Well that was disappointing, wasn’t it. Disappointing all round, really.
National will be disappointed that their Mt Albert candidate Melissa Lee got fewer votes than Ravi Masuku did in the last two general elections.
The Greens will be disappointed that Russel’s muscle could only wrestle him into third place.
ACT will be disappointed that despite him being the self-described “only credible centre-right candidate,” John Boscawen could only attract five percent of the vote.
The Christian parties will be disappointed that they each scored fewer votes than the cannabis candidate Dakta Green.
And of course we Libertarianz supporters are tremendously disappointed that four weeks of door-knocking, bill-boarding and well-coordinated campaigning brought Julian Pistorius only marginalisation by the MSM and a result of thirty-five votes – few even than the number of homes the main parties were all promising to knock over to build their favoured transport routes – which will obviously please the sundry whiners and knockers who always disparage principled politicking.
And even the victorious David Shearer will probably be disappointed that what was called “the hottest political contest this year” attracted fewer than half the electorate’s registered voters to the polls – prompting a few wags to suggest that at the end of the day the “no-government” vote was the winner.
And speaking of disappointing elections, how disappointing was it to see the rigged election result in Iran over the weekend that saw madman I’m-A-Dinner-Jacket reconfirmed as president. Not just disappointing, but frankly frightening to have the nuclear dictator reconfirmed in power. But how thrilling nonetheless to hear ringing out from the streets of Tehran the resounding chant of “We Want Freedom!” from good people who refuse to do nothing in the face of evil – thousands of Iranians chanting not "Death to America" or "Death to Israel," but "Death to the Government." [Read more reaction on Twitter.]
How unlike people here who are happy with their temporary state-sponsored security, allowing themselves only the occasionally cynical kick against the various pricks.
UPDATE: Liberty Scott on the Mt Albert result:
I would have been pleasantly surprised and astonished had Julian Pistorius won, but the Mt. Albert result was disappointing. However, I guess an electorate that ticked Helen Clark consistently for 28 years was unlikely to be a place of free spirits or individuals who were gagging to have more control of their own lives. So voting Labour is clearly like breathing to most of them.
Most by-elections are interesting, and produce results well out of kilter with a general election. This one didn't. The last proper one was Taranaki-King Country, when ACT came a close second. In Selwyn, the Alliance came a close second. In Mt Albert, the voters could have voted Green to say no to motorways - but didn't. They could have voted National, but admittedly there was no good reason for that. They could have voted Libertarianz, but clearly the idea of being responsible for yourself frightened too many of them.
So all in all a bit of a yawn.
Read on here for more from Scott.
UPDATE 2: Daniel Hannan, the Conservative Euro MP who verbally flayed Gordon Brown, comments on the Iranian election:
It strikes me as pretty implausible, this Iranian election result. True, international observers sometimes side, knowingly or subliminally, with pro-Western and English-speaking politicians. European monitors looked the other way when Boris Yeltsin claimed to have defeated resurgent Russian Communists. They collaborated with Georgia's Mikheil Saakashvili when, in 2004, he awarded himself a Saddam-like majority of 96 per cent in a post-putsch snap poll. They may even have been biased towards the Orange revolutionaries in Ukraine. Even so, the idea that Iranians would turn out in record numbers (the government had conveniently ordered lots of extra ballot boxes in advance) in order to bestow a massive majority on a regime that has brought them inflation, stagnation and isolation, is hard to swallow.
UPDATE 3: Christopher Booker weighs in. The Iranian elections are a 'loathsome charade' he says:
The reality is that this was a completely sham battle between rival factions of a regime as ruthless as any in the world, in which the real power is exercised by the gang of hard-line mullahs round the "Supreme Leader", Ali Khamenei. In an election riddled with fraud (six million more ballot papers were printed than there are Iranians eligible to vote), all four regime-approved candidates had long been personally involved in the regime's murderous reign of terror.. . .
43 comments:
They could have voted Libertarianz, but clearly the idea of being responsible for yourself frightened too many of them.
And that is the absolute core of the problem. How do we give people freedom when they clearly don't want it, and are even frightened by it?
I've often said to pro-big-government friends that it's extremely unjust that my choices of tiny government only allow them freedom, whereas their choices restrict MY freedoms. Their answer is always the same: "it's for the greater good".
