. . . promoting capitalist acts between consenting adults.
He scrubs up well, don’t you think, for a scruff who used to sport a beard and ponytail!
Sign up at Julian’s Facebook Campaign page to jump on board to help out. [And if you can’t the there on the ground, then just throw money. :-) ]
Nice pamphlet BTW. If he gets more than 100 votes I'll be impressed.
On another note, I enjoyed Ian Wisharts latest book on climate change, titled "Air Con"http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/04/free-preview-of-ian-wisharts-new-book-air-con.htmlWill I see it being reviewed in TFR? ...and if so, fairly? No wait. Wishart is an Anglican and a social-conservative aka a persona-non-grata to the tolerant, open minded, freedom loving libz !
If you really wanted people to vote for you, you'd design a pamphlet to appeal to them rather than turn them off. For example, don't mention gang patches. 90% of the population agrees with the restriction. And don't call the uber city a fascist state. You may be able to argue that it will be one, but using that kind of language for a document for a wide audience will not win you more votes than it loses.
Kool Aid, did you hear Ian Wishart on ZB this morning discussing AGW with Gareth Morgan, by any chance? I missed it.
Hi TWR: you're probably right re potentially alienating folks with mention of gang patches and fascist states, etc, but don't you agree that it's best to be honest with those same folks?"Get it out in the open and hide nothing" would be the only honourable platform from which to start, don't you think? It would certainly make a change from the usual "tell 'em what they want to hear" MO. Being honest and upfront is the only option IMO, and I wouldn't be associated with anything that wasn't. Call me old-fashioned, Possum, but I have a soft spot for the moral high ground. :)
I have no objection to the moral high ground, but you need to stand back and focus on what you want to achieve here. Do you want people to think "here's just another weirdo ranting about something I don't care about", or would you prefer them to say "hey, he's said some sensible things that I agree with, maybe I'll give him my vote". Libz have plenty of policies that have mass appeal, and they also have policies that people don't understand and can't relate to. There's a lot of stuff on the website for example that would turn people off, but it's not mentioned on the pamphlet. I don't think not mentioning the gang patch issue is surrendering the moral high ground. It's divisive, and now in the past. The focus should be more on the positive side of not being told what to do, what to think, and being forced to pay for it. There's more than a card's worth of good stuff you could include that would push people's buttons. If they want to know more details about the policies, they can talk to the candidate or visit the website.You never know - the public might see a by-election as an opportunity to send a message to government about the policy direction, and if you focussed on the more popular and easy to understand policies, you might get some traction.
I agree with Twr, that the Libz are the worse PR when putting together a campaign for their candidates. Fascist? Whoever wrote that must be kicked out by the Libz, because that's what not Libz are for.
It's a very good pamphlet. He should have left off the bit about the gangs, and maybe the bit about supporting capitalism, but other than that, it's a vote winner.
We'll soon see.
There's a natural counter to your first paragraph, TWR, and that's to potentially grab the support of *both* sets of folk. That is, those who (i) support the more mainline (if you will) issues we promote and (ii) the few out there who really do understand the violation of freedom of association re the gang patch legislation.Secondly, the gang patch legislation is very much relevant inasmuch as the new Auck council could adopt it here.State control is still state control, whether it's directed twd the odious gangs or Mother Theresa. I'm opposed to that patch legislation for exactly the same reasons I oppose the anti-smoking and anti-smacking laws.So rather than hide it from the public as if I was somehow ashamed, I think it's very much a point worth making.
Want to bet Ben will beat Julian hands down?
"Sus said... Kool Aid, did you hear Ian Wishart on ZB this morning discussing AGW with Gareth Morgan, by any chance? I missed it."?Can't find that on radionz.co.nz.Was it 9toNoon or Morn Report?
For example, don't mention gang patches. 90% of the population agrees with the restriction.Really? 90% on talkback radio maybe. No one I know agrees with the gang patch legislation. The brochure is very good. National has made a big mistake with Lee - and Rankin - which will help your cause.
Of course Ben will beat Julian, the lowest common denominator is the backbone of democracy.
Look Libz nutters: it's really really simple:criminals do not have freedom of association or indeed any other freedomsFreedom of association may be a right, but rights are earned. They accrue to productive citizens, not to criminals, socialists, or unionists. Every right has a concomitant responsibility: in the case of freedom of association - not to undermine or conspire to undermine the freedoms of others.Gangs, socialists, and unionists all breach this responsibility. Thus they have no rights.This is understood by everyone else in NZ - why is it so hard for you guys!
Newstalk ZB, Fist. Between 10 & 11.RNZ?? You confuse me with a red! ;)
"criminals do not have freedom of association or indeed any other freedoms"Anonymous, your argument is rubbish. It is not illegal to belong to a gang. Therefore, gang members are not criminals.Therefore, gang members have freedom of association and other freedoms.Just because gang members are more likely to commit crime, this doesn't make them criminals.
Starts with a swear word, nice try Libz. My prediction: 150 votes.
Tim, try that piece of sophism on voters.Oh, the libz just did.Wow, another time waster.
