A guest post and an important message from Libertarianz leader Bernard Darnton:
What sort of country do you want to live in? Every action you take, everyday, helps determine what sort of country you live in. On election day you get to make a public statement about what you'd like this country to be like. Do you want to live in a country where an exclusive cadre of politicians tells you how to live or a country where people are free to choose and pursue their own goals? A country where the government mismanages half the economy or a country where hard work and entrepreneurialism make a difference?
Since you're reading this blog, I'll assume the latter.
If you want to be free to choose and pursue your own goals and live in a country where hard work and entrepreneurialism make a difference, you have to vote as if you mean it. Only one party in this country consistently stands up for small government, for free speech, and for free markets and that's Libertarianz.
If you believe in those things then you must vote Libertarianz. Most parties actively oppose these ideas but even those that sometimes pay lip-service to freedom are not worth your vote. They water down liberty to the point where it is unrecognisable mush.
In 2005, a number of people came up to me before the election and said that they'd like to vote Libertarianz but that the chance of getting rid of the Clark administration was too good and so they'd be voting for Don Brash's National party. That excuse no longer exists.
Today's National Party is a perfect example of unrecognisable mush. National under John Key is devoid of ideas. Even if they do have ideas, they've kept them well hidden so as not to frighten the horses, preferring to parrot their opponents. Voting for National is an own goal in the contest of ideas.
Act still lives under Roger Douglas' shadow. In 1984, Douglas underwent a Damascene conversion to free marketeer. He zealously decided that the free market's results were so good that they should be compulsory, rather missing the point. Believing in freedom and voting for Act is delusional.
For politicians, the holy grail is "the mandate". By voting for a party that treats politics as a game with us as the pawns you're providing that mandate; you're providing your permission for every oppressive, expensive, and ill-thoughtout scheme their "strategists" might dream up.
Voting for change but getting all the same policies back is a wasted vote. Voting for the lesser of two evils and hoping that you don't get the evil you deserve is a wasted vote. Voting for compulsion-touters in the hope of gaining freedom is a wasted vote.
Only voting for a party that stands for what you believe in and that is willing to promote those ideas honestly and openly gives your vote any value. Only voting for Libertarianz tells those in power that freedom actually matters to you. Vote like you mean it.
(Hat tip, latest Libertarianz members newsletter)
47 comments:
This looks like a response to my comments on your post yesterday.
But it still does not answer these questions that I asked:
Would you rather live in a country led by Helen Clark and Sue Bradford, while cherishing your dreams of a Libertarian utopia?
When they impose State control of all blogs and other media, won't that make your goal even more remote?
What is the plan for achieving a Libertarian state?
Add to that one more question:
Do you have the individual freedom to vote how you want to as a rational individual, or will you be excommunicated if you do not follow the religious zeal espoused by Mr Darnton that expects you to vote only Libertarian?
"This looks like a response to my comments on your post yesterday."
Dude,
The world does not revolve around you.
There is already a thread discussing your post. It is bad form to hijack another thread. Not to mention confusing.
The world does not revolve around you. Agree completely.
There is already a thread discussing your post. It is bad form to hijack another thread. Not to mention confusing.
Define "hijack". I take it to mean "redirecting something in a completely different direction from its intended path". I am not hijacking. I see this blog post as a response to (and hence a continuation of) the discussion yesterday.
Thus it seems eminently suitable to resubmit my questions.
Anyone willing to proffer answers, or will you just resort to attacking my debating etiquette?
I have to agree with Sebastian, your thought process is all wrong.
Anyway, on your questions: This is incoherent;
"Would you rather live in a country led by Helen Clark and Sue Bradford, while cherishing your dreams of a Libertarian utopia?"
"Rather" suggests an alternative, that is simply not presented in the question. No I don't wish to be Sue's slave--anymore than I wish to be John's.
"When they impose State control of all blogs and other media, won't that make your goal even more remote?"
