISHING: Why won't National repeal Jim Anderton's draconian ban on set-net fishing. Do you care more about Maui dolphins than you do about the families and livelihoods of New Zealand's fishermen?
LIBERTARIANZ says: Human beings come before fish. (And if dolphins were so smart, they'd stay away from set nets.)

Q. LABOUR-LITE: What's the chief difference between your team and the Red Team? Better suits?
LIBERTARIANZ says if you want to vote Labour out, then voting to put Labour-Lite in is just a wasted vote.

Q. TRADE: How come the Labour party is better at getting free trade deals than National ever has?
LIBERTARIANZ foreign policy can be written in two words: free trade.

Q. TRADE: How come Phil Goff & Helen Clark are better at arguing the case for free trade than John Key & Bill English?
LIBERTARIANZ foreign policy can be written in two words: free trade.

Q. WINSTON PETERS: Will National once again offer Winston the baubles of office just so you can govern?
LIBERTARIANZ says Winston’s tantrums are too high a price to pay. In Parliament Libertarianz would firmly commit to supporting every law that both advances freedom and contains no new coercion. Which rules out supporting Winston.

Q. GLOBAL WARMING: Why did John Key change his view on Global Warming? Was there new evidence we didn't hear about?
LIBERTARIANZ says: The warmist charade is another scaremongering fiction, just like the Y2K, Asian Bird Flu and Ice Age scares of yore – another case of The Emperor’s New Clothes.

Q. Does the National Party Caucus beat the snot out of Nick Smith during morning break? If not, why not?

Q. FARMING: How come farmers have been better off under Labour? Please explain.

Q. ELECTRICITY: If Nuclear power was the right thing for NZ would National support it? If not, why not?
LIBERTARIANZ says: The abolition of the Resource Management Act and withdrawal from Kyoto are urgently necessary to allow the long overdue construction of new, clean power generation.

Q: ELECTRICITY: Good on Gerry Brownlee for taking the Clark Government to task for New Zealand’s shambles of an electricity supply. But what will National actually do that will make any difference to our supply shortage? And is he aware that it was National who signed the Kyoto protocol that makes new thermal power stations immoral, and introduced the Resource Management Act that makes building new power stations of any kind all but illegal?
LIBERTARIANZ says abolishing the Resource Management Act and withdrawing from Kyoto are urgently necessary to allow the long overdue construction of new, clean and reliable power generation.

Q. ECONOMY: Why has Labour out-performed National in terms of NZ economic growth rates each time they get into power? It’s not just luck, is it.
LIBERTARIANZ says: Failed policies of subsidies, ‘picking winners’ and micro-managing economics makes an economy insufficiently able to adapt to changing economic conditions. The only ‘managing’ governments should do is managing to keep themselves out of the way.

Q: LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Council rates are going through the roof! Why will you not repeal Local Government Act that Sandra Lee introduced to allow councils to charge like a wounded bull?
LIBERTARIANZ says all laws that allow politicians to put their hand in your pocket without your permission should be repealed.

Q: SUSTAINABILITY: Will you ban the word ‘sustainable’ from the government’s vocabulary?
LIBERTARIANZ says sacrificing our own prosperity to ‘future generations’ in the name of ‘sustainability’ is a con – it can only end in the poverty of both. Our grandchildren will not thank us for not building the dams, abattoirs, power stations, roads and houses today that will need in the future.

I'll let you know if we get any decent responses.

And if you'd like to contribute to help pay for the Libertarianz' stand, then we'd love to see the colour of your money.  :-)

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

46 Comments:

Blogger Clunking Fist said...

One question for the Libz:
How do you intend to implement any of your policies when you can't get yourselves into parliament?

I think you need to spend a few more years explaining how getting rid of welfare will work before anyone will take you seriously. Just my opinion, is all.

6/11/2008 07:38:00 am  
Blogger Clunking Fist said...

Meaning: you'll get a lot of sympathy for 99% of the rest of your policies.

6/11/2008 07:40:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Abolish GST... except income tax, which as a transitional measure will be set at 25%, with an income threshold before payment of $50,000.

