Wednesday, 4 November 2009

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: Rodney, Rick and Moral Cesspits

Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath takes his regularly irreverent look at some of the past week’s headlines.  Here are the headlines that caught his eye:

hood01 1. Ministers 'entitled' to dip into tax purse – >From perk-buster to perk-luster, Rodney Hide now slurps at the trough along with the other swine. Splitting hairs, he rationalizes that because the money had come from taxpayers via the Parliamentary Services budget, that was somehow better than if it came from taxpayers via the Ministerial Services budget. Rodney, those of us forced to subsidize you and your girlfriend on your overseas junket don’t make those sorts of distinctions.

What would a Libertarianz MP do in Rodney’s place? Firstly, he or she would pay their own way on overseas trips or not go at all. That would sort out which trips were really necessary and which ones were perks. My personal preference – not official Libz policy I hasten to add – would be to abolish all perks and for MPs to be self-funded or paid out of party funds.

Likewise election campaigns, with total freedom of speech (subject to liability for fraudulent and defamatory actions and utterances) and no limit on advertising or campaign spending. No compulsory funding of political parties you abhor and despise. Members of Parliament should meet only when necessary. Debates and voting could take place electronically. Bill English could stay ‘home’ in Dipton and vote from there on matters before the House.

If MPs needed to meet in person, they could hire a room somewhere for a day like the rest of us have to. The Beehive could be pulled down – it’s an architectural monstrosity anyway – and the prime land on which it sits  auctioned off to fund pensions and benefits for the elderly and permanently disabled or to pay off some of our overseas public debt.

Let’s get rid of a system that allows Rodney and others to milk the rest of us with shameless arrogance. Only the Libertarianz Party has the will to really change things. Give us your vote and put a stop to these and the other parasites that are sending this country broke.       

2. IRD on a roll with cheats – >Yes, the blood suckers are having a field day, thanks to laws that are unclear; that don’t firmly establish just how much the vampires can suck out of productive people. Even the big banks, with their teams of lawyers and accountants, are being clobbered, thanks to ‘greyness’ in our tax laws that leave the amount of tax ‘owing’ a matter of speculation. BNZ and Westpac found that out, to the tune of $1.6 billion.

This money is being lifted from investors and shareholders in these banks, who the Dompost calls ‘cheats.’ What an Orwellian twist on words. How can a person, or a company, acting in fiscal self-defence be labelled a cheat? It’s like calling a woman a ‘cheat’ for stopping a rapist from violating her body.

I didn’t think tax avoidance was illegal. Perhaps I’m wrong. But the pendulum has swung in favour of the Daywalkers – those who feed on human blood during daylight hours – thanks to subjective laws.

How would a Libertarianz government manage this gruesome situation? By doing what Grinning John is too scared to do. Cut government spending to the marrow. Stop paying child-killers to breed. Privatise funding of everything except justice, national defence and upholding the rule of law.

Abolish the IRD, destroy the files they hold on hard-working New Zealanders, and hold another inquiry into their loathsome activities. I am sure this could be funded by New Zealanders who have fallen victim to IRD persecution, and by others simply interested in seeing justice served.

Most importantly, replace the current wishy-washy legislation with objective law based on upholding individual rights so that the law was clear. If banks with unlimited legal resources can’t get their tax vulnerability sorted, what hope do the rest of us have?  

3. Insurer: Health bills out of control – Private insurers, such as Southern Cross, are struggling to cope with claims by members and policy holders for the costs of medical care. ACT MP John Boscawen is quite correct in laying blame at the feet of medical colleges – aided and abetted, I might add, by statutory bodies such as the Medical Council. It is the lack of competition, under the excuse of “maintaining professional standards”, that allows doctors and hospitals in a restricted market to charge high prices.

The cost of obtaining private medical care would plummet if restrictions were lifted and doctors from overseas were allowed to enter the market with no restrictions apart from the existing ones that punish deceit and coercion. That would encourage existing services to lift their game, our two medical schools to radically rethink how they operate (and open them up to competition), and cheaper more affordable alternatives in health care.

