Wednesday, 22 December 2010

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: Jellyfish and broken arses

Libz leader Dr Richard McGrath ransacks the newspapers for stories and headlines on issues affecting our freedom.

      This week:  Jellyfish and broken arses

  • NZ HERALD: “Plan opens ACC to private insurersAccident Compensation Corporation Minister Nick Smith confirms his decision “in principle” to allow competition in the workplace insurance market…

THE DOCTOR SAYS: Talk about spineless! If Nick Smith believed privatizing the Accident Compensation Corporation was right “in principle,” surely he would just do it rather than pussyfooting about seeking a “mandate” from voters. Either the man believes privatisation is the right thing to do, or he doesn’t. Simple as that.
    This blue-green invertebrate had six months to consider a “stocktake” on the ACC which recommended it exit the market for workplace insurance. And still he rejected doing it!
    Let’s face it, Nick Smith is a blue socialist, a supporter of big government, and any downsizing of the state will only happen over his dead body. That’s why you should NOT waste your vote on the BlueLabour Party, and instead consider voting for a party that has unflinchingly supported the privatisation of workplace insurance because it is the moral thing to do.
    This piss-weak effort from tree-hugger Smith is just further confirmation that BlueLabour are too scared to act on principle in case someone, somewhere might take offence.
    For the record, a Libertarianz government would not postpone decisions until after the next election. It would carry out its pledges according to its principles of individual sovereignty, private property rights, limited government and capitalism (essentially the same thing expressed in four ways).
    ACC could be gone by lunchtime, with employers and workers given the choice of whether they wanted to insure themselves or to carry their accident liability risk themselves.
    If Nick Smith and BlueLabour really believed privatizing ACC was the right thing to do, they would have done it early last year. Don’t waste your vote again on these jellyfish. Next year is election year. Turn over a new leaf and vote according to your core beliefs. If you believe in the justice of the free market, and in getting government out of your life, there is only one party that fits the bill – LIBERTARIANZ.
    After all, are you any better off now than you were under Helen Clark?    

THE DOCTOR SAYS: What a breath of fresh air! At last, someone from a mainstream political party in the Western hemisphere who recognises drug prohibition is a failure and decriminalisation is the answer.  
    Bob Ainsworth gives the reasons why the government should leave adults alone to make their own decisions about self-medication: “Prohibition fails to reduce the harm that drugs cause in the UK, fuelling burglaries, gifting the trade to gangsters and increasing HIV infections. The war on drugs creates the conditions that perpetuate the illegal trade.”
    Ainsworth envisages a system of regulated sales of drugs via doctors and pharmacies. I see this as a transitional policy until people become used to the idea that drugs can be accessed legally and safely. Eventually, adults should have access to low-cost, high-quality medication – and the best way to deliver that is via a free and open market.
    Only thing is – why didn’t Mr Ainsworth say all this during the thirteen years his party was in government? Already, Labour party leader Ed the Red Miliband has shown himself incapable of abstract thought by his whining copout: “What about the children?”
    The children, Mr Miliband, are the responsibility of their parents who hold their rights in trust until the children are old enough to assume these rights themselves. No sensible person is advocating making drugs available to minors without the express permission and supervision of their parents.
    Anyway, parents administer potentially fatal drugs to their children every day – for example, paracetamol – with very low rates of overdose or other problems.
    Conservative Party deputy leader Peter Lilley is sympathetic to Mr Ainsworth’s sentiments, even if he makes the rather artificial distinction between “soft” and “hard” drugs.
    However, Tory crime prevention minister James Brokenshire disagrees, saying legalization “fails to address the reasons people misuse drugs in the first place, or the misery, cost and lost opportunities that dependence causes individuals, families and the wider community.”
    Bah, humbug. Perhaps Minister Broken-arse should consider the misery, cost and lost opportunities that decades of socialism (and, more recently, the Islamisation of large parts of the UK) has caused tens of millions of British people.
    The libertarian solution to the man-made problem of drug prohibition is to hand back to people dominion over their own bodies, and make the challenge of medicational misuse a health issue and not a criminal one.
    Let adults decide for themselves what they put into their bodies, but hold them responsible for the consequences of their actions at all times._richardmcgrath

And with that sage advice I bid you goodbye for 2010.
Enjoy the Festive Season, and I look forward to seeing you back in the New Year.
Doc McGrath


  1. "At last, someone from a mainstream political party in the Western hemisphere who recognises drug prohibition is a failure and decriminalisation is the answer."