I expected rather better from the Libz than this.
That is a highly unfair, non-flat tax.

Better to abolish all income tax, and set GST at 25%.

Better still, arguably, to set a flax tax at 25%, keep GST at 25%, but zero-rate marginal income earned over 100.000, and then offer a full tax rebate (which would be 50,000) for anyone earning PAYE over say 200.000.

6/11/2008 07:49:00 am  
Anonymous kemsyt said...

How about set a no tax threshold of fifteen thousand dolars, after which twenty percent of income is payed. In the following year, this is reduced to sixteen percent, then twelve percent. By the sixth year, all government money will come either from donations, or investments.

PS. What is the Libertarinz plan of de-fiatising the Kiwi dollar. I would love to see it happen to, (gold, sweet gold), but I have not yet figured out how to replace New Zealand money with gold, without seriously harming peoples savings.

6/11/2008 08:03:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about set a no tax threshold of fifteen thousand dolars,

no no no! How about: 10,000 per person per annum. Payable in cash at birth, five years in advance, and then at every birthday.

If you're not happy with that: then make it 20% of income from the first dollar up till 50,000, then a marginal rate of zero.

after which twenty percent of income is payed. In the following year, this is reduced to sixteen percent, then twelve percent. By the sixth year, all government money will come either from donations, or investments.

The idea of government relying on voluntary donations is a very bad one, because whatever remains of government will work for those who volunteer to donate. Kind of like what happens now, except you donate to the Labour party, rather than the government. The idea of government building a pool of investments is similarly terrible.

PS. What is the Libertarinz plan of de-fiatising the Kiwi dollar.

This is simple - with the treasury and reserve bank defunded, we won't print or mint any more Kiwi dollars. Any requirements for transactions, taxes etc to be payed in NZ dollars will be removed from legislation. That's all that needs to be done. If people want an NZ dollar, they can pay for it. If they want to adopt other currencies, that's fine too.
This is not a matter that needs to involve the state.

6/11/2008 09:22:00 am  
Blogger Mr Wiggles said...

"The warmist charade is another scaremongering fiction,"

This I find truly bizarre. You're starting to sound like creationists. Which part of "the denialist party is over" haven't you Libertarianz got yet?

Science has advanced. It does.

Ten years ago it was possible to be a global warming skeptic with some reasonable arguments - and many reasonable people were.

Five years ago a lot more data was in and the denialist position was looking decidedly dodgy.

But by now science has moved on. There's a mountain of data pointing to global warming. The only scientists in your camp are a few retired professors who just won't change their minds until (as Bohr put it) "Science advances funeral by funeral".

As Keynes said “when the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

6/11/2008 09:26:00 am  
Blogger Rich said...

There’s a lot of PC’s comments I agree on such as the 300,000 odd beneficiaries - and growing rapidly due to high fertility rates and that the state will pick up the tab no matter how children they have, hence they have no economic deterrent for reproducing. Compare that with middle class New Zealanders who get stung with a minimum of 30% plus taxes on their income (acc, paye, provisional, gst, petrol tax, alcohol tax etc), who are working 1/3 of the year for the state, then have to pay high interest costs on over valued property. Simply put they can’t afford to have children.
If the 300,000 beneficiaries were to undergo an immediate health test you would probably find 90% of them would be capable of working (compare that with the 150,000 classified sickness beneficiaries). 300,000 x 90% = 270,000. Take that as the overall % of unemployed (as a % of the work force) and your unemployment rate is up around 20%. Saying it is 4% is complete misinformation by the current government.
This comment leaves me shaking my head in disbelief

LIBERTARIANZ says: Human beings come before fish. (And if dolphins were so smart, they'd stay away from set nets.)
PC your basic understanding of evolution i feel is lacking. Dolphin’s have not evolved to avoid a slow painful death in driftnets. They consume fish and I might add are very intelligent species. How are they supposed to avoid set nets? Grow hands and force their way out?

6/11/2008 10:06:00 am  
Blogger Blair said...

Keynes didn't know jack shit.

Mr Wiggles, please explain why you believe private individuals are incapable of adapting to changes in temperature. Otherwise stop whining.

6/11/2008 10:11:00 am  
Anonymous richard mcgrath said...

Mr Wiggles - what about this fact: global temperature (as measured in the troposphere) has been dropping since 1998? How does that fit with the warmist scaremongering?

And Blair is right - Keynes has been discredited repeatedly by the Austrian economists. According to his theories, stagflation can't occur. But it does. So he was wrong. To quote Michael Sullen: we won, you lost, eat that. Get over it.

6/11/2008 10:42:00 am  
Blogger Psycho Milt said...

Why won't National repeal Jim Anderton's draconian ban on set-net fishing. Do you care more about Maui dolphins than you do about the families and livelihoods of New Zealand's fishermen?

Better a bunch of animal species should be eradicated than that a few humans should be inconvenienced? Seriously, do you guys ever stop to wonder why breaking the 1% support barrier consistently eludes you?

6/11/2008 10:49:00 am  
Anonymous Sus said...

Since when has 'inconvenienced' been synonymous with 'loss of livelihood'? Animals are not more important than humans, period.

And who's talking Maui dolphin 'eradication'?

Choose your words with care, PM, or you might be mistaken for an anti-human, green fascist ...

6/11/2008 12:03:00 pm  
Anonymous Sus said...

CF: So concentrate on the "99%" for the time being. :)

6/11/2008 12:06:00 pm  
Blogger Rich said...

Sus, humans are animals. If not could you please explain to me the separate evolutionary process that humans went through to become humans?

6/11/2008 12:58:00 pm  
Anonymous richard mcgrath said...

Clunking fist - Libertarianz don't want to ban welfare - that is clearly absurd - we just want to stop the government using coercion to fund it. Making the funding of welfare payments voluntary won't stop it happening, in the same way that making donations to the red Cross and SPCA voluntary hasn't led to the closure of those organisations.

Don't forget, the chardonnay socialists, Mercedes Marxists and BMW Bolsheviks such as Helen Clark would gladly fund welfare organisations out of their own pockets(Helen could even sell off one of her five houses for this purpose), because they believe in the maxim from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Problem solved.

6/11/2008 01:02:00 pm  
Anonymous Sus said...

FFS, Rich: When did you last see Fido driving a car?

When did you last see Fluffy dropping the kids off at school?

And Tibbles, Tiger & Rover routinely hold weekly board meetings, don't they. You'll be giving them the vote next.

Grow up or go away. You're patently irrational.

6/11/2008 01:09:00 pm  
Blogger Clunking Fist said...

Mr Wiggles, cool name, but you “wiggle” out of the facts. Where’s the proof? Zilch, where have you been whilst all the “evidence” was first discredited and then disowned by the IPCC? Should they eventuate, what is the effect on the planet of warmer temperatures? Bumper conditions for plant growth, and aren’t they at the “root” of the food chain? Both for humans AND wildlife. So riches for all. But keep calling us names, you silly sheeple you. (or is than Sheeperson?)
:^)

Sus: I’d rather have a 95% likelihood of 65% of my ideal-ish policies being implemented, rather than ZERO chance of 99% of what I want.

So Nat/ACT = .95 x .65 = 61.75% policies I agree with
So Libz/Libz = 0 x .99 = 0%

But I’ll keep an eye on what you’re doing in case the situation changes.

6/11/2008 01:16:00 pm  
Blogger Rich said...

Sussed they're still animals though. Some more so than others eg politicians

6/11/2008 01:34:00 pm  
Anonymous Sus said...

Righto, Fist: be happy with your 61.75%! Of course it might only be 20% by this time next year, but what's a few U-turns between friends!

It's true we have little visible party support. But it's about the spread of ideas, not votes. Socialism's a good example of that. Interestingly, the last election was a good example of that. Brash was the best thing to happen to the Nats for years (so of course they got rid of him, work that out!) ... and all of a sudden Libz policy became ACT policy became Nat policy.

Even more interesting: National doubled its vote. Whaddyaknow!

Those guys really want to be in Parliament. I'd love for them to freely adopt our free ideas. They're there for the taking. Help yourself!

Rich: I take your point re politicians. I'd gladly keep one Maui dolphin at the expense of Jim Anderton!

Re animals: I'm still waiting my cat to get *my* tea for me. :)

6/11/2008 02:27:00 pm  
Blogger Psycho Milt said...

Yeah Sus, it's a tough call, alright: kill all the dolphins, or see some of the fishermen have to find another way of making a living. Shit, what should we choose?

No, seriously - do you guys ever wonder why you're not cracking the 1% mark?

6/11/2008 04:37:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Gee Milt, let a fisherman have your job and your home. You can go work at the wall at Kings Cross, begging and renting yourself out.

It's definately odd how people like you are so ready to sacrifice other peoples' lives for your silliness.

LGM

6/11/2008 05:10:00 pm  
Blogger Ruth said...

Unfortunately PC's views on animal cruelty are evil. A few years ago he took on my brother about shooting up the wildlife in Australia. He lost, of course.

As far as I am concerned this shows a connection between torture justification and animal cruelty. I am addressing a lack of compassion for life.

Applauding the abuse of an animal who clearly experiences pain and suffering would seem to signal some form of psychosis, and I would not want to be 1000 miles within range of any lunatic who would give that behaviour any thought outside of the theoretical realm.

6/11/2008 07:02:00 pm  
Blogger Psycho Milt said...

I'm going to take instruction on compassion from guys who think making workers redundant for the shareholders' convenience is excellent news? Er, no. No I'm not.

I will give you guys credit for at least being upfront about your willingness to make species extinct and generally wreck the planet if it'll turn a buck for somebody, but again: you might want to consider the effect that attitude has on the level of support your party gets.

6/11/2008 07:14:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm going to take instruction on compassion from guys who think making workers redundant for the shareholders' convenience is excellent news? Er, no. No I'm not.

Compassion has not place in government or the economy.

Compassion is for the little people.

6/11/2008 07:18:00 pm  
Blogger Psycho Milt said...

Compassion is for the little people.

Uh, right. You're all really doing your best to gain some wider appeal, aren't you...

6/11/2008 08:08:00 pm  
Anonymous Brian said...

Clunking Fist:

The main thing is not the Libz getting into parliament but their ideas getting into parliament. Other parties are more than welcome to steal the Libz's ideas.

Yes, PC is uncompromising in the ideals he promotes. If he and other libertarians watered down their ideas in some misguided attempt to appeal to the masses then who would champion their true ideals? Answer: No-one. And that's hardly good for liberty is it?

rich:

Libertarians have a solution to the protection of dolphins and fishes and that is property rights. The problem with over-fishing etc is caused by lack of property rights on the world's oceans.

Anon:

Compassion? Yeah that's what you get when you have big governments that tax you lots and try to regulate every facet of your life. Not.

6/11/2008 08:12:00 pm  
Anonymous Mark.V. said...

The Libz propose removing petrol tax. Fine but then how do we fund the construction and maintenance of roads, only by privatising them nad charging the users tolls. Much easier to charge a petrol tax and use that money to maintain and construct the roads which is what is happening now.

The Libz oppose the banning of set imposed to protect dolphins. Their solution is private property. OK, the government is at present the effective owner of the seas around NZ's coast and has decided that in order to protect the dolphins using set nets is to be banned. The Libz would be quite happy if a private owner were to ban set nets but are opposed to the government doing so. Funny that.

6/11/2008 08:35:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Mark

Re Private Roads.

The owner does not have to charge tolls, although this is one option available. Many options exist.

For example, a road (or network of them) may be owned by local property owners who have property adjacent the roads. They could set up a body corp to maintain their roads. The cost would fall upon them, as would the decision regarding who would be allowed to use said roads (that is, who would have access to use them).

Another example, the road owner could elect to recover cost of road maintenance by charging local businesses for the services the roads provide for them. An option, is to do a deal with said businesses such that they include a fee in the retail cost of their product and pass it back (similar to agreements used by retailers and mall owners).

There are all sorts of possibilities. It is up to the owner of the road to decide. The owmer may even decide that charging for use of the road is not required at all and pay for maintenance from other revenue streams. Well worth thinking about.

The point is not what is "easier" according to you. What matters is that the road owners decide what to do regarding their property. Of course, there is a big element of responding to what the customers do or want. That is up to the owners to realise and respond to.

---

Re fishing and dolphins and property

Regarding cute creatures like dolphins and the like. Face it, you guys have not had anything to do with any, except by watching television. How lovely nature-TV can be. The whole cute love thing is just another city-folk idea. You have little or no direct experience of dolphins and no property or rights involved in deciding what to do about them.

The fisheries are not the property of the government. Presently they suffer from a tragedy of the commons problem. That will continue so long as there is not private ownership. Once there is, then it becomes a matter for the owners to decide what to do about issues that affect them, their property and their values. Far superior solutions to bycatch issues are likely to be developed. Why? Because it becomes of direct interest to the owners.

Who has more interest in the property than the person/s that own it? After all, they are the ones who stand to take a loss if it gets damaged or destroyed. In the long term, they have an interest in maintaining their property and its best value. There is nothing funny about that.

---

What is surprising is how many New Zealanders have an ingrained attitude of life-long beneficiaries. They want the illusory security of being able to fall back on some super-economic entity (analogously to the religious falling back on a super-natural entity) which they believe will manage their lives, tell them what to do and look after them. To this end Individual Rights (such as the property right) are sacrificed (analogously to how religious people sacrifice the attribute of reason). Crime is allowed (in this case theft of the property of others). Virtue is destroyed (real knowledge, independance, purposeful action to long term goals, civility). It's not funny. It defines many (most) of you. How odd.

LGM

6/12/2008 06:46:00 am  
Blogger Clunking Fist said...

LGM, have you every DEALT with a body corporate? LOL.

The methods for roads you propose would give us "purity" but a freaking nightmare of compliance.
As I drive off one section of road onto another, how is that handled?
A tollbooth every 500 metres?
I think you'll find the cost of compliance vastly outweighs the "benefits" of the "purity" of your model. I don’t argue that these methods may work for some NEW motorways

Why do you advocate private roads but not private armies? The armies would be easier to administer. After all, fire brigades started as a private initiative.

"The owner may even decide that charging for use of the road is not required at all and pay for maintenance from other revenue streams." What, like painting advertisements on the road?

“Another example, the road owner could elect to recover cost of road maintenance by charging local businesses for the services the roads provide for them.” Yep, and those roads would be preferred by freeloaders, rather than the alternatives which are tolled. So the shopkeepers would have more expensive goods than shops located on other roads, but higher road maintenance costs.

I think you’ll find the current system kinda works because it is what rocket scientists call “pragmatic”.

6/12/2008 07:39:00 am  
Anonymous hanso said...

Clunking fist.

The methods for roads you propose would give us "purity" but a freaking nightmare of compliance.
As I drive off one section of road onto another, how is that handled?
A tollbooth every 500 metres?
I think you'll find the cost of compliance vastly outweighs the "benefits" of the "purity" of your model. I don’t argue that these methods may work for some NEW motorways.

Although such travesties may occur at first, I think you will find that most of the road owners would be only to eager to make their roading systems simple and easy for customers (so they make more money). I imagine, in defence of their common interests, neighbouring road owners would band together into cooperatives which would set standard rules and prices for all their roads. Alternatively, enterprising persons might decide to start up reigional roading companies, and buy road sections from those who don't want them.

Initialy, the method of collecting money may be tolls, but I would not be suprised if some electronic system should be invented.

Private armies would not be banned under a Libertarian government, they would simply be regulated (along with private security firms, they would be the only regulatable type of company). The government ,must provide it's own army though, in case others fail.

6/12/2008 08:32:00 am  
Anonymous LGM said...

Fist

I am a member of several body corporates here and o/seas. No big deal. If you organise it properly dealing with b/corps is trivial.

