Imagine my surprise when I checked out Kiwiblog yesterday afternoon to find that this blog post from NOT PC and this press release from Libertarianz bore a remarkable resemblance to a post at Kiwiblog that bore the fruits, so it was reported, of hours of David Farrar's research. "I engaged my masochistic side," said David, "and decided [read] every Green policy they have released."
Yeah right.
Oh well, just another unattributed example of the tribalism of the election period. The important news is out there nonetheless: that the Greens are the ultimate Nanny State party. So if you're a Green supporter do NOT watch this. You should probably try to ban it:
Naturally, intelligent observers will notice that since the video was produced, the Greens have added their population control policy, and their 'ban rich pricks' policy. They don't slow down, do they. And they're likely to have the casting vote come November...
UPDATE 1: Crikey, it's hard to keep up with the buggers. Add "ban inorganic farming." As Liberty Scott explains, the Green Party "wants 15% of farms organic by 2015 and half of all production organic by 2020. The Greens don’t intend to do this by promotion or market demand..."
UPDATE 2: David F. responds with commendable swiftness:
Peter - I'd been working on that blog post for the best part of a week. And I have numerous witnesses to that as I was giving them verbal update reports. In fact I have a witness who was with me as I was reading their policies and extracting bans from them.
I don't appreciate the suggestion I stole it from you. That is unworthy of you...."
I'm unworthy.
24 comments:
Peter - I'd been working on that blog post for the best part of a week. And I have numerous witnesses to that as I was giving them verbal update reports. In fact I have a witness who was with me as I was reading their policies and extracing bans from them.
I don't appreciate the suggestion I stole it from you. That is unworthy of you.
I'm glad to see so many people independently working on exposing the Greens banning mania.
For what it's worth, I believe you David. I compared the lists and what you have is totally different to what PC has, both in order and in phrasing.
" .. exposing the Greens banning media."
Banning what they dislike is only one side of their pernicious coin, David. They're equally as busy trying to enforce the measures they approve.
David,
Don't be so sensitive. I am sure your integerity is intact. Sure it takes you weeks to work out what PC already knows. Sure you didn't make use of all availiable resources. Sure, you have been well beaten to the mark by PC.
So, your a little slow and perhaps a little dull-witted, but I accept that at least you are honest!
It is really scary (sad) part is that Jeanette Fitzsimons is THE most trusted politician!
I would've said 'yeah right' on the basis that he'd had this thing up his sleeve for months, just waiting for the right moment...no *way* the Greens were going to go with National, after all.
Forgive my poor analytical skills, but what's a Lib 'supposed' to say about Animal Welfare? That part of Green policy was something supported by a few at Kiwiblog I noticed...
Hi Stephen. Re animal welfare, any organisation is welcome to set itself up & operate privately/seek donations, etc.
Do we support state-funding of, say, SPCA? No. For the reason that we do not support state-funding of anything bar its core duties.
Laws against neglect of/cruelty to animals? I should damn well think so!
Is that what you were after? Others may have more to contribute.
Thanks Sus. Animals being 'property' was why I wasn't sure - if it's your property, why should the government tell you what to do with it etc...I sense there might be a bit more to it though...
Sus, what about people who do enjoy having sex with their own animals being prosecuted for cruelty to animals? Is the law in the wrong here?
Hi FG .. Yeah, I struggle with that one, being a property-rights/free-choice advocate, etc. Dare I say that it's a sticky one for me?! :/
Guess it's all to do with the interpretation of "cruelty" for some, as opposed to definition of "neglect" being fairly black & white.
I'd welcome other opinions from libertarians.
We accept that it's OK to KILL animals - having sex with them seems fairly harmless in comparison.
Not sure how there can be a struggle on the subject of whether it's OK to shag your pets. Surely, the minds of even the most extreme free-choice advocates have some room for basic human decency? What happened to "it's wrong to force your will on others?".
Not wanting to let people root animals doesn't make me a hippie does it? Hope not; I hate hippies.
The whole thing of whether animals are property is a moot point anyway. I could probably buy a child if I had the money and inclination... does that mean I can shag it? Beat it with a stick? Put it in a clothes-drier? It would be my property wouldn't it?
What happened to "it's wrong to force your will on others?".
Its wrong to force your will on other PEOPLE.
That also answers your strawman about buying children.
Marcus, there are a couple of points to address there.
1. Of course animals are property. What do you call a herd of cattle on a farm? Pets? Relatives?! Carry on in that direction & you'll be giving them the vote next! :)
2. Children are not animals. They are human beings. Please don't fall into that old trap of equating humans with creatures. Unless, of course, you're a member of the Greens?
3. Yes, I openly struggle with the concept of bestiality & libertarianism. On the one hand, I abhor state intrusion in the lives of individuals, (let alone my even thinking about telling others what to do, etc). On the other, while you might be having the time of your life, who's to say Fido is?