    Decriminalisation is not legalisation. Decriminalisation refers to making possession/use of currently prohibited drugs a summary offence punishable by (typically) a small fine, comparable to a parking ticket. Manufacture and supply are usually still illegal under such a regime.

  2. "the misery, cost and lost opportunities that... the Islamisation of large parts of the UK has caused tens of millions of British people."

    Anti-immigrant hysteria? Really? So you have some reactionaries in the UK. Big deal. If they go to their graves swearing by Sharia, their children and their grandchildren will inevitably succumb to the overwhelming might of liberal democracy and advanced capitalism.

    It worked on the Christians, after all; once commanders of multiple global empires, the ancient, blood-stained death cult grows more irrelevant with each passing year. For most Europeans, piety is seen as something quaint and archaic. America's not quite there yet, but give it some time.

  3. Some great posts over the year Richard; thanks for them and look forward to more in the New Year.

    Merry Christmas to you also.

    Mark Hubbard

  4. I agree with Mark Hubbard. You have been a pleasure to read all year.

    Chris Robertson.

  5. @Finnegan Deuce

    Yes, I used the terms decriminalisation and legalisation interchangeably (as did the newspaper article) but I realise there is a distinction to be made between the two.

    Legalisation is the ideal, with decriminalisation a (hopefully brief) stepping stone on the way.

    Better as a halfway house would be legalisation of possession as per the Portugal system, with legalisation of supply following shortly thereafter.

    I oppose the immigration of death cults such as Islam, not people of any particular nationality. I hope you're right about future generations of Islams mellowing, but I'm not sure that's happening just yet. There are plenty of radically Islamic people out there preaching death to freedom.

  6. Mark and Chris

    Thanks; I've appreciated your thoughtful comments throughout the past year.

    Have a great summer.

  7. Thanks for the columns Richard - always entertaining and thought provoking.

    Would be good to see a decision from the Libz next year about exactly what they want to achieve from the election, ie representation or influence, and once that decision has been made, some focus on solid, clear plans to get there.

  8. CYFs Promises to Recruit Orang -Utans as Social Workers
    Headline created by "Monkey with typewriter" blogger, that PC most likely would have linked if not on holiday, and Dr McGrath type of topic to comment on
    "On the back of the most recent scandal involving the systematic torture of a nine-year old girl in Waitakere, and revelations that the social worker put her injuries down to being 'accident prone' CYFs have decided to 'raise the bar' for recruitment.
    'Formerly we only looked for rudimentary tool-making skills, but now we are seeing if our social workers can actually use tools to complete various tasks such as breaking nuts or extracting ants using a spit-covered stick.' said a spokesperson.

    Alarmed at the credulity of some of the new intake, they have replaced some of the aptitude questions in the entrance exam: 'For example, before, if presented with the excuse for online porn - 'It's research' previously they would have got a point for ticking 'I'd believe him and not bother to follow it up if he has a nice smile, or offered me a banana.' Now, of course we would expect them to recommend the person for counselling. If he gave me a banana.' said a spokesperson. 'Similarly, if a child is suffering systematic torture (which is now against the law), we will no longer accept the excuse 'she's accident prone. . . unless of course the parents are a bit frightening, or have bananas, in which case, we'll just leave it.'

    Other ways that CYFs intend to raise the bar are by weeding out candidates who think: that Maori are naturally good on the guitar if they have bananas, that all middle class white men are guilty of something if they don;t have bananas, that women can't abuse if they are offering bananas, and that if you swallow chewing gum it 'will wrap around your heart and you will die. Unless you eat a banana straight away.'

    'But mostly' said the spokesperson, 'we are looking to attract candidates who can communicate with a wider range of media than just throwing their own excrement at people when they are unhappy. We've considered chimps, but the union said they'd 'steal all the jobs' so we had to shit-can that. . . all we want are people or anything really, that knows how to solve basic problems - like that orang-utan who turned out to have more smarts than a human eight-year old. I mean it's not asking too much, is it?'

    A social worker was asked to comment, but was unavailable - apparently too busy inserting chewed-up leaves into various orifices before doing some 'Christmas Shopping' to come to the phone.

  9. the drunken watchman24 Dec 2010, 14:23:00

    I agree with the others who said thank you to you for your posts.

    Great stuff well said.

  10. However, Tory crime prevention minister James Brokenshire disagrees, saying legalization “fails to address the reasons people misuse drugs in the first place..."

    Bullshit. Precisely the opposite is true. It's making drugs illegal that fails to address the reasons people use drugs.


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.