Funny you say the gang patch issue is relevant, because to most people it definitely isn't, because they aren't gang members. They don't understand the "first they came for the jews" concept, so are quite happy to trample on the rights of those whose way of life or opinions they disagree with. I share your stance on the patch issue, but the problem for someone who is trying to attract votes in a populist election is that they won't do so by highlighting this specific effect of their policy position. The "few out there who really do understand the violation of freedom of association" are probably smart enough to be enticed by a less divisive way of framing the issue. Summarise the broader freedom policy rather than the specific issue of the gang patches, and you'd be more likely to enjoy the best of both worlds.You can rail against the status quo as much as you like, and make yourself feel a bit better, but some actual support or an MP in Parliament would have much more tangible effects. Imagine that - the MSM might actually have to listen to the policy position occasionally if you had a sitting MP.
Wish I could vote there. Wish we had a candidate like this running here.Best of luck Julius!P.S. Excellent campaign materials. Wish we had candidates who expressed not only these views but this intelligence (which shows respect for the voter's intelligence).
Sus said... Newstalk ZB, Fist. Between 10 & 11. RNZ?? You confuse me with a red! ;)Opps, somehow I read "ZB" as "Morning Report". Many apologies! I don't know my way aound the ZB site (being a rnz listner, sorry!) can anyone provide a link, svp?
Hi Fist: Dead easy. Go to newstalkzb.co.nz -- audio archive -- week on demandThe last week's broadcasts are archived, updated automatically with each passing hour.Note that the days of the week are alphabetised, with each link representing an hour's broadcast (usually from 5 to the hour to 5 to the hour if you see what I mean).You'll want Tues 10am.Cheers.
Criminals don't have rights. Just like animals. Just like socialists and unionists. Why? Cribbing from another post:But let’s get this straight: animals do not have rights. Their actions are not based on a process of conceptualization, reason, ethics and a sense of morality. Their survival depends on instinctual reaction and physical attributes such as sharp eyesight and muscular strength. They are not capable of respecting the individual rights of a human. Thus, it would be absurd to accord them the same rights that humans – who, by virtue of their capacity for reason and the fact that their actions are chosen, possess rights. Replace "animals" in that sentence with "gang members", "socialist", "unionsts", "labourists", or "criminals" -- and the logic is impeccable and correct. They make decisions by instinct, not reason; the rely on reaction, strength, and violence, rather than reason; and most crucially: they are not capable of respecting the individual rights of a humanCriminals, gang members, socialists: do not have rights.
"Call me old-fashioned, Possum, but I have a soft spot for the moral high ground."Yeah well, its a weakness the commies can't wait to exploit.This is a war Sus, not a Libertarianz group think back slapping fest.
It's actually a war to which you haven't been invited, Rodbeater.Time to shuffle off, old chap. You're trespassing.
Yeah, fuck off Redbaiter, we can't have the Libz hearing the truth now can we ?!
Anonymous,"Criminals, gang members, socialists: do not have rights."Unless you are playing devil's advocate, this is the opinion of an insane man.Your thoughts are not only bizarre, they are potentially very dangerous, and I hope you never have any power over anyone, at any time.You terrify me.
Well, since no one else has volunteered to rewrite the brochure based on all your fine suggestions, I figured I'd have a crack myself. Here's page one: * * * * * * * * * * * * * Hi, I’m Julian Pistorius, but you can call me whatever you like. In fact, I can be anything you want me to be, and advocate whatever you like. Up to you.I believe in nothing. I advocate whatever you do. With me as your MP whatever you want will be easier, better and cheaper. We have no rights, just wishes that the government grants us. Okay?•Governments job is to give you whatever you want.•(Unless you live in one of 365 houses in Waterview. In which case, “Fuck you.”)•To look after us when we’re sick.•To help us in our old age.•To stop other people stealing from us.•(Unless they’re from the IRD. Or the Public Works Department.)Freedom has failed. Big government is great. The motorway and the super city are super. Grand. Grouse. And we need more of them. And more trains. Probably. And somebody else should pay for them. Somehow. But not you. And don't walk on the grass.At this election you should send a clear message to your masters in Wellington: that they are your boss, and you their vassal. No other candidate will do that as effectively as I will.No other candidate will be so craven. No other candidate will bend over backwards like I will to help the government put its jackboot up your arse, while kissing theirs.Support BlancmangeSupport Nothing Support Julian * * * * * * * * * * * * * So how's that?And who wants to take a crack at rewriting page two?
Berend Boer: Starts with a swear word, nice try LibzI am totally confused by this. The closest thing to a swear word I can find is 'damn' halfway through the first page.Unless Berend is talking about "capitalism", the new four-letter word?
"Yeah well, its (the moral high ground) a weakness the commies can't wait to exploit."Hi Red: I realise I'm putting you in an awkward position regarding any right-of-reply (as per PC's request from last night), but I can't agree with the above. In fact I'd turn what you said right around in order to show the left up, rather than the reverse you claim.Being *consistent* in one's approach to freedom, (as per my third comment on this thread), automatically highlights when others don't. Thus, they present an easy target.