Please yourself what you do with inanimate objects .. saw a doco a few weeks ago on an American bloke who was in *love -- I mean, really in love with his car .. but living creatures?
Having said that, I acknowledge that animals are slaughtered for food - although that's usually a quick procedure conducted as humanely as possible - and only occurs once! :) - which kind of brings me back to square one.
Yes, I honestly do struggle with it.
*Yes, he did - and yes, he was a whacko, but as the other party remained unmoved, so what?!
**Please don't fall into that old trap of equating humans with creatures.**
No, I don't equate people and animals, I don't even think all people are equal.
What's more I don't even think all people should be allowed to vote, so I'm not likely to lobby for my idiot of a dog to turn up at a polling booth. Having said that though, even he'd have the sense not to vote for the Greens.
The aspect I struggle with over 'the animal's my property, so I'll do what I want' scenario is that, by that rationale, I'd be perfectly entitled to bugger my dog, kick ten shades of shit out of it, rip its throat out with my teeth and writhe around in the pool of blood while a crowd of people cheered me on. And that's OK, simply because it was MY dog? Anybody who sees that as alright, has got serious issues.
When we're trying to combat this goddamned Nanny-State crap that's being inflicted upon us, we do ourselves no favours at all when we turn our backs on common decency just to push the barrow of personal freedom. Have the balls to draw a line people, and not just go along with such a stupid notion because your philosophy supports it. It's the difference between theory and practice.
Marcus: I've made it clear that I, personally, have a problem with bestiality.
Kindly point to any part of my comments on this thread where I say that its acceptable to do anything of the sort you describe in your third paragraph.
It pays to read carefully before commenting.
So should the state be able to impose laws that stop animal-property owners from keeping said animals in shitty conditions (battery hens, sow crates, 'milking' bears for their bile, etc) or what, anyone?
Sus... sorry if that came across as aimed at you, it wasn't my intention to target anyone in particular.
I shouldn't really have jumped on the whole bestiality thing, as it's obviously just a minuscule part of animal welfare, for which there are no easy answers. If we stop state imposed laws on animal welfare altogether and blindly treat animals as property over which nobody but ourselves has any say, then we're open to people treating animals however cruelly they want. Guess I just wanted to point out that the matter isn't as clear-cut as simply 'property rights', and some sense of balance between the head and the heart needs to be achieved. It's that lack of balance that makes the Greenies the unpalatable mess they are.
There is a difference between protecting individual rights and imposing a morality. Libertarianz understand the government's role is to protect the former. Government's role is not supposed to be about imposing the latter.
Some of you need to think about that.
LGM
LG, your comment is correct, of course. I understand the concept of property rights. Animals that you own are your property. The state should not exist to impose codes of morality, etc.
But I would by lying to say that I could tolerate the knowledge that a neighbour was torturing an animal, a defenceless creature, for enjoyment. Could you?
Seriously, libertarians: what would you do in such circumstances? Attempt persuasion ... upon a sadist?
I'm sorry to prolong this thread, but it's not black & white for me, and I don't like that.
it's not black & white for me, and I don't like that
Most of society is a clumsy mess that lives in the grey area, it's what makes people individuals - black and white won't always work.
I disagree with you there, Marcus. For me, libertarianism is extremely black & white (or clear-cut if you prefer), in that I'm pro-freedom and anti-regulation. In fact that was my own personal philosophy years before I heard of "libertarianism", per se.
It's the mushy grey, "I'm neither one thing, nor the other" mess that causes problems - politically, in particular. Look no further than John Key as an example of that.
Or ACT - which remains why that party continues to disappoint me. It could be so much better if it just made up its mind to *be* the (classically) 'liberal' party that it claims to be.
Sus
No. I would not tolerate people who tortured animals either.
When it comes to questions of morality I've found that ostracism and actively expression of disapproval (privately and /or publically) has effect. Publicising a weirdo's behaviours, illuminating them so they can't be hidden from others, is hugely powerful.
Some time back one sick bastard I know of got driven out of his sinecure at a university by the simple expedient of door knocking and telling all and sundry who he was and what he had been up to. He tried to go to ground but then the newspapers got a hold of the story. That's one thing about Aussie media- they sure like stories like this. Now this deviant creature is living under considerable scruitiny. He has a new job but he can't behave as he used to. This is his last chance and everyone knows who he is. If he slips up he's gone. He won't be able to get any work anywhere. He'll never be trusted again. Nor should he be.
Man is a social creature. Exclusion from civilised society by incarceration or by ostracism is devastatingly effective when done right...
LGM
Or ACT - which remains why that party continues to disappoint me. It could be so much better if it just made up its mind to *be* the (classically) 'liberal' party that it claims to be."
Hummp! Well next ACT do you attend you aren't getting a cup of tea and a bikkie after just for that!
;-)
Post a Comment