Wednesday, 14 October 2009

A republican dilemma

Remember that dilemma that Annie Fox offered you a few weeks back: You need a kidney transplant, but the only available candidate comes from a bureaucrat.

Another similar dilemma has just emerged this afternoon.  A bill to make New Zealand a republic has just been drawn from the parliamentary ballot – sponsored by Keith Locke . . .


  1. u: more likely worry at how many fake rights the constitution will attempt to enshrine ("the right to the preservation of the environment" - anyone want to bet?), and the sheer number of govt. departments it will require to support it.

    I'm terrified.

    Great opportunity for the Libz to educate people on why being a republic is a great idea though, so good on Keith for that at least.

  2. Hrm. It ate my "Rim" and just left the "u:".

    That sounds very wrong.

  3. Yeah I'm nervous about the prospect of sorting out a constitution too. Imagine if the far right managed to install a constitutionally limited democracy!

    Anyway, it seems like our political system needs a few more checks and balances, and maybe a constitution will help with that. Or maybe it'll become a millstone around our neck, like in the USA...

  4. I don't know where to begin... maybe I won't.

    Also, I hope you're not equating the Libertarianz with "the far right"?

  5. Republic ? Who would entrust the path to republicanism to this lot !
    [Or Comrade Locke, for that matter]

    Besides, with our pathetic lot of parliamentarians it'll take about 20 years of political pandering, hand-wringing and appeasing the Treaty evangelists before anything could even begin to happen.

    Greig / Rimu, watch this:

  6. Angus: You're preaching to the choir there. ;) If it wasn't clear, I was worried about exactly that.

    Love your avatar by the way.

  7. Certainly a dilemma; but as Locke is involved I have decided to become a militant Monarchist and support 'Queen over Communism'

  8. Since the monarchy is without a doubt the only thing keeping us from a racist constitution based on imagined rights derived from misunderstanding of the treaty of Waitangi, it's pretty obvious we're best to keep it.

    Honestly, if Keith Locke wants a republic, you can bet he has plenty of good reasons for it that would be anathema to anybody who values their freedom.

    And it's not like the Queen does anything to harm us.

  9. "Or maybe it'll become a millstone around our neck, like in the USA..."
    HUH? In what way is the U,S. Constitution a "millstone"?

  10. While I am a republican through and through, I would hate to see NZ draft a writtern constitution in the current socio-political environment. It would be full of guarantees of 'freedom from', which are not really freedoms at all (freedom from want, discrimination, obesity, hurt feelings, etc.)

  11. Read the fucking bill. It's not going to make NZ into a republic: it's going to make it into a the Socialist People's Republic of Aotearoa

    "The Bill contains special provision for the Treaty of Waitangi".. and so it goes..

    What NZ needs, more than ever, is an executive presidency, elected only by the productive who has full budget power without parliamentary supervision, and acts as commander in chief of both army and police.

    That's a change worth having. This once, Comrade Keith, Ulrike Bradford, Baader Mallard, most certainly is not!

  12. So, that's one Anonymous vote for Oligarchy then...

  13. Greig: As much as I disagree with the idea of only the "productive" being able to vote (which will probably devolve into a small political elite before long), the anon does have a good point.

    If NZ were to adopt full-blown republicanism before long, it would probably prove incredibly self-destructive because without the limits that the monarchy implaced on Government (even if more imagined than real), politicians would feel free to greatly increase their power. All they'd need to do is pander to the sheeple with increased welfare handouts.

    That is a real possibility in modern day New Zealand, and I'd choose an overseas non-interventionist monarch anyday over home-grown power greedy politicians.

  14. "All they'd need to do is pander to the sheeple with increased welfare handouts."
    Just as well they haven't done that yet Callum..;-)

  15. Indeed, KG. And as modern politicians know, there's no better way to amass vast power than to get large numbers of people dependent on the state.

    After all, people will go screaming at the thought of losing some of their handouts. Much better to become a drone of the state.

  16. Callum, and anyone else: Let's be clear. I am in favour of a republic, with the constitution enshrining the natural rights of life, liberty, and property.

    I see Locke's bill as a good thing ONLY in that it will encourage debate on a republic, thus allowing we who love freedom to educate those who are ignorant of what freedom requires. That's a good thing. I do NOT expect it to pass. I do NOT think that Locke's ideal republic is a good thing. I most certainly do NOT think that the current political climate would produce the sort of republic I would want to live in, and yes, I'd prefer the current monarchic situation to that horror.

    Hope that clears things up.

    I seem to spend a lot of time on here clarifying what I mean. Perhaps I suck at communicating. :(

  17. Best option is that which is going to actually occur. National "soverignty" is steadily headed off-shore. A while ago I posted what to expect for the future of NZ. In brief the present culture will be extinguished. Immigration will be dramatically increased as creditors demand more control over govt policy (which is fair enough). Expect several million new citizens and a significantly reduced standard of living for remaining "Kiwis" (present residents). Things will be especially tough for "baby boomers" and their children. The deal is you guys will have to work as you've never worked before, just to eat and have a warm shelter to sleep in. Things will get tough indeed.


  18. Thanks Greig.

    If it does stir debate, hopefully we can get libertarian ideas thrown into the mix.

  19. Be very clear, this is potentially a once in a lifetime opportunity. If it gets traction, it will be on the terms and conditions that a former communist has set.

    Is it better to create a new republic based on what the left want, so it is settled for a generation or to keep the monarchy until a truly limited constitutional republic can be created?

    Methinks the latter.

  20. , it will be on the terms and conditions that a former communist has set.

    Former communist?

    Once red always red.
    Once a commie always a commie.
    Once Labour always Labour.

  21. the natural rights of life, liberty, and property.

    Let's be clear: put those rights into the constitution and you'll have the lefties insisting that liberty protects trades unions, that the right to life requires a minimum wage, a benefit system and an health system. probably education too.

    the only thing you might like is that with wording about life, abortion would be banned.

    If we're going to have a constitution, make sure it really protects property, income, and wealth, and therefore productivity and the economy:
    * for example mandates a capped flat tax rate
    * forbid any benefits
    * forbid state involvement in health, education, and welfare


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.