You need use your faculty of reason a little more thoroughly. It's not a matter of "purity", it's a matter of property ownership. Consider, the owners of a road have to determine what their best interests are. Those may well include having members of the public traversing the raod they own. Or not, as the case may be. It is up to the owners to decide what is best. Should they want to attract the public they'll need to determine how best to ensure that their road is attractive to use. That may inlcude electronic charging or even no charges at all. Convenience of the customer would be an issue for them to consider. Hanso has got it right.

Armies? I never wrote about those. Do not attribute me with your ideas. That would be dishonest.

LGM

6/12/2008 08:48:00 am  
Anonymous Sus said...

"Applauding the abuse of an animal who clearly experiences pain and suffering would seem to signal some form of psychosis .."

Yes it would - as would the satisfaction of seeing families' livelihoods ruined via your interference.

"I would not want to be 1000 miles within range of any lunatic who would give that behaviour any thought outside of the theoretical realm."

Me neither. For someone who routinely extols the virtue of the market & free trade, etc, it's ironic that you applaud state interference in other areas. Sort of like running with the hares and hunting with the hounds, eh.

Perhaps it's hanging out with those new friends of yours at NZ Conservative, Ruth? They talk freedom, but they're pretty good at pointing the authoritarian finger when it suits, too.

Guess that's what happens when you've got a friend in John.

;)

6/12/2008 10:42:00 am  
Blogger Clunking Fist said...

I'm sorry, LGM, but I can't help but feel that if the roads are given back to the locals on either side, that you'll get Farmer Brown ripping up the seal and shouting "get off my land". That of course would cause a nightmare until some neighbour finally stops milking his (or her) cows and tending his sheep long enough to get involved in road building across his land.

In the meantime, the poor landlocked farmers down the road are getting their milk out by helicopter, or pouring it into each other’s drains. Or taking shots at Farmer Brown.

Are you really advocating giving/selling the roads back to the original land owners? I assume “sell”, as they would have been compensated back when the land was taken, and all the infrastructure and maintenance since has been paid for by taxpayers like me.

If you are suggesting this only applies to new roads, then that’s only slightly less mad. Imagine a stretch of road that folk would like to build, but one landowner doesn’t want it on his land, the road would snake all over the place from pocket of land to pocket of land.

Maybe your answer is that all new roads will be underground!

How about the utilities? You would get land owners holding out for ridiculous sums to allow pipes and wires to pass beneath them.

In fact, I would see the whole country and economy going to the dogs as no infrastructure could proceed. I can’t help but think that occasionally some collectivism and compulsion is required, and that it is only the acceptable amount that Liarbore/Green and National/ACT voters disagree on.

Here’s something in your suggestion, though. At the mo’ it’s not illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their enviro-mental views. So I could refuse passage across my land to anyone who eats mung beans or wears crocheted handbags. Sweet.

I think the way power, water, lines companies have been privatised around the world may provide a more useful model for managing/privatising roads. But then again it may not: it’s one thing to have a water main running beneath your property, it’s quite another to have a road built across it.

Answer? For roads, status quo, maybe.

6/12/2008 01:39:00 pm  
Anonymous hanso said...

Clunking Fist.

The roads need not be physicaly divided by those owning them, there are other types of joint ownership you know. The roads could be collectively owned by those adjacent to them in the form of shares.

Of course many people would sell their shares early on, which is cool by me.

6/12/2008 03:10:00 pm  
Anonymous Internet Troll. said...

Jeez you are a glutton for punishment clunking fist, libz are the worst set of ideologues you could ever hope to know, any variation from their enshrined viewpoint is simply regarded as some sort of irrational cognitive dissonance, when in reality they are just as selective in their histories as the lunatic left running the country now. Every germ of a good idea has to be dashed on the rocks of intellectual purism until it makes precious little sense and/or becomes morally repugnant. You can reduce all this garbage to basically 'you can trust big corporates to run things, but not big governments', which is obviously completely bonkers (human nature being what it is), so the whole thing is basically an intellectual fallacy from the start, it is obvious to anybody with a gram of common sense that any place run as the libz would have it would quickly degenerate into anarchy. I would just leave this set of preening narcissists to their incestuous backslapping and get on with something more important, like taking a crap for instance.