Who is this mysterious they? Be specific. As for National, you seem to forget all the violations of individual liberty perpetrated under them--not to forget they have promised to keep commiting them going foward. So much for "change"!
"What is the plan for achieving a Libertarian state?"
For five year plans I suggest you consult Stalin. We are about changing the culture of NZ to one that is pro-freedom and indivual responsibility. Voting Libz is only a tiny part of that.
I won't dignify your last comment with a response.
Ok, I admit it -- I'm a novice debater.
Here are my assumptions and conclusions so far. Please correct them as needed.
1. Libertarianz have a goal: "changing the culture of NZ to one that is pro-freedom and indivual (sic) responsibility."
2. Libertarianz believe in voting in the General Election (as evidenced by the blog post).
3. Libertarianz regard a Labour/Green/Maori government as equally "evil" as a National/Act government. (Is this really the position you hold?)
4. Libertarianz see voting for Libertarianz as achieving something.
David,
Your assumptions, logic and therefore conclusions are correct.
Two things to note however:
1. I view ACT and National as being the more dangerous since they pretend to stand for freedom and individual rights however their policies and beliefs are nothing of the sort. They therefore misprepresent what liberty and freedom mean. The Greens and Labour, however, are explicitly socialist and Marxist. They make no pretense of being advocates of capitalism and freedom. They are therefore more honest and for that they earn my respect on that count.
2. Libertarianz is just one way that the ideas of freedom, individual rights and reason are being promoted in this country. There are a number of others ways, this blog being one of them.
And are we making progress? I hope so and I believe we are (albeit slowly). As Richard Bodie once commented "people are deceived en masse, but enlightened one by one."
I should say your questions are worthwhile debating and while some may take what they think to be a pragmatic approach, it must be pointed out that this approach undermines terribly the path to a more rational culture. To paraphrase Bernard's point above, a vote of all the traditional parties is sanctioning an idea that your freedom is subject to the vote and that your life belong to the state. These ideas have resulted in countless millions being murdered over the centuries.
I, for one, would never vote for those ideas. And if I am the only one who votes for freedom and the rights of the individual, then my one vote would still be a statement to all those who seek to take away my rights, a statement that I do not provide them my sanction.
Julian
Act still lives under Roger Douglas' shadow. In 1984, Douglas underwent a Damascene conversion to free marketeer. He zealously decided that the free market's results were so good that they should be compulsory, rather missing the point. Believing in freedom and voting for Act is delusional.
I'm afraid I 'miss the point' too?! An ACT government (however unlikely) would surely be one that enacts policies hugely further in the direction of the 'right' kind of government than ANY of the other parties that're going to get in...
The vagaries of MMP mean the Libz need 5% of the vote to get in, but they won't get that, because no one thinks they'll get many votes, so they won't vote for them, which means other people won't vote...etc. That threshold is a bit of a problem - if there was none, then people could vote without worrying about wasted votes. Who knows, maybe there ARE 100,000 odd Libz supporters out there!
The libz are tied up in the same ideological snare as Helen (i.e. they have the righteous truth and if you don't agree then you can fuck off), though unlike Helen they have no fear of letting their batshit crazy ideologue flag fly in public.
Ideologies are just a way of obscuring the real truth. We need pragmatism (in the decision making sense, not the political sense), not another pack of fucking zealots.
If you want to see how unbalanced their world view is go and check out the bleating about the US elections on solo-passion, they would rather have some border line retard who thinks that she can see Russian from Alaska as US vice president (God forbid president in time), than that God dam freedom hating socialist terrorist Obama, in truth the good ole' GOP has just made some of the biggest socialist moves in history.
Fuckwits...
Heh, maybe they should go post at the 'Libertarians for Obama' Facebook group - should be rowdy.
Another cowardly Anon;
"We need pragmatism (in the decision making sense, not the political sense)"
Meaningless, unsustaitiated, incoherent nonsense.
Correction;
unsustaitiated should be unsubstainiated.
