Sunday, 20 July 2008


Welcome to Sunday Star Times readers. 

Robbing Peter to pay Paul certainly doesn’t help Peter and it doesn’t do Paul much good either. New Zealand is drowning in welfare. Click here to see what Libertarianz intends to do about it.

And here's some more posts on Welfare here at NOT PC:

And finally:

Or check out all the posts on welfare here and here

And if you want to donate to see more Libz policy promoted more widely, you can click here and donate to our advertising campaign.  Every dollar helps.

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

PS: Click here for a new parable on giving ...
                      Socialist Samaritans


  1. One of the aspects of Libertarianz welfare policy that bothers me is that the church is explicitly mentioned as filling the void left by the abolition of benefits. It was the destruction of the 16th century Catholic churches that created the need for the first Poor Law, that is the raising of funds from local rates, for parishioners who could no longer rely on the church.

    Yet most of the time most libertarians are quite scathing about the role of religion and the damage it does. Do you or don't you approve of churches providing welfare?

  2. Lindsay.

    Libertarianz support voluntary charity. If churches wish to support the poor then it is their right to do so.

    Libertarianz as a political party does not have a view on religion other than the complete separation of church and state.

    Some libertarians are athiests since they are advocates of the philosophy of Objectivism which promotes reason as man's means of survival (as opposed to blind faith or believing in the tooth fairy). It follows that man must be free to exercise his rational faculty which is why Objectivists are libertarians by definition (since the government's role is to protect individual rights so individuals are free to exercise their mind.)

    Good question by the way.


  3. I'm an atheist and I have no problem with churches providing welfare. Half the clergy in Anglican, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches are atheists as well and presumably they don't object their outfits' charitable efforts either.

    Likewise, religious organisations have traditionally been big providers of non-state education. I would never send my child to a church school, but each to their own.

    In reality, I doubt that churches would pick up a huge amount of social welfare work simply because they're so much smaller than they used to be. But they're part of the mix.

  4. Lindsay, I'm puzzled as to why you would even pose the question.

    Why should it bother an atheist libertarian if a theist volunteered to provide charity? Or vice versa for that matter, when we promote a society based on voluntary activity? Each to their own, regardless of another's opinion.

    Bernard: re your point with regard to local welfare & the role of the churches, it's hard to say what might happen given that the state has had a virtual monopoly on welfare provision for decades, reducing the churches to little more than sideline urgers - and they were good at that. It would be interesting to see how quickly they put their money where their mouths ...

    But it's worth noting that on the international (religious) aid scene, it is predominantly Christian missionaries & workers who work alongside the NGOs.

  5. Well done Wgtn Libz. It wasn't opposite Chris Trotsky's tack-spitting piece, by any chance?

    That would have been satisfying. ;)


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
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's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.