How would Libertarianz help free up the health industry? By removing the government as a commercial influence. By disbanding the Medical and Nursing Councils. By allowing different levels of care – such as nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants at lower cost than someone with full medical training. By removing subsidies for practitioners of the favoured Western style of medicine to establish equality without prejudice. By selling off our shamefully decrepit public hospitals. By devolving the health budget back to individuals, private insurers and voluntary groupings such as trade unions and friendly societies. By opening our borders to medical refugees from socialist hellholes such as the United Kingdom.

The high cost of private health care is a natural effect of state interference in the health industry. A free market, allowing health care pitched at varying levels of affordability, is the answer to the current mess.

barker_lying_scumbag 4. Editorial: Labour loses moral compass – The “Data Research Party,” with few exceptions, are lying scum. This scathing editorial confirms it, exposing the mendacious activities of some of its senior vermin. Take the odious Rick Barker, for instance. Chucked out by the voters of Tukituki, Barker sneaked back in as a list MP - reason in itself to dump MMP as our electoral system.

hughes_lying_scumbag Barker advocates his pollsters misrepresent themselves under a false banner.

goff_lying_scumbag Party whip Darren Hughes – a ginger whinger who’s another electorate reject - backs the duplicity of Barker, as does party leader Phil-in Goff.

I wonder how many other lies Labour told or covered up during their nine years in office. I commend the Sunday Star Times for doing this once something Barker, Hughes and Goff evidently can’t at all - telling the truth.

See y’all next week!
Doc McGrath


  1. Privatise funding of everything except justice, national defence and upholding the rule of law.

    I still completely fail to see why justice and policing - and probably defence to - cannot be privatised.

    I personally see no benefit to our tinpot army, navy, or airforce, strongly object to the UN and "peacekeeping", and find theft from my pocket to fund this morally repugnant.

    I take responsibility for my family and my property.
    I get no benefit from the state or the criminal "justice" system - yet I am forced to pay for it.

    And any commercial contracts I sign always have a clause requiring private mediator or arbitration.

    voluntary groupings such as trade unions

    Surely a Libz government should ban trades unions! Or at least remove all protections from them, which would have the same effect - as an employer, I'd take direction action to prevent union influence, or sue the union for the costs they imposed on my business - except of course both of those things are currently illegal in NZ.

  2. Richard McGrath4 Nov 2009, 13:07:00

    Sinner - a lot of the infrastructure of the justice system, defence force and policing could be privatised.

    For instance, if the govt respected every New Zealander's right to defend themselves against aggression by permitting ownership and carriage of firearms including handguns, a lot of police work would be avoided.

    I believe, like you, that a lot of what goes through our courts could be settled through mediation or arbitration. Much cheaper, quicker and agreeable to all parties involved. Largely I think this is just a matter of people becoming aware that such services already exist and are a good alternative in many cases to the clogged court system.

    In the case of national security, I believe the best action is prevention - by permitting free trade with as many countries as possible - including communist ratholes like Cuba. Countries that trade with each other don't tend to go to war - they look for other peaceful solutions to perceived conflicts.

    But letting the citizenry arm themselves to the teeth should be allowed and even encouraged, and tends to discourage invasion, as many Swiss would attest.

    I disagree with the banning of trade unions. I agree with the prosecution of trade unions that use coercion in, for example, recruiting members or during industrial disputes. But voluntary groupings of workers are fine. Hell, I'm the divisional chairman of a local union of sorts (the NZ Medical Association).

    I feel there has to be an over-riding government monopoly (almost chokes me to write that!) on justice, when parties are unable to settle their disputes any other way. This justice should be based on objective common law designed to protect our legitimate rights.

    Policing could be devolved regionally or locally with law enforcement the right and responsibility of property owners. There should be no clash of "competing police forces" when all property is privately owned.

  3. Yawn...haven't you caught up yet Richard? Hide was only spending his OWN deducted money...not extra from the tax pot.Louise cost $5000 to take away.Rodney had that money taken out of his total salary to cover just this thing.And he's the one who's been trying to end the"perk"and return the money to the total salary so this confusion amounst the tiny mined is avoided.

    Hands up all the Libs who don't drive on public roads inspite of being taxed to fund them...?

    You principled heros you.


  4. @James: You're not fooling anyone, you know.

    I doubt that your spin is even fooling yourself.

  5. So PC...please explain just how its troughing for an MP to recieve HIS OWN deducted money back in travel funding?

    Adolf(not ACT's greatest fan) laid it all out here..