"And who wants to take a crack at rewriting page two?"Well, thanks for asking. If I had more time maybe. For now, I'll just do a short version-Hi, I'm a Libertarian and I don't know whether I'm right or left. In fact, I profess to being more principled than any other politician, and that's why I take good ideas from the right, and "good" ideas from the left. (but please don't ask me to name one of the latter)I'm so principled I continually and falsely describe left wingers as right wingers just so I can carve out a political niche. (Take Peter Dunne for example. Even tho he sprung from the loins of Labour and a committed life long collectivist, he's Christian you know, and this makes him far right and a terrible threat to freedom)While NZ drifts further and further to the left, and individual freedoms are under greater threat every day and government grows more and more powerful, I cling shamelessly to the artifice that this is equally the fault of the right and left.Even tho I grovel like a confused sycophant at the antics of self declared right wingers and Conservatives like P J O'Rourke, I have to cling to the farce that there are some "good" left wing ideas out there or I might lose 75 per cent of my party support. (and you know I need those eight votes)And lastly, I hope you're so impressed with the esoteric nature of my original pamphlet. Its so important you understand I'm a polished intellectual and not (you know), a panel beater or a concreter or anything like that. We don't want to advocate simple measures that might make government small. Like reducing car registration fees, or reducing petrol tax, or cutting the number of politicians to twelve, or anything real. Its more important that you understand the intellectuality of Libertarianism. To that end, I encourage you to read every one of Ayn Rand's books before the election. Thanks for reading. . and please contact me if you can't find any Ayn Rand books in Mt. Albert. (I've been trying to give them away for yonks)
75% can't be 8 votes. That would make the total 10.6666 recurring.PS The confirmation word was "leave". How rude.
Hahaha! What was that I said about 'awkward position' and 'right-of-reply'?! And as for Peter Dunnebuggerall being 'far right' because he's a Christian? Wrong again, Red. Dunne's nothing but a leftie. A lot of Christians are, the fools.In fact Dunne's worse than a leftie; at least they stay on their side of the fence; whereas he jumps from side to side in order to stay in power.
Aw, poor widdle redbaiter, can't take any criticism of xtianity. :-)For the record, though, I haven't ever heard Julian say anything bad about Christians.
Rather than a sarcastic rewrite of the first page of the brochure, how about something like this?:Hi, I’m Julian Pistorius, and I’m standing in Mt Albert for the Libertarianz party.We advocate individual rights, and the freedom to live your life as you see fit without government interference and excessive rules and regulations. We think you should be able to choose what to eat, how to raise your children, and what to do with your own money, and we understand that people are intelligent enough to take responsibility for the consequences of their choices.We oppose the compulsory purchase of peoples’ homes to build the new motorway, and believe that voluntary negotiation with homeowners as used overseas is the only fair way to obtain the land needed.We are against the “super city” plans as we believe it will only result in more bureaucracy, and less ratepayer input in the way the city is run.The Libertarianz are the only party who think that the way out of the current financial crisis is less government spending rather than pouring more of your money into politicians’ pet projects. As your electorate MP in parliament, I will fight for the rights of the voters of Mt Albert, and will not be hamstrung by always having to agree with the big parties’ vested interests.If you want more freedom, less government control, and lower taxes, put a new voice in parliament. Vote for Julian Pistorius for Mt Albert.No selling out of your principles there is there?
Woo-hoo: nice rewrite.I'm supporting Tom Walkinshaw Racing in Mt Albert!Well, I would if I lived in the electorate...
No selling out of principles there at all, TWR. Although - as already stated - I have no problem with the leaflet as it is, that was very well put. Thank you.Are you a member or supporter of the Libertarianz party? If not, who do you support - if I may be so bold as to ask?ps: I can't help myself here .. occupational hazard of being a grammar nazi with an unhealthy interest in the apostrophe, so don't hate me .. but "peoples'" is incorrect.It's "people's" because (the word) 'people' is plural. Same with children ... eg The Warehouse ads:Children's clothing reduced (and) Kids' clothing reduced are both correct.Forgive me, but we all have our obsessions. I blame my Std 3 teacher, a bona fide English nazi, for infecting me. ;)
Humble apologies for the apostrophe - it was late, and I'm usually a stickler for that sort of stuff myself. I have however found it harder as years go by for the automatic warning bells to go off when you see something wrong like that, as you see so many mis-uses these days you become immune.I'm a believer in the Libz principles, but have previously supported Act as they were the party that was the closest to those principles that had any chance of getting parlimentary representation.
That's very good, TWR.Fancy a job as copywriter?:-)
I'll probably need one when I get fired for spending too much time looking at blogs.
"I'll probably need one when I get fired for spending too much time looking at blogs."Hahahahaha. :-)Yes, [he says checking his bog stats} I see here that you've spent [heavily censored] hours here,and for the price of just a small donation to the Pistorius campaign I'm prepared not to let that informatio fall into the hands of your employers. ;^)
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.