Ah, the erudite offerings from another "contributor" too timid to even put a name to the ranting! Weak.
Run along & vote for the socialists, petal. You're spoiled for choice! Batshit & fuckwits, indeed. ;)
I'll try again...what's the problem with ACT?? Cheers.
What's Act?
Lame. This is politics. If you want a freer society, you have two choices: Start a militia, or use the political system to get the things you want.
As far as I can tell the Libertarianz aren't really that committed to either. It's all about feeling good about yourself and having a smug warm-fuzzy glow.
Well fuck that. I'm voting for a party that will be in a position to lower my taxes after 8th November. I don't think the Libertarianz will be that party.
Excellent illustration of the false alternative fallacy, Blair. And, of course, the falsitivity of that premise destroys the rest of your argument. You were right to label it Lame!
Julian wrote I view ACT and National as being the more dangerous since they pretend to stand for freedom and individual rights however their policies and beliefs are nothing of the sort. They therefore misprepresent (sic) what liberty and freedom mean. The Greens and Labour, however, are explicitly socialist and Marxist. They make no pretense of being advocates of capitalism and freedom. They are therefore more honest and for that they earn my respect on that count.
The Electoral Finance Act was the single biggest attack on freedom in the last decade.
Tell me, did you join with the other Libertarianz I saw on the Anti-Electoral Finance marches? The ones that were mostly organised by John Boscowen (#4 on the Act list)? And which parties opposed the EFA all along? (For the record it was National and Act.)
And so, despite having a goal of "changing the culture of NZ to one that is pro-freedom...", you regard as "more dangerous" the parties that fought with you against reductions in freedom?
Those same 2 parties have committed to "fixing" the EFA. (Yes, it might not meet your high standards when it is "fixed", but I'm sure it will be better than what we have currently, or what Labour/Greens/Maori will do to it next time, should they get back in.)
Please explain.
Furthermore, you also say The Greens and Labour, however, are explicitly socialist and Marxist.
On the contrary, the Greens pretend to be environmentalists. Labour pretends to be "for" the workers. Labour refuses to say what is in their December mini-budget, despite knowing all the inside information about the economy. They are hiding policies that are electoral suicide.
The Greens and Labour are not upfront and honest.
The various ACT chaps on this comments page have it all wrong.
Just as a senario based on the possibility the Libz get pipped at the post and fail to win the General Election...
If we received, say, 50,000 votes or 90,000 votes...far from being 'wasted' that would actually send shockwaves down a few spines.
It would show there is quite a market for 'More Freedom/Less Government', lower taxes, lower spending and our other policies.
It would encourage the National/Labour/Green/ACT coalition to start stealing our policies out of political pragmatism on the reasoning of "Imagine what these libz chaps would do with some money, advertising, media attention at the next election if they get 90,000 votes with none of the above"
So you end up with two scenarios...the Libz win the election, or, the Libz get a large number of votes.
Neither scenario is a 'wasted' vote.
(Ironically, the only time a vote for the Libz was wasted is all the votes we receive above around 47% as we would have a majority in Parliament and each subsequent vote simply makes our majority larger, and, strictly speaking, is wasted)
If we received, say, 50,000 votes or 90,000 votes...far from being 'wasted' that would actually send shockwaves down a few spines.
It would show there is quite a market for 'More Freedom/Less Government', lower taxes, lower spending and our other policies.
And how would voting for ACT show anything else?
David,
Of course the biggest attack on freedom in the last ten years came from Labour. They have been in power! Don't forget the Nats gave as the RMA. Which is top of the heap of anti-freedom policies.
Stephen,
He that asserts the positive must provide the proof. What are Act's freedom supporting policies? Honestly, none spring to mind.
elijah wrote If we received, say, 50,000 votes or 90,000 votes...far from being 'wasted' that would actually send shockwaves down a few spines.
Another assumption I made:
Libertarianz are rational.
This seems to be very much in doubt. How can you expect 50,000 - 90,000 votes, when at the previous General Election, the Libertarianz got 946 party votes (0.04%), and you have never rated on any opinion poll results? That is fairyland.
You would have far more respect, I think, if you used your brains to switch your party vote to one inside Parliament that fights for similar values. You are too idealistic for your own good!
Don't forget that you have 2 votes. Feel free to use your electorate vote to support a Libertarianz candidate. Then count those up as a measure of your party's support. (And if you can't field a candidate in every electorate, what does that say about the general appeal of Libertarianz to New Zealand?)
He that asserts the positive must provide the proof. What are Act's freedom supporting policies? Honestly, none spring to mind.
Fair enough, but I did make the assumption that people followed NZ politics outside of debating the finer points of objectivism and what have you. Obviously ACT does not offer as much freedom as the Libz, but they offer MUCH more than ANY party in Parliament. The key being that they're in Parliament, and will be for a little while at least. Hell, they used to aim for a 0% income tax rate!
Do you actually think ACT are 'bad' or just that they aren't enough?
David,
Here is your most recent comment on logic;
"this is a silly way to debate."
Do not pretend you are any friend of reason and the application of reason to reality. You have clearly substituted wishfull thinking (John Key is our annoited saviour) for evidence.
What was the Libz vote at last election; 300? Sorry, I can't help but feel that by voting Libz, your vote is as valuable as that of one who abstains.
Stephen,
You have named exactly zero freedom loving policies.
QED!
Clunking Fist,
It is important to abstain when you are faced with evil option A and evil option B. Voting for either is an endorsement of evil.
You have named exactly zero freedom loving policies.
That's because ACT hates freedom - might as well vote Worker's Party for all the differences there are between the two.
Sean, please stop quoting me out of context. What I actually wrote was:
From your other assumptions about my assumptions I assume... no, this is a silly way to debate. Better to state what you do or do not believe. Or ask questions.
Of course it is silly to write about what you assume that I assume that you assume that I assume, ad infinitum.
Also please do not resort to ad hominem attacks.
I have never said "John Key is our annoited (sic) saviour". I have reservations about him, as you do. I think we are yet to see the real John Key.
The only wishful thinking going on is in your expectations of the size of the Libertarianz party vote and the influence that they will have in this election for promoting freedom.
How many votes in Parliament against the Anti-Smacking Bill or the Electoral Finance Bill or any bill regulating our freedom of choice of lightbulb or showerhead will come from Libertarianz? I can count on Act to vote for freedom on these. That is not what I call "evil".
Contention:
National supports freedom.
Some evidence:
Resource Management Act
Kyoto
Agreed to impose a carbon trading scheme
Anti-smacking Bill
Slightly different version of EFA
And there is much more. Still that will do for a starter.
The evidence is that National is not pro-freedom. So much for the "pragmatic" bullshit artists and their delusions.
LGM
LGM wrote: So much for the "pragmatic" bullshit artists and their delusions. and a list of stuff about National.
Rational people don't need to resort to vernacular, LGM.
I have never defended National, and have challenged my local MP (Nat) on many of those issues.
Looks like a red (or blue) herring argument to me. You can be pragmatic without voting National.
David,
Thanks for posting the full context. My point stands. It is not silly to check your premises. It is called logic.
Nor is my point ad hominem. Pointing out the short-comings of your argument is revealing the truth. Truth is not a logical fallacy. If I said "you are a sheep-fucker therefore you are wrong" I would be commiting the fallacy, irrespective of your relationship with sheep, because your relationship with sheep is not a pertinent to the argument. (Note, David does not have any such relationship with sheep, this is just an illustration)
I know you did not make any religious reference to Key. That was purely for comic value. No need to respond.
You said;
"The only wishful thinking going on is in your expectations of the size of the Libertarianz party vote and the influence that they will have in this election for promoting freedom."
This is clearly not the position of any poster. Deal with the actual arguments please, not the ones you wish you were making, so could easily defeat.
Stephen said,
"That's because ACT hates freedom - might as well vote Worker's Party for all the differences there are between the two."
It's true you haven't named any!
But you are not really in this predicament when you have the option to votes Libz, now are you?
I don't really feel I have to name any - it's ACT for god's sake, their approach is fairly well known (so I thought). Anyway, a vote for ACT will get more freedom, a vote for anyone else is a vote for centrism/leftism and that's it, sez I!
Hmmm well in order to legitimately claim I have used "the false alternative fallacy", you have to show there is another alternative.
Standing for wonderful policies, but not trying to get elected, is not an alternative.
If the Libertarianz really wanted to get elected/build a movement, they'd pick one seat, raise $30k, find a charismatic candidate, and pour all their energies into it.
I don't see them doing that. Which tells me they care more about being right than changing the world around them.
Blair,
Working to change public opinion (or culture) is the most important thing. Without it you won't win any votes nor raise a Militia.
Still, thanks for the campaign advice.
Agreed, Sean, It is not silly to check your premises. It is called logic. The "ad finitum" was the silly bit.
The attitude you are taking to party voting appears to be in the same league as:
* Workers Party
* The Bill and Ben Party
* Alliance
* Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party
* Democrats for Social Credit
* Direct Democracy Party
* New World Order
* New Zealand Pacific Party
* The Family Party
* The Kiwi Party
* The Republic of New Zealand Party
* Resident's Action Movement
I'd call it "symbolic flag waving" at best, and "sideshow grandstanding" in less charitable moments.
The Darnton v Clark effort was far more effective in raising your profile.
(Notice, incidentally, that it was Darnton v Clark, and not Darnton v Key for those of you who believe that National is more evil than Labour?)
Come on Dave, give Key a chance to violate individual rights!
Anyway, I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you that there are better ways to achieve change than standing for Parliament (well maybe Blair :-))
As for flag waving, libertarians tend not to go in for that collectivist nonsense. It's more about not sanctioning evil (and all those excellent points Julian made).
There is one argument and one argument only for voting ACT: that they're in parliament, and Libertarianz isn't.
That's it. That's the argument that I hear all the time.
Not that they have better policies, better arguments, or even better people that Libertarianz -- which they emphatically don't.
And the point ignores a couple of other things. It ignores the way real political change happens: not through bums on parliamentary seats, which is after all only a reflection of the culture whose votes help to fill those seats, but by ideas being replaced with better ideas.
If you want more freedom, you need to actually promote freedom, and the ideas that underpin it. And you need to promote them honestly, openly and consistently. You need to argue for it, and explain its benefits.
But ACT has never ever done that. Ever. Instead, they've resiled from freedom themselves.
No policy to dump the RMA.
No policy to end the war on drugs.
No policy to dump the Treaty and replace it with a new constitution enshrining real individual rights.
And now,at this election, no policy even to cut spending, or to cut the size of government -- just to "cap" both in accordance with the inflation rate!
Fact is, ACT has been absolutely hopeless at promoting freedom and at being ambassadors for freedom -- hell, Roger Douglas doesn't even know it's about freedom; and rather than calling for 0% tax, as they once did, ACT's current economic policy calls for an increase in the size and spending of government -- and as the perceived exemplars of freedom, it's no wonder all their presence has done is to diminish demand for the product.
Rather than giving freedom and free markets a good name, they've made it instead a byword for mendacity.
Or haven't you noticed that, Davo?
But, failing to understand that point, the argument from the punters still goes "They're in there, and you're not."
So in that case, since their mere presence in parliament is all that gets you excited, perhaps you could tell me then what ACT have actually DONE in all those years in parliament -- that is, actual concrete achievements that have advanced the cause of freedom to show for all their twelve bloody years pretending to be a freedom party.
Answer: bugger all.
But, I hear you say in response, that you're deaf to all that, and that ACT are just the best of a bad parliamentary bunch.
So what if they were?
If the choice is between being strangled slowly or having my throat cut quickly, I prefer to choose neither. Which is to say that the default position for voting is not to presume one should vote for someone and pick the best of a bad bunch, one who will perhaps just strangle you slowly, but to presume one would not vote at all unless one could find someone with whom one agreed.
And since I couldn't do that, I and my colleagues helped found a party we could vote for.
It's called Libertarianz. And that's where my vote is going on Saturday.
I invite you to join me.
davidinnz
I din't resort to anything, I identified fact. Obviously that makes you uncomfortable. Must be your guilty conscience.
What you have been attempting is to claim value exists in the "pragmatism" of abandonomg that which you value in favour of supporting its antithesis. I'm being most charitable by identifying that activity as delusional and its practitioners as bullshit artists. You should do your best to avoid partaking in their behaviour.
An interesting commentary on the practice was written back in the days of the slave trade. A well known figure wrote that he was anti-slavery. He did not support the contention that one should own another. He also wrote about how there were other people who, while agreeing with him in private (in secret), did not accept the contention that they ought to support and promote the anti-slavery cause themselves. They were "pragmatic".
The self-justification such people offered was that they supported those who might undertake to limit slavery slightly (perhaps regulate it a little more tightly and slightly "improve" the situation). After all, the promoters of the anti-slavery cause were known extremists. Anti-slavers were too marginal to count. They did not have sufficient support to attain government authority.
So, the idea of outright support for those who sought to ban slavery completely would not be countenanced by some of the very people who (privately) said they agreed with the notion of banning slavery completely. They excused themselves by simpering that the nation would never accept a ban. Therefore they did nothing save support the staus quo and rationalise that support. Presumably they sought to assuge their guilt by self-deception and delusion- or perhaps they were plain old bullshitters, liars and, at base, immoral themselves. Whatever the case, these were people who knew the practice was evil yet accepted its continuance. Why? Because they considered they were being "pragmatic".
What impotence!
Similar essays describing this type of curious rationalisation, along with the self-contradictory behaviours of its practitioners, have been written regarding the support of the "pragmatic" for the Nazis along with their treatment of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies etc. It's damning.
Lately I have been reading Solzhenitsyn. He too is scathing about people who pretend that it is practical to abandon principle and/or morality in support of an ill defined hope that somehow a miracle would change an undesirable evil into something else- somehow. In general these people put their blind faith in Comerade Stalin or the local commissar (who supposedly wasn't quite as bad as the rest etc). They were "pragmatic" indeed. Worth reading some Solzhenitsyn if you take the time to think about what he is getting at. But, I digress.
In the end, you are not being practical or realistic at all. Supporting the opposite of that which you value will not bring you closer to that which you value.
LGM
Well fuck that. I'm voting for a party that will be in a position to lower my taxes after 8th November. I don't think the Libertarianz will be that party.
But (a) if there's a party in a position to lower your taxes, they'll do that whether you vote for them or not; (b) your vote isn't going to make a blind bit of difference either way; therefore the only sensible positions are either not to vote at all, or to vote for who you want to win, and not worry about their chances.
Peter, thank you for your invitation. I will decline.
I regard Libertarianz principles and policies as "nice if you can get them". And I wish you luck.
But personally I don't see that you have any hope in a million years of convincing enough people of your ideas that it will ever happen. Things are more likely to get worse, instead.
I have had no response to my questions about the Anti-Electoral Finance Bill marches. We joined in with people from Act, National and probably other parties too to fight together for freedom from the Labour/Green/NZFirst monstrosity imposed on NZ.
And yet you regard your allies in that cause as "evil". As equivalent to the election-stealing Clark that so riled your leader that he issued a court challenge.
I do not share your idealism.
I'm a realist (since "pragmatic" is associated with all sorts of nasty compromise in your eyes).