6/12/2008 03:18:00 pm  
Anonymous Sus said...

... or using punctuation and paragraphing. Always handy, that!

But I'm intrigued, Troll.

Which "selective histories" would they be?

Which "big corporates"? Last time I looked, we weren't exactly inundated with them. Small businesses, yes, but big corporates? (Note the difference between capitalism and crony capitalism. It's a big one).

"Quickly degenerate into anarchy"? Really? How so?

The Singh family just might suggest their suburb was well on the way, already.

Now run along and be sure to cast both ticks for National, like a good little troll. Don't be a Coleman's spongy pud crybaby, though, when nothing much changes. :)

6/12/2008 03:45:00 pm  
Blogger Clunking Fist said...

I missed this earlier from hanso:
"I imagine, in defence of their common interests, neighbouring road owners would band together into cooperatives which would set standard rules and prices for all their roads."
But it sounds as likely and as hopeful as socialists expecting everyone to put aside their self interest and gloriously advance the cause of the proletariat.
I tell you; government ownership sounds easier, then these land owners could get back to farming, retailing, manufacturing and IT, not playing at robber barons.
Internet Troll, you took the words right out of my mouth. Well, you would have if I could have put it as succinctly as you have. It’s fine to have dreams, but sometimes you just need a plan.

6/12/2008 06:02:00 pm  
Blogger Clunking Fist said...

"The roads need not be physicaly divided by those owning them, there are other types of joint ownership you know."

Hmm, like government? Not perfect but way ahead of whatever's in second place.

6/12/2008 06:07:00 pm  
Anonymous Brian said...

Clunking Fist,

The misapprehension is that under privatization you have to charge road users to turn a profit. You don't. As LGM pointed out, there are many other ways to turn a profit from a road.

Indeed, under privatization, I think it would be the case that most roads would be free to use. The exception would be some major through-ways. If you want a analogous business model, think of the Internet.

Also, have you thought that government ownership of roads is very bad for businesses like cable companies that need to install their utilities under a road surface?

6/12/2008 10:58:00 pm  
Blogger Clunking Fist said...

If you want a analogous business model, think of the Internet.

Don't you mean railways?

I am not going to pay a subscription fee to Super Roads Limited and have my car routed via Gisborne on the daily commute from Eastbourne to Wellington.

I think with road you are tinkering reinventing something that is little more than slightly broken.
Let's reclaim government, which was initially formulated to get these collective things done, particularly things that tend toward public goods.

It's when gummint get involved in things that the market already provides that it just gets crazy. Like internet, health, schooling, housing, electric. Or that the individul or family are already doing, such as feeding, educating, parenting.

6/13/2008 05:36:00 am  
Anonymous hanso said...

"I am not going to pay a subscription fee to Super Roads Limited and have my car routed via Gisborne on the daily commute from Eastbourne to Wellington."

Why ever so not?

You must remember, that in a Libertarian country people will have more money in their hands than they do now.

6/13/2008 07:53:00 am  
Blogger Clunking Fist said...

"You must remember, that in a Libertarian country people will have more money in their hands than they do now."

I hope so, but it would have to be a LOT more to compensate me for the time cost in having to travel to points I do not wish to go just so that I can use the roads that I pay for. I like to use a cellphone in the car (semi-handsfree with the earpiece) I hear that some private road owners are going to ban it. So I hope there are some parallel ruotes so I can exercise the choice as to which one to take.

I think you'll find that roads "tend to monopoly" and also "tend to public good" in nature.

All this arguing JUST ON ROADS shows that you have neither a clue as to what people are prepared to put up with, nor a chance in participating in goverment in the near future.

All this has been fun and informative. It's given me an idea, perhaps I should go and read the communist party's policies. That may keep me laughing over the weekend.
TTFN

6/13/2008 12:44:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Clunker

Arguing? Seems like you're the one doing that. You need to start doing some thinking for a change.

For a start, why should anyone have to compensate you for using THEIR property? Sounds like you are the complete thief. Communism should suit you fine. In fact it likely defines you.