Somedays, it's enough to make you just stay in bed. Or better, at the pub!
Peter, The very sad truth is that the public see the Libertarianz as some sort of novelty party. I have sat on election platforms and watched their reaction to Libz candidates and it's a sort of bemusement. They do not take your policies seriously. Neither does the media. And I say that with no malice. Only deep regret. It is utterly pathetic that 99 percent of New Zealanders cannot conceive of life without the govt running it
I dunno how you guys can logically criticise ACT for poor performance when Mt Albert is a traditonal Labour stronghold. I reckon five per cent is as good a result as they could expect.
As well as that well, you reckon 36 votes gives you the right to be so critical of the efforts of others??
As for comments such as "It is utterly pathetic that 99 percent of New Zealanders cannot conceive of life without the govt running it", and others in the same vein, y'know, they're wrong.
The Libertarians once attracted much greater support than they do today.
Whereas Lindsay and others see the failure of the current Libertarian Party to attract votes as an indication that NZers are happy with government controlling their lives so completely, it does not mesh with the fact that the Libs once enjoyed a far geater level of support.
The real problem is that those who yearn for less government in their lives do not see the current Libertarian party as offering a solution.
There could be many reasons for this. Personally, I think the message is far too complex. Whatever, its clear that the Libs have to adopt some new strategies.
Fair comment, Red.
Lindsay: Presentation skills (which includes content) are always important, but especially so in electoral mtgs where candidates commonly have only a few minutes to speak & create effect.
Many candidates, from many if not all parties, let themselves down. One of the biggest mistakes is non-simplification of message, IMO.
For mine, I keep the msge simple & effective, thereby doing my best to command attention & control of the mtg in the fews minutes available.
This is not big-noting (hell, the mtgs are only small; bugger all attend as you know), it's making the most of very scrappy opportunities, small parties often being denied the chance to speak. It's also good sport to make the other socialists squirm, attack being the best form of defence.
Red is right when he says that in terms of numbers, the libs have enjoyed better support in the past.
I believe that once a libertarian, always a libertarian. I'm not interested in splitting hairs over this and that; I mean that once a person understands the simple concept of freedom underpinned by responsibility, he cannot go back to embracing big govt of any stripe.
So based on that, I maintain that our voting numbers haven't disappeared per se; they've been diluted as a result of the electorate's desire to get rid of Labour & its travellers at all costs.
It comes back to the spread of 'ideas'. The ACT party has numerous lib-leaning members & that's a good thing. One day that might even spread to the Nats. (So I'm the eternal optimist).
New strategies, Red? Yes, I'm open to that. I agree that the msge is, rightly or wrongly, construed as too complex. Less *is* more when it comes to getting a point across.
Because the others are all variations on a socialist theme, we have the golden opportunity to be different.
As for being less 'complex', I use six words over and over again:
Personal freedom
Personal responsibility
Limited govt.
Just my thoughts.
Redbaiter - I agree. Shane Pleasance is apparently working on a strategy conference. I imagine there will be news here when it happens.
I'm not so sure that I agree that historical support versus lack of current support necessarily means NZers don't see the Libertarianz party as a solution. It may mean that they just don't understand the concept of liberty at all these days. It may also mean those who used to desire less government no longer do so. If that is the case, then yes, it follows that Libertarianz is irrelevant. I really hope that's not the case.
"The Libertarians once attracted much greater support than they do today. . . There could be many reasons for this. Personally, I think the message is far too complex."
There certainly are many reasons for this, but since "the message" hasn't changed since 1996 probably isn't one of them.
That said, the reports from the crew at Fieldays last week suggest that the World's Smallest Political Quiz is now too hard for most teenagers.
Statements like "Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet." and "End 'corporate welfare.' No government handouts to business," were apparently "too complex" for many young adults to fathom. Which might be some sort of clue about some very serious problems indeed.
The marketing needs to understand the market. For example, "where are our tax cuts - you bastards" isn't going to work when polls show that a significant majority of the population believes the bullshit they have been fed about tax cuts being unaffordable. You need to attack the lies, and the rest should follow. For example, the billboard could have said:
Tax cuts : $98m (crossed out)
MPs travel: $xx m
Policy analysts: $xxx m
PC regulations: $xxxx m
Traffic camera fines: $xx m
etc...
Stop wasting our money now!
"There certainly are many reasons for this, but since "the message" hasn't changed since 1996 probably isn't one of them."
Well, although I had read Atlas Shrugged many years before, I first heard of the Libertarians thanks to Lindsay Perigo's radio show.
When was that?? Ninety five??
Back then, it seemed a hell of a lot more simple.
Get government out of our lives.
Beat the bastards back.
As time went by, to remain a committed Libertarian, one had to have read every tome of Ayn Rand, be able to quote volubly from Atlas Shrugged, subscribe to numerous Progressive political viewpoints, buy into the left's smears against Christians and Conservatives who value liberty, (and despise them with the same intensity one should despise Collectivists), and be an evangelist for Objectivism.
To me, it seems as if the message *has* changed.
Dead right about that last point you made, PC. That's got much to do with it, I believe.
TW: I like that. Keep coming up with this stuff, plse.
"As time went by, to remain a committed Libertarian ..."
Not true in my case, Red. Not at all.
1. Still haven't read Rand even though I'm familiar with many of her quotes
2. Don't smear anyone's religion for the sake of it*
3. Support anybody who's pro-freedom on any issue
4. Don't despise Conservatives, but do they even exist? Most of the blue team aren't blue anymore, as we note ad nauseum ..
5. Not an Objectivist per se, never have been or professed to be, even though I adhere to most of its philosophy
But I'm a libertarian, a member of Libertarianz & I fully support its principles. And if your claim isn't true in my case, it may not be true in others.
*Goes without saying that I'll have a go at any religion, or organisation, that espouses socialism or totalitarianism, etc.
Copy new files
35 votes? That's even less than the 150 I predicted.
And who gets the blame? The voters of course!
Way to go libz. Next time buy a mirror before contesting an election. You guys really have no clue how to connect with actual people.
And take it from me: it's not with policy. Policy is the last thing people vote for. They vote for people. And that with good reason I might say.
It drives me nuts when the Libz complain of students not understanding freedom aligned concepts, when the Libs themselves have actively supported progressive policies that have made it easier for the Collectivists to achieve this outcome.
Much of the success of the Collectivists is down to a long term assault on the family unit, religion and Conservatism, and the Libs in their misguided idealism, have often assisted them in this assault.
The idea is to break down the influence of parents, traditional morality and conservative values, separate children from their parents and re-educate them with collectivist values in pre-school centers, primary and secondary schools and universities.
Family breakdown is a social outcome the Collectivists desire for it allows them to get to children. Always their most favoured objective. Leftists live to indoctrinate children.
One of the most powerful restraints on this indoctrination is the solid and traditional family unit, where children are taught values that counter those the Collectivists promote.
The more libertine the society, the more family breakdown, the more traditional and conservative values are side lined, the easier it is for Collectivists to install their own ideas in the minds of children.
The Libz have done more than their fair share of promoting the Progressive ideas that have been at the core of the left's attacks on the family unit.
Kids don't get liberty because thanks to the destruction of the family unit, there is virtually no counter to the indoctrination they suffer in the brainwashing camps commonly referred to as the education system.
It was more than double the general election result in Mt. Albert to be fair.
RedBaiter
What a lot of arbitrary nonsense you've posted (again). As is usual you continue to spout random accusations and made-up stories. Of course, what usually occurs whenever you are challenged on specifics, or required to back your assertions with fact, is your immediate descent into ad hominem and more fibbing.
Before we get into demolishing your latest collection of random nonsense there is one little thing that needs to be addressed.
Some while ago you were politely asked to go away, leave the site, cease and desist from posting here. That was solely due to your poor behaviour. Yet you keep trespassing. Like a common thief, you don't recognise property rights when it suits you not to. that requires rectification. You sure need rehabilitation.
What you need to do is post an apology to PC for your poor behaviour. You need to acknowledge the error of your ways, the name calling, the fibbing, the perversities you spouted, the ad hominem, all of it. You need to apologise to the readers of this site who, among other things, you characterised with your unsubstantiated fibbing, name calling and other uncivil nonsense. You need to admit to what you've done and say sorry. Then you need to undertake not to do it again. No more posting of that sort of rubbish again. After that you can politely request from PC permission to contribute here.
PC is a reasonable man. He'll listen and he is generous. You should make the effort so that you can at least retrieve some personal integrity. If PC accepts your request, then you won't be a common trespasser any more.
Final point, you'd be well advised to stay away from ad hominems and such in future. Debate the issues but accept that when you are challenged (and you will be) you'll need to come up with substantive fact to defend your assertions. If you can't, then accept your position is likely in error.
LGM
LGM: If he's a troll, he's a troll with some very good points. I've not seen any ad hominem attacks in his arguments?
Also, property rights on a blog are enforced by controlling who can post. PC has the power to deactivate RB's account if he chooses, and disable anonymous postings as well. If RB tries to circumvent that, then it's the time to talk about property rights violations.
To be clear, I'm not defending RB, but it seems a bit sad if someone can't state their views (however controversial, before a given audience) and generate some debate.
As a newcomer to Libz (though a longtime lurker here at NotPC), I think questioning of values and strategy is an extremely healthy thing. Long may it reign! I'm still forming mine, and while I lie strongly on the Objectivist side, it's a philosophy like any other - open to question and challenge.
Of course, RB, if you are just another troll... kindly piss off! ;)
Look who's talking?
LGM, you stated that RB should stay away from ad hominems and such in future, but you're the most vile person in blogoshere that I've ever come across that does ad hominem attack here on this blog on a regular basis. If you don't believe me, then I can do a local search on Not PC to bring up all your past vile attacks.
I've been lurking around this blog for a while and I don't like you frequent put down to other commentators as somehow you're intellectually superior to them. You should practice what you preach first, before telling others not to do ad hominem attacks.
Settle, gents.
Red, there is no doubt that the left in particular has targetted the destruction of the traditional family unit. It's an old ploy. Nor is there any doubt that the educational institutions have been deliberately attempting to brainwash kids into accepting their collectivist philosophy for several decades now. I know it was happening in the 70s, because I was there. (Didn't work on me, ha ha).
It is also true that many, probably most, libertarians do not hold any religious allegiance .. and many are vocal in their criticism of religion in general, as is their right.
But here's the thing: regardless of their own beliefs, those same critics are rock solid in their belief in others' right to worship, in marked contrast to authoritarians who wish to *prevent* others from doing anything they dislike.
Nor is it true to say that libertarians have "assisted" the authoritarians in the 'assault' on the family unit. Conversely, we continue to (wearily) attack the Bradfords and Kiros in their efforts.
'Libertine?'. Libertine is a red herring in this argument.
Look, regardless of the issue, you're either a collectivist or an individualist -- and I know what I am.
Greig, you said: "PC has the power to deactivate RB's account if he chooses, and disable anonymous postings as well."
Actually, it's not quite that easy on a blogspot blog. And in any case, I try to rely on persuasion where possible. :-)
And just to clarify: As I've said before, Redbaiter is welcome to stay if he confines his arguments to arguments, instead of the inaccurate smears he was wont to post.
And in recent days he's mostly been doing that, and has posted some intelligent comments -- even if I haven't always agreed with him.
If he can keep doing that, I'm happy for him to stay.
Thanks everyone for your thoughtful comments.
Red, you said, "It drives me nuts when the Libz complain of students not understanding freedom aligned concepts. . . "
Actually, it wasn't even that they had a problem with "understanding freedom aligned concepts," but that they had a problem with reading comprehension itself.
They were completely unable to understand what they were reading, and blithely unaware this was a problem.
To be fair, there were other youngsters in better shape -- including a couple on our stand :-) -- but the number unable to even know they couldn't read or think successfully was worrying.
And the problem is not due to an assault on the family, since its the most "bourgeois" middle class nuclear families who insist on their kids attending the state's indoctrination centres religiously.
No, the problem is the intellectual takeover of the culture and the education system by the collectivists and the modern cult of unreason.
Which means the solution, I'd suggest, is to "do a Gramsci" in reverse, and take the culture back for reason.
The way to fight bad ideas is with better ideas.
Greig: Off topic I know, but you were right about the Emerson's Hop Harvest at Galbraith's.
We'v e done our very best to help empty the keg, and I've got to say it was all pleasure. Just as much fuin as helping to empty the keg of Emerson's March Madness that preceded it. :-)
PC - I noticed. Rocked up on Sunday, hoping there was still some left... all gone. The Croucher's Pale was on though, and very tasty it was too.
"No, the problem is the intellectual takeover of the culture and the education system"
Well of course we agree on this point, and if so, it gives rise to the question, what was the culture that the left have changed?
What was the culture that beforehand denied the leftists the means to integrate their ideas so completely?
I assert that it was a culture that was founded in Jeudo Christian Conservative ideas, and this is a culture that holds fast against the Progressives.
(BTW, for those who mistake my support for Christianity as the words of a religionist, I am not religious and have never been to a church to worship or pray. I merely support the right of any person to be religious if they so choose, and also attempt to highlight that secularism is a tool of the collectivists and the Progressives)
In another post Sus agrees that there is (almost) no right wing anymore. That is because the Progressives have incrementally destroyed it. Once again, it raises the question, if the collectivists have made such gains, especially in simultaneously controlling and destroying our education system, what has allowed them to do this?
I assert it is their long term attacks on (true) Conservatism,and they have been most successful in this by creating untrue perceptions of what Conservatives really are. By accentuating the bad and downplaying the good.
Without the social bulwark of Conservatism, there is very little defence against the left.
That is why today, the left's successes are occurring at an increasing rate. Conservatism has been maligned and attacked for so long, and as a consequence, there is so little of it remaining, that nowadays, the Progressives have a pretty clear run to home base.
The NZ libs need to ask themselves, 'why do so many prominent overseas Libs describe themselves as Conservative Libertarians'?.
Something has driven 7000 voters from the Libertarian cause. I assert it is the Lib's embracing of Progressive political ideas and their public refusal to identify with the right of the political spectrum.
"secularism is a tool of the collectivists and the Progressives"
So are words and air, and food, but it doesn't make those things inherently "collectivist".
I assert it is their long term attacks on (true) Conservatism,and they have been most successful in this by creating untrue perceptions of what Conservatives really are.
So you don't think it has anything to do with preying on people's natural propensity to try and make decisions that benefit themselves, and who are therefore likely to be sucked into the welfare trap? Once they are sucking on the teat it's pretty hard to get them off it.
Without the social bulwark of Conservatism, there is very little defence against the left.
I don't see either of them as any better than the other. They both want to force their views on you.
Conservatism has been maligned and attacked for so long, and as a consequence, there is so little of it remaining, that nowadays, the Progressives have a pretty clear run to home base.
Would you prefer to return to the days where you were burned at the stake for not believing in the local preferred creation myth?
The NZ libs need to ask themselves, 'why do so many prominent overseas Libs describe themselves as Conservative Libertarians'?.
Why the hell should anyone care how they describe themselves? They aren't us.
Something has driven 7000 voters from the Libertarian cause. I assert it is the Lib's embracing of Progressive political ideas and their public refusal to identify with the right of the political spectrum.
So it couldn't possibly be anything else like:
- lack of media coverage
- change of personalities
- availability of other options
- the preference to vote for a larger party to get rid of Helen Clark
- poor marketing
- change in the amount of resources for campaigning
- giving up in frustration following the realisation that a vote for Libz may be a wasted vote
- maturing of MMP which has seen the vote for all smaller parties decline
- any other policies that Libz may have put forward that people might have disagreed with or thought impractical
- diaspora of the kind of voters to whom Libz has appeal
- etc etc.
For those people who do support Libz, one of the key drivers does seem to be the purity of their philosophy. You, Red, are in a minority. If you don't like what the Libz stand for, why don't you just vote for someone else and stop nagging at them to turn into something they don't want to be?
".. it gives rise to the question, what was the culture that the left have changed?"
Which you answered: a conservative culture based, in varying degrees, upon Judeo-Christian principles. Fair enough.
But rather than promote or support the "social bulwark of Conservatism" to oppose the left, why would you not shift the goal posts altogether? Change the argument altogether in order to nullify it?
And that change of direction is best encapsulated in the promotion of *individualism*.
Which then allows me to support the right of the bible-basher to publicly froth at the mouth over, say, prostitution and the feminazi to whinge about whatever feminazis whinge about -- while, and this is point, being able to publicly disagree with both.
Or support the respective rights of the parent to discipline her child as she sees fit and the dope-smoker to enjoy his product, irrespective of my personal preferences.
Do you see the point I make? By shifting the goal posts, you show the socialists up for the controlling authoritarians they are.
I assert that *individualism*, not conservatism, is the bulwark against all authoritarianism, including the leftist authoritarianism that's currently in vogue.
Sus- So are you advocating more of the same then or what??
I thought that the consensus was moving to the idea that something had to change if the Libs were to progress.
In spite of their brave and persistent efforts, the bottom line is they are not making much progress. I'd say they're back sliding overall actually.
Mr. Cresswell talks about using Gramsci in reverse. (facetiously I think, or maybe not) Reminded me of a joke.
Q- What did the snail say when he hitched a ride on a tortoise.
A- Wheeeee..!!!!!
Y'know, the progressives have at least made progress. Fairly substantial actually. Otherwise why are we all moaning?
What are the Libz aiming for?
300 votes in Mount Albert 2050??
You say the goal posts should be shifted to "individualism". I say that's too great a step. Out of character with Gramsci policies anyway.
The way is incrementally.
Which I would suggest means first get back to Conservatism, (individualism anyway really) and then if you still deem it necessary, press on towards a greater degree of individual freedom.
Whilst you are surrounded by Progressives, you have a far less chance of success. While you adopt Progressive policies, you cannot even start to apply Gramsci principles because you're actually going in the wrong direction.
Let's face it. You've been trying to intermingle Libertarian ideas with Progressive ideas and have lost 7000 votes.
If you mingle (true) Conservative ideas with Libertarianism, at least you're Gramscying in the right direction. And as your ideas gain in popularity, you have increasing sympathy for your views rather than the institutionalised antipathy that results from an increase in Progressive culture.
BTW, appreciate the lack of rancour. Keep that up, and you'll have me completely off balance :)
twr nailed it with this:
For those people who do support Libz, one of the key drivers does seem to be the purity of their philosophy.
The reason Libz will never be like other parties is that by their very nature, they can't compromise. You can't just chuck out the concepts of individual liberty because they're not popular. You can't embrace any form of collectivism (especially, in my opinion, "right wing" conservatism) because it might act as a bulwark against the advance of the left. The left aren't the enemy, nor are the right. Collective and socialist mentality is the enemy. We have to find a way to get people to want to be free, self-deterministic, and responsible for their choices again.
It's a hard sell, but at least very few people would deny that these are "virtuous" values. It's pretty hard to paint someone advocating personal responsibility and freedom as evil. That's a huge strength. We need to capitalise on it.
Hello Frazer
There is a place for ad hominem, particularly when the subject previously demonstrated that the term employed is an accurate description. On the other hand the method is not so useful when there is no argument of substance to accompany it or back it up.
To clarify, I encouraged Red to stay away from the technique as it doesn't compensate for his lack of substance (e.g. regarding the topic of the nature of people who are Libertarianz members or who support the philosophy of that political group). He does better when he avoids it and makes a substantive point (which he has to be prepared to defend or, if necessary, admit is erroneous).
Turning now to your wee effort. According to you I'm the most vile person in the blogosphere that you've ever come across!
Such emotion! Such passion!
Calm down little man.
That sort of silliness is childish as well as dishonest. Either you have not had much experience in life (BTW you should ask your mummy to disable NetworkNanny on her computer so you can use it to properly explore the web, blogosphere and all- better option, buy your own machine) or the assertion is an example of your breatless hyperbole. Perhaps it is both. In any case, try to grow up and attain a semplance of maturity. You should learn to do better.
Anyway, it certainly is time to stop with the "lurking" and get involved some. It's good to take part in the blog. Post your ideas. Join the debate. It is fun. Are you up to it?
LGM
You sad patronisisng stupid dumbfuck. If there was ever anything that would discourage thinking people from joining the Libs it is your deranged infantile ranting.
Wow.
"So are you advocating more of the same then or what? I thought that the consensus was moving to the idea that something had to change if the Libs were to progress."
I'm advocating same message, but different *methodology* in the spread of it.
Can't change "the message", Red: personal freedom and personal responsibility. How could I possibly advocate watering it down? That's how ACT tripped over itself.
But methodology/strategy, etc, can be changed at any time.
Picking your battles wisely would be a good place to start, which is why I shall be supporting the move behind the referendum on the anti-smacking Act.
NOT because I'm in favour of referenda per se, but because I support parental rights and oppose that Act. This is my chance to *show* my opposition in that those bastards in Parliament show every sign of not overturning that statism of their own volition.
I see it as a vote for freedom; therefore I support it and the individuals who've done the work to orchestrate it, (even though I'm sure I'd disagree with other viewpoints they hold).
Different methodology?
OK, well fair enough I guess.
The main issue I think is that the Libertarians are seen to be gaining support and widening their influence.
Attracting corporate sponsorship, setting up schedules and objectives and milestones and really getting on with progressing the creed of individualism.
Its a bit too easy for a bunch of zealots to sit around feeling good about themselves and their "ideological purity" but actually acheiving SFA, wouldn't you agree??
Agree with your views on the referendum. See the left are already out there with the usual destructive propaganda campaign suggesting the question is badly worded. Same old same old.
And John key has said he will not act on it anyway. Just another socialist scam artist. As I said at Crusader Rabbit, you can take the man out of the state house, but apparently, you cannot take the state house out of the man.
Never easy is it?
LGM, stop trying to lecture us as this is your own blog. It is fuckwits like you that alienate people from joining the Libz. You should fuck off and establish your own blog where you can abuse anyone at will. Lets see if anyone would be keen to visit your blog.
"Its a bit too easy for a bunch of zealots to sit around feeling good about themselves and their "ideological purity" but actually acheiving SFA, wouldn't you agree??"
Yes I would. I do. Navel-gazing doesn't achieve much.
But in spite of the result, nobody could accuse the libs who went to work (in their free time I might add) in Mt Albert recently of navel-gazing.
Or others who travelled to The Fieldays to man the stand for four days.
As you say, it's never easy. It's bloody hard work; all the more so, given our size.
ps: Key has made a real mistake in saying what he said re the outcome of the ref. Shown himself to be just another member of the "we know best" club, after all.
Mind you, with his history of flip-flopping ... ;)
Ah, the Red reverts to his base state. Scratch the surface and there really isn't much to you is there?
LGM
Sus said: Picking your battles wisely would be a good place to start ..
Agreed.
Hello Frazer
Now you have established that you are quite the hypocrite yourself.
Think about it.
LGM
Sus
It is unlikely that the Libertarianz would have done well in a popular election, such as the recent one in Mt Albert. The whole Libertarianz ideology, that one is responsible for one's own progress through life, directly opposes the prevalent culture of today (with all its various "entitlements" and safety nets and interferences provided by the ever-generous reichministerium). With present difficult economic conditions resulting in much insecurity, it is natural that many people do retreat to the familiar and the comfortable. They believe that a super-human entity (be it a god or a government) exists to look after them in their time of fear and need. The Libz directly oppose all of that muck. That is not going to win a popularity contest (an election).
Sometimes an analogy can be helpful. Try this one. It is sometimes said that there are no atheists in foxholes. What this illustrates is how people indoctrinated in a blind faith find it very difficult not to return to that system of thought when faced with an extremely stressful situation. While being in a foxhole during an artillery bombardment is a extreme circumstance, the point to take is that people generally revert to that which they know when placed under significant challenge, stress or insecurity. Hence it was always unlikely that the Libz would receive a large positive response. That situation is likely to persist. The familiar generally wins over the foreign.
Anyway, freedom is not a popularity contest. It is an unpopular ideal, attained by conscious continued application and effort.
LGM
Correct, LG. And I know that you know that I know that. But that doesn't mean that I should stop trying to promote freedom; that I throw my hands up in defeat, does it?
I was out there in Mt Albert.
Worse, a number of the homes marked for destruction (for the Waterview project) were Housing NZ homes occupied by the entitlement-getters or whatever we're calling beneficiaries these days. You could pretty much spot them by the ACC-funded ramps out the front. Those same punters with whom I spoke barely knew what day it was, let alone what freedom & responsibility entail. More than one had no idea that Boscawen, Lee & Norman were already in Parliament ...
I also wondered if any of them were those that ring my bloody 800 number in error! What's that about what goes around, comes around?! ;)
Your last line reflects my own thoughts. But that should never stop us from trying or suggesting new strategies, eh.
Aha! You must be one of those twisted sickos that likes good productive hard work!
Could be a drink in it for you then. Call and see.
LGM
Bet you say that to all the boys ...
;)
Sus
Oi!
LGM
Post a Comment