tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post2643323008551826091..comments2024-03-22T11:55:50.335+13:00Comments on Not PC: "Vote like you mean it!"Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-2023313325728550082008-11-07T12:41:00.000+13:002008-11-07T12:41:00.000+13:00David et al.Some comments to your questions:1. Yes...David et al.<BR/><BR/>Some comments to your questions:<BR/><BR/>1. Yes I attended the anti-EFA march in Auckland as did many other libertarians. Why would we not? This was a march to oppose a law against free speech.<BR/><BR/>2. The marches were organised by John Boscowen (and bravo), not the ACT party. He went to great lengths to state that this was not tied to any political party. The fact that he subsequently is number 4 on the list provides no evidence that ACT has achieved anything in their time in parliament.<BR/><BR/>3. Libertarianz will support any group who advances an issue which provides for more individual liberty. I would march with the Greens on any march for the legalisation of drugs for example. Doesn't mean that I would no longer consider them evil, we just happen to agree on one particular issue. <BR/><BR/>4. The fact that ACT or National may agree with Libertarianz on one issue (ie against the EFA) which may promote individual freedom does not absolve them from my claim that they promote statist policies which are harmful to the cause for liberty. <BR/><BR/>5. Given you consider Libertarianz to be insignificant in the NZ political landscape, then why are you wasting your time debating these issues with what you (and your fellow ACT/National supporters) claim to be a small group who has achieved nothing? Just ignore us and go away.<BR/><BR/>6. If you were truly advocating liberty and individual freedom, then instead of hurling invective at consistent advocates of liberty, you would instead be cheering Libertarianz on from the sidelines (while still voting for ACT for pragmatic reasons). And that, my friend, is why you and your fellow ACT supporters are so dangerous in the battle to promote liberty in NZ. It is the destructive sneering towards those who consistently advocate liberty and to those who advance ideas based on a solid philosophical foundation which is so destructive. For if the culture in NZ is to be changed to one that promotes individual liberty, then the pragmatic range of the moment approach you advocate can only prolong our return to a rational culture.<BR/><BR/>I shall no longer respond on this thread since I must return to work.<BR/><BR/>JulianAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-85497046608355750822008-11-07T10:49:00.000+13:002008-11-07T10:49:00.000+13:00Has Redbaiter changed his nom-de-plume?Has Redbaiter changed his nom-de-plume?Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-42243803582044284352008-11-07T00:57:00.000+13:002008-11-07T00:57:00.000+13:00Yes, individual freedom and Nazism have so much in...Yes, individual freedom and Nazism have so much in common. Eloquent arguments Nazibasher.Libertyscotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12741049550997300680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-2771895510401935032008-11-07T00:02:00.000+13:002008-11-07T00:02:00.000+13:00fuck the libertarianz you racist nazