. . . promoting capitalist acts between consenting adults.
Julian Pistorius’s billboards got some titivation ready for Budget Week – a simple reminder that this government is about to break its foremost campaign pledge . . .
And a few other slogans were added around the Waterview area . . .
Your tax cuts were pre-spent, you dick heads. By Michael Cullen.Tell me PC, is your candidate permanently uproariously pissed? You should seriously suggest to him he invests in a name change. It's the sort of name one might expect to be put up by Bill and Ben or the Mcgillicuddy mob or the KFC party or a university first year bon vivante's party.
Bullshit Adolf. The fiscal writing was on the wall well before 8 Nov.All English has to do is behave like a good little conservative & cut govt spending. But as the Nats are essentially socialist, they've all but forgotten how to do that.
Sus, Adolf is right and you know he is right. Why are keep supporting Libz fanatics like that? Basdards?? It is about perspective. The potential voter don't know what Libz stand for or perhaps they do but vaguely. That's not a language that someone would use to convince an undecided voter. You can still get your message across without swearing, because the message on the billboard is not different from saying:Where are our tax cuts - you're fucking liarCan you tell me if anything is wrong with wording the billboard like the one above?Stand up for the true Libz principles Sus, and don't succumb to those Libz who are nutters that dominate your party.Let me ask you this? Would you have any problem with the billboard if it was you standing in Mt. Albert?
Remember that Bill "Traitor" English is going to keep the changes to KiwiSaver and the stupid R&D Taxes. Now both of these change are sensible - KiwiStealer should be abolished and all the funds paid back to those earning over $100.000 per year who fucking paid for it; ditto the R&D Tax Bribes should be used to lower the general corporate tax rateBut - as a result of this; and as a result of Cullen's pathetic faux-tax "cuts" in the 2008 budgetBIll English will be taxing NZ more than any other finance minister everRoger is right: what is needed is a combination of the Black Budget, Rogernomics II, and the MOAB:1. Terminate all benefits2. Terminate all health and education subsidies3. Arm the police with Glock !8s or MAC-10s.4. User pays prisons - pay for your board or get a visit from the cops5. Outlaw socialists, labourists, unionists, and the rest. (see 3).
"Your tax cuts were pre-spent, you dick heads. By Michael Cullen."Adolf, I can't help but admire your loyalty to National, but if the Nats can't afford tax cuts because they're short of money, how come they can afford to spend $50 million on a bicycle track and $40 million on Social Services??
So let me get this straight..- The ACT/National government proposes to bulldoze the homes of people in Mt Albert against the wishes of those homeowners, but THEY are nice guys. (Some ACT supporters even say "send in the killdozers").- The National/ACT government steals billions of dollars from us every year in the form of taxes and yet THEY are the nice guys!- The National/ACT parties campaigned on giving us some of our money back in the form of tax cuts, and are now preparing to break their promise (a promise that was made in full knowledge of the state of the world's economy) and yet THEY are the nice guys!-Rather than defending the property rights of New Zealanders, the National/ACT government continues to violate our rights by telling us what we can and cannot do with our property and yet THEY are the nice guys!And then you say that members of Libertarianz are fanatics because of a word on a billboard which –to be fair - is too kind to them. What other word describes a group of people who are prepared to lie to get into power (assuming that the promise of tax cuts was not made due to economic ignorance), steal billions through taxation, and are now preparing to bulldoze the homes of residents in Mt Albert against their wishes!Julian D (I am not the same Julian standing as the Libz candidate)
Essentially here The Libz are accused of being rude in their description of the Nats By Adolf and a Nat defender. While the Nats are being accused of fraud and theft vehemently and rudely! Ask yourself who has the more defendable attitude - the ones who are upset about some harsh/crass language or the ones who are upset about being victims of fraud and theft?
Sally, you said that the Libz are accused of being rude in their description of the Nats By me & Adolf while the Nats are being accused of fraud and theft vehemently and rudely!What fraud and what theft? That's the kind of language that deluded idiots like you & the Libz because actually, there is no fraud & theft by the sitting government. If you think so, then why don't you take the National government to court if you accuse them of commiting such crimes. What are you going to charge them with? What section & clauses in the lawbook your charge is going to be based on? Oh, no, you're gonna say that the law is wrong? Ok, then fuck and throw the law book out and lets live in a state of anarchy, and may be that's the kind of society you like to live in.
Don't like being called bastards?Then don't promise what you know you can't deliver.
Redbaiter - well put in a neat nutshell.NatSupporter- with all due respect you make both a fallacy of false alternatives and one of inversion.To take the latter first - theft is illegal because it is immoral, not the other way around. If it were, then the morality of a theft would be determined purely by whether you could get away with it or not. Taxation is morally theft as it takes property by force to be used in a way the owner had no choice but to concede to (or The Man throws your backside in jail).Telling the electorate that if they put you into power you will give them some of the property you have stolen from others is bribery with stolen goods. Telling them you will stop the theft to some degree (tax cuts) - and then failing to do so is fraud.The false alternative you set up is it is either the status quo or anarchy. No, the alternative is objective law based on moral principles such as the rights of citizens to keep their own justly acquired property without theft from either private citizens or by private citizens through government action. Such a state was set up by the original US constitution and worked perfectly well until vested interests pushed the US government to set up the federal reserve - but that is a another story.The point is the US in it's early days rapidly became the most advanced, wealthy nation on earth - quite apart from the 'anarchy' you invoke in your post.I hope this will give you food for thought as you contemplate exactly what is the moral basis for the current governments (in)action on these issues.
Hi Nat Supporter .. in reply to your questions:I have no problem with the particular language as depicted; it actually says something unlike the others candidates' claptrap billboards. It's a shock tactic, designed to attract and encourage the passer-by to, (God forbid), think. As such, it may also offend some folk and that's the risk -- although I find pretty much anything the Greens say loads more offensive ... It happens to also reflect my personal thoughts on the issue. Adolf forgets that I actually go to work to earn money for *myself* and not the bloody state. All we're asking is to keep the wee bit more that was promised. Would I like to see stronger language as you suggest? Of course not. It's a matter of degree and we've chosen ours.I endorse the additional comments from Julian, Sally, Sean, PC and Red.Cheers.
Sean Fitzpatrick, I asked a simple question for you (Libz) to point out what fraud & theft that the National government has done since they've taken office, then you came back with an essay about morality. Why do you evade the question?Sus, the voting public is stupid/dumb which I am sure that you Libz already know that. They keep voting for parties that do them over but how do you talk to dumb people and get your message across? Yes, use sophisticated language that they would understand and at the same time the principles in the core message are still there .When you use stupid/rude language like that (on the billboard), you frightened them. Why? Because they're dumb that they can't reason beyond the simple rude message .They think the Libz are luddites. It is not that the Libz policies are stupid, it is the wording of those policies aimed at the daft/dumb voting public that is stupid. Now do you see where I come from in my argument? Look , I agree with perhaps 80% of what the Libz stand for (perhaps putting me as an ACT voter), but the way how the Libz are preaching their policies are just childish, ie , the wording of them. It is more like dating. A Tom Cruise look-alike bloke can't walk into a bar and ask a chick who's drinking on her own (expecting to score) to say, excuse me, I want to buy you a drink and I want to take you home afterward for a fuck. Such pick up line is a sure rejection. Awesome looks, but bad presentation of himself. The Libz has got awesome principles but worse presentation. Even worse than the Greens.
NS, I appreciate your sincerity, but are you not overreacting just a bit?You're focusing on ONE word. Yes, it's a swear word - deliberately. But people who take what's yours and mine by force ARE bastards. Tax IS theft. Theft IS immoral. End of. There's nothing "luddite" in that. It's just plain speaking -- which voters seldom if ever hear.But how about the other billboard in the pic, "Your home is your castle". Do you have a problem with that one?
"But how about the other billboard in the pic, "Your home is your castle". Do you have a problem with that one?"Well, if he's a supporter of the National Party -- the people who introduced the Resource Management Act -- the people who are about to throw 365 people out of their homes because the Nats just can't be bothered to ask nicely -- then he will certainly have a problem with the concept.
Nat SupporterI am sorry if my post appeared evasive - my intention was to address the underlying immorality of government policy and call it what it is - theft and fraud. If you are asking for an example of where the govt is doing something illegal by statute definition then I concede that they are not doing anything illegal - but is that really all that concerns you? Is it good enough that the law is not being broken purely because government applies one set of moral standards to how it treats its employers, the citizens, and enforces a totally different set of standards on interactions between said citizens??From what I read of your own posts you are clearly someone who does not see such a situation as acceptable or even tolerable.On your other point about the manner in which Libz seeks to highlight these issues in the public mind you do have some worthwhile points. The irony is I remember last years election campaign with us getting criticized for being too erudite in how we put things across - that we were not blunt or shocking enough to get any attention! It is not that the pubic is stupid as much as the public is BUSY so don't have time or head space for lengthy, sensible debate - as Churchill said "a lie has travelled half way around the world before the truth has put it's trousers on."My appeal to someone like yourself who substantively agrees with libertarian ideas about limited govt but dosen't like the way we go about promoting them is get involved in helping find a way to 'sell' the message. The more the merrier and someone like yourself who understands the issues involved can make a great contribution.Contact me directly if you would like to discuss things firstname.lastname@example.org
A few points here - this is where I'll annoyingly agree and disagree with everybody simultaneously...Sus, NatSupporter does have a valid point about the presentation of Libz policies - the average kiwi voter who's even slightly aware of politics will look at the Libz. When they do, they're attracted by the common sense of the policies, but put off by some Libz coming across as pulpit-thumping - and believe me, nothing will alienate voters quicker than that. Anything that can be seen as 'extremist' at all will alienate people - kiwi voters know you can't please all the people all the time and tend look for a middle ground, if that middle ground isn't covered, you'll lose votes.Another thing that hurts the Libz are comments made by some of its members or supporters. I was really interested in what the Libz had to offer prior to the general election last year and spent a lot of time on various blogs to try and learn more. I found a lot of rhetoric about THEFT and FRAUD, complete with outraged capital letters. It matters not how accurately those words describe taxes and broken promises, they're inflammatory, and I'm surprised at that approach. Hell, I agree with with it, and it still makes me cringe!Having said all that, I really sympathise with the Libz cause, and if there's any pulpit-thumping at all, I'd say it's usually due to the frustration you feel when such simple solutions are constantly bypassed. NatSupporter, from a marketing point of view, the 'you bastards' is a great touch... it looks like Libz are targeting voters who are sick of the bullshit. It's a good hook, but as you point out, the way the policies are worded make the potential voter too cautious to bite.Please note, when I refer to the 'average kiwi' being put off, I'm using my friends as examples - they're a really varied bunch, all working, some with families, some not. I encouraged all of them to look at the Libz, my comments here are based on their feedback. One of them was all keen as hell to vote Libz, then he went on Lindsay Perigo's blog and changed his mind.
" (be) put off by .. pulpit-thumping .. nothing will alienate voters quicker than that."Fair comment, Marcus. I'll agree that the odd lib can sometimes be harsh with folk for not embracing the whole concept of libertarianism in one fell swoop. I'm guilty of it myself. A little *civility goes a long way.It is borne of frustration; freedom being freedom, dammit! But a reminder never goes amiss.*It also goes without saying that bona fide socialists/busybodies deserve all they get! I'm not that magnanimous! ;)Cheers.
I think the billboards are fine, (if a bit reserved), but the concepts they advocate are still far too intellectual for the knuckle dragging fuckwits of Mt. Albert.After two or three decades of elections that are no more than auctions, where a selection of craven and despicable cowards compete to see who can buy the most votes, there's Buckleys chance that you'll ever get the citizens of Mt. Albert to think outside that circle.
and $40 million on Social Services??$40 Million. Bullshit redbaiter. Utter Crap.The NZ govt spends 20 BILLION on benefits; 11 BILLION on health; 10 BILLION on education.There's 40 BILLION of tax cuts with no ill effects whatsoever on the deficit. More to the point, there's 20 BILLION for the top taxpayers, and another 20 BILLION to pay off government debt and start repatriating private debt. Which part of NZ net debt 97% of GDP don't you understand?Then don't promise what you know you can't deliver.Let's be absolutely clear: there is no problem with delivering tax "cuts" - note that for most taxpayers, National's cuts are actually just tax increases; on top of the actual tax increases caused by removing KiwiStealer and R&D Credits. Yep Actual fucking increases. There is no problem with delivering tax cuts while paying down government debt. It's just that National (and in fact ACT) are too cowardly to actually do what they all know they really need to do: get rid of that $40 BILLION charge immediately.
"If it were, then the morality of a theft would be determined purely by whether you could get away with it or not."Actually, this is most likely the case I'm afraid. I'd love there to be some kind of underpinning ruleset by which human beings can be judged, but I'm an athiest, and can't justify the idea that morality is something more than a product of sociological evolution.This is not to say that I disagree with the basic idea that society should be based around individual rights, though I do disagree with the methodology espoused by the Libz.
"The NZ govt spends 20 BILLION on benefits; 11 BILLION on health; 10 BILLION on education."Not the point jerkoff. The idea was to confront the Nat's claim that the tax cuts were "pre-spent". Must be hard for the two or three reasonably intelligent Libertarians to carry the rest of you dumbfucks.
Perhaps the Libz need to decide what they are there for. If it's to get parlimentary representation, then maybe they should do an IRA and split off a political wing that does their marketing properly and leave the pulpit thumpers away from where they can scare the mainstream voters.
TWR, I think one of the things the Libz will struggle with for a while is simply a numbers game. With relatively few people involved, a party will always be made up of the dedicated 'hardcore' party faithful.With more people involved, it would be easier to present a party that can achieve representation - fighting from the inside is a hell of lot more effective than shouting from the outside. At the moment, however, the Libz are on the fringe and shouting is all there is (unless you've got a 'Big Gun' firing shots and drawing attention).Success is only ever going to happen with greater numbers - at the moment, I'd say the average kiwi worker is disillusioned and ready to listen to a well presented marketing campaign. Does that have to wait for an election?My fear is that the Libz' strong sense of freedom and individualism will hinder the unified approach needed to get into parliament. I hope my fear proves to be unfounded.
I completely agree that you need a coherent marketing plan and more numbers, I just don't think it's being done very well at the moment. You have a number of natural advantages over many parties (like the myriad of pointless "family parties") in that you have a niche all to yourself, a worthy cause, passionate supporters, and international affiliations (or at least people who share your values and are actively trying to do the same as you). However, the opportunity (and particularly the Mt Albert opportunity) has been squandered by immaturity and a lack of focus on what you want to achieve and the actions required to get there. If you want parlimentary representation any time in at least the next generation, you need to make some hard decisions, and dare I say it, the odd compromise. And one of the biggest things you have to realise is that human beings are involved, they aren't always rational, but they sure as hell will protect their patch. Small gains are better than nothing, and incremental change might eventually get you where you want to be, just like it has for the socialists, racists, and feminists.PS RB: I don't think your mate Anon is a Lib. They tend to at least sign their names!
That anonymous fellow is patently unhinged. If he's a libertarian, I'm Sue Bradford.So, Marcus & TWR, seeing as you're full of good ideas as to what we should and shouldn't be doing, why don't you jump in to help? I'm not being facetious, either.You talk about "the Libz", etc. The libertarians of my acquaintance would rather be at home living their lives than doing all this. Speaking for myself, it's a bloody nuisance. But in the absence of anybody else (ie other parties), who else is going to say what needs to be said?"Small gains are better than nothing, and incremental change might eventually get you where you want to be, just like it has for the socialists, racists, and feminists."Isn't that what we're doing, TWR? It takes a long time, indeed, but just think of the terminology now commonly heard as opposed to 10-15 years ago, coupled with the term "libertarianism" mentioned virtually daily by the likes of Leighton Smith and regularly from other quarters -- some of which are surprising. It's all pertinent.
Personally, I'd want to know that I wouldn't be banging my head against a brick wall by doing so.
I endorse Sus' invitation. Contact details at http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/contact
TWR: If you want a guarantee that everything would go hunky dory, you'll be waiting awhile, but isn't that part of the risk? ;)Marcus: I replied to yesterday's email; tried several times; but it wouldn't go through. I seem to remember having the same problem the last time you contacted me. Do you have another email address I can try?