    "Here's the part everybody has conveniently ignored.

    He has already paid for the perk through a lower salary. The Remuneration Authority deducts 100% of the average value of the international travel perk (around $6,900 per MP) from their salary. The Authority also deducts around $4,000 from MPs salary to cover the 45% of spouses domestic travel deemed of personal benefit.

    Make no mistake about it. The tax payer did not pay one penny toward Ms Crome's expenses. Mr Hide paid the lot. The trip cost no more than $6,000 - a far cry from $25 k of the sloppy and mischievous Caramel Mung-Goo from the Herald."

    Zing!Rodney vindicated.Chuck in all the millions he's saved over the years by fronting against dodgy bullshit,Winston,the IRD's brutality and self driving his own smart car it it turns out the taxpayer actually owes him quite a debt.

  6. Richard McGrath5 Nov 2009, 07:36:00

    James - from where has the money to pay Rodney's income arisen?

    You forget that politicians create nothing - they only spend other people's money. And they are remunerated from taxes levied on you and I. Doesn't matter how that money is laundered, it is still taken from productive people in the first place.

    Did Rodney earn that money by selling a product or service for which there was a real demand? No.

    I believe a politician's income should come from their own supporters, not the taxpayer. That would privatise the trough - I'm all for that. I want mine gold-plated ~:)

  7. Wouldn't it be great if politicians were paid by individual donations from their supporters. Then they could earn heaps when the people are impressed and their income would take a dive when they break their promises. Sounds like capitalism! The trouble is that in the current culture the MPs who provide lots of expensive handouts are probably the ones who would get the most donations - eek! There is no getting away from the need for cultural change and a constitution that limits government.

  8. Hang on a sec though. James has a point. Sure, ideally Mr. Hide shouldn't be paid by the public at all. Given that he is though, and if Adolf is 100% correct, no *extra* money has been taken by Hide. That is to say, the taxpayer is no better or worse off than if the trip never happened. Other than on the purest of ideological grounds, where is the beef?

    If I've misunderstood the circumstances here, by all means let me know.

  9. Ah James,

    How is it swallowing dead rats? You seem to be getting quite good at it. Please, keep going.


  10. "Did Rodney earn that money by selling a product or service for which there was a real demand? No."

    But in the real world he has a job and should be paid for doing it regardless.

    "I believe a politician's income should come from their own supporters, not the taxpayer. That would privatise the trough - I'm all for that. I want mine gold-plated ~:)"

    I don't disagree that politicians should be far fewer and therefore not being payed from the tax tit.

    But the fact is they ARE and while it is so the fact is that Rodney only spent what what is his earned money as an the rest of us would expect to do with ours.

    Pollies do need paying...or are we now saying they should work for free? Even in the Libertarian utopia State servants will get at least a few crumbs from us for their efforts no..?

    Fact remains...Hide paid for his girlfriend from money that was always his rightfully to spend.Nothing over and above was taken.

    Thank you least someone has been thinking.

  11. But voluntary groupings of workers are fine.

    Sure - provided there is no special legislation or exemptions for them. And for trades unions there most certainly are. If by organizing strikes or negotiation higher wages, a union causes costs to my business, I cannot sue a union to recover those costs plus damages - but if another company does, I can.
    That's the problem.

    There should be no clash of "competing police forces" when all property is privately owned.

    precisely - and I don't really see why that would be a problem anyway. It's called competition after all.

    This justice should be based on objective common law designed to protect our legitimate rights.

    I don't believe it is possible to have an "objective common law". I have great difficulty with the idea of "legitimate rights" vs "illegitimate rights".

    Even in the Libertarian utopia State servants will get at least a few crumbs from us for their efforts no..?

    In a Libertarian Utopia, there will be no State servants.

  12. There are still a lot of "ifs" there, James. Time will tell, I guess.

  13. "I don't believe it is possible to have an "objective common law". I have great difficulty with the idea of "legitimate rights" vs "illegitimate rights".

    Why? Its the difference between contradictory nonsense and non contradictory fact.

    Read this...explains it nicely

    "In a Libertarian Utopia, there will be no State servants."

    And we will have anarchic chaos.Can you imagine a rugby match without a referee to administer the rules objectively?

    Expand that to a whole society interacting and you see the problem with Sinners ideal.


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.