Analogies are fraught with danger, because opponents can often find the edges where the analogy falters, and use that to try to defeat the argument.
Disclaimers aside, I see Libertarianz like a volunteer firebrigade, sitting around while the fire rages. There are other brigades trying to put out the fire using water hoses, foam, and even some with bucket chains. But the Libertarianz brigade is sitting around talking. Why? Because they are dreaming of a monsoon bucket. They have pictures of it on their station walls. They know it will be ideal for the job, (slightly overkill for this particular fire at the moment) but which they won't be able to afford until long after all of them, and all of the rest of us, are burnt to a crisp.
So please continue pontificating about perfection, and leave us to man the pumps.
I'll be posting on this shortly, given I've had my shot at how to vote in electorates (which in most cases isn't that important).
There are three ways opponents of the Clark government can vote:
- Vote for a change in personnel but virtually no change in policy, so the advance to more government at best slows
(National).
- Vote for the growth in government to stop (ACT).
- Vote for a party that wants to radically shrink government (Libz).
Your vote has a tiny marginal difference on the outcome, it isn't that big a deal, but it is a statement of what YOU want.
That is why I am voting Libz. I want it to be a positive act, I want it recorded that I am one of the thousands who want substantially less government. I want to change the terms of the debate, not compromise with it for the sake of not offending or upsetting those who don't get it.
Freedom lovers voting National I just don't get. Freedom lovers voting ACT I can understand, because they would rather their vote count towards a new government for certain than risk the vote being counted and being redistributed. However your single vote wont change the government, but it will record what you believe in. If you want and believe in what ACT will do in the next 3 years, go for it, but don't pretend it is anything much more than what National used to be in the early 1990s.
Davy-boy said;
"So please continue pontificating about perfection, and leave us to man the pumps."
1) You came here and asked us for our thoughts. Which we gave. You are free to go back to polishing your knobs at any time.
2) You may be manning the pumps, but as we keep pointing out, your pumps are loaded with petrol. Until you stop preaching this wet idealism of "my vote counts" we can not move on with an approach based on realism.
fuck the libertarianz you racist nazi cunts!
Yes, individual freedom and Nazism have so much in common. Eloquent arguments Nazibasher.
Has Redbaiter changed his nom-de-plume?
David et al.
Some comments to your questions:
1. Yes I attended the anti-EFA march in Auckland as did many other libertarians. Why would we not? This was a march to oppose a law against free speech.
2. The marches were organised by John Boscowen (and bravo), not the ACT party. He went to great lengths to state that this was not tied to any political party. The fact that he subsequently is number 4 on the list provides no evidence that ACT has achieved anything in their time in parliament.
3. Libertarianz will support any group who advances an issue which provides for more individual liberty. I would march with the Greens on any march for the legalisation of drugs for example. Doesn't mean that I would no longer consider them evil, we just happen to agree on one particular issue.
4. The fact that ACT or National may agree with Libertarianz on one issue (ie against the EFA) which may promote individual freedom does not absolve them from my claim that they promote statist policies which are harmful to the cause for liberty.
5. Given you consider Libertarianz to be insignificant in the NZ political landscape, then why are you wasting your time debating these issues with what you (and your fellow ACT/National supporters) claim to be a small group who has achieved nothing? Just ignore us and go away.
6. If you were truly advocating liberty and individual freedom, then instead of hurling invective at consistent advocates of liberty, you would instead be cheering Libertarianz on from the sidelines (while still voting for ACT for pragmatic reasons). And that, my friend, is why you and your fellow ACT supporters are so dangerous in the battle to promote liberty in NZ. It is the destructive sneering towards those who consistently advocate liberty and to those who advance ideas based on a solid philosophical foundation which is so destructive. For if the culture in NZ is to be changed to one that promotes individual liberty, then the pragmatic range of the moment approach you advocate can only prolong our return to a rational culture.
I shall no longer respond on this thread since I must return to work.
Julian
Post a Comment