LGM

6/13/2008 05:40:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Hey, since you intend to spend the weekend reading and since you're already well versed in communist theory, why not try reading something better?

Get a copy of Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" or Harry Browne's "How I found Freedom in an Unfree World." If you are seriously interested in learning about freedom and economics you might try something a little more serious like, "Capitalism" by Prof G Reisman or "Human Action" by L von Mises. These are the antidote to the disease of collectivist ideologies like communism, socialism and govt meddling in peoples' lives.

LGM

6/13/2008 05:46:00 pm  
Blogger Rich said...

Any ONE fundamental error in neoclassical theory should be sufficient reason to reject conclusions based upon that theory. Here are five fundamental errors in the theory:



#1. A fundamentally incorrect "method": the economist uses "correlation" and "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (after-the-fact) reasoning, rather than the "scientific method".



#2. A fundamentally inverted worldview: the economist sees the environment as a subsystem of the economy, rather than the other way around. In other words, economists are trained to believe that natural resources come from "markets" rather than the "environment". The corollary is that "man-made capital" can substitute for "natural capital". But the First Law of thermodynamics tells us there is no "creation" -- there is no such thing as "man-made capital". Thus, ALL capital is "natural capital", and the economy is 100% dependent on the "environment" for everything.



#3. A fundamentally incorrect view of "money": the economist sees "money" as nothing more than a medium of exchange, rather than as social power -- or "political power". But even the casual observer can see that money is social power because it "empowers" people to buy and do the things they want -- including buying and doing other people: politics.



If employers have the freedom to pay workers less "political power", then they will retain more political power for themselves. Money is, in a word, "coercion", and "economic efficiency" is correctly seen as a political concept designed to conserve social power for those who have it -- to make the politically powerful, even more powerful, and the politically weak, even weaker.



#4. A fundamentally incorrect view of his raison d'etre: the economist sees "Homo economicus" as a "Bayesian utility maximizer", rather than "Homo sapiens" as a "primate". In other words, contemporary economics and econometrics is WRONG from the bottom up -- and economists know it. The entire discipline of economics is based on a lie -- and economists know it. Moreover, if human behavior is not the result of mathematical calculation -- and it isn't -- then in principle, economists will NEVER get it right.



#5. A fundamentally incorrect view of economic élan vital: the economist sees economic activity as a function of infinite "money creation", rather than a function of finite "energy stocks" and finite "energy flows". In fact, the economy is 100% dependent on available energy -- it always has been, and it always will be

6/14/2008 12:37:00 pm  
Anonymous LGM said...

Rich

1/. Wrong.

2/. Scientism and bullshit dressed up in pompous language.

BTW do you understand what the second law of thermodynamics is, what its premise are, what its limitations are and why it was formulated? Clue: It has NOTHING to do with environmentalism or with economics. Economics is not the study of thermodynamics, nor does it presuppose environmentalism.

3/. A banal expression of the Marxist view. Marxism, like all forms of collectivism (including envirnomentalism), is false. The objections raised by citing this view of Man and his actions are invalid.

4/. That's more lke it. You have made an interesting point with your objection to homo econ. Where you have gone wrong is in your statement accusing ALL economists of making the error you so dislike. Not ALL economists proceed in the maner you described. For example, none of the authors I cited make this particular mistake. Had you bothered to read them you'd not have made such a statement.

5/. Scientism and pretty language again. Economics is the study of human action.

Paraphrasing:
"Any ONE fundamental error in Rich's statements should be sufficient reason to reject conclusions based upon those statements. Above are five fundamental errors in his approach."

It is to be strongly recommended that you take a read of the works previously cited. It is clear you have not got specific knowledge of them because if you did, you'd not have made such fundamental errors in YOUR approach.

Enjoy the weekend. Do some reading.

LGM

6/15/2008 07:22:00 am  
Anonymous hanso said...

"there is no such thing as "man-made capital". "

My friend you are wrong here. There is one good that originates exclusively from men (and women). It is ideas, and it is from the ideas that we create, that we as humans derive our wealth.

Sound lame? Perhaps. True? Utterly.

6/15/2008 08:51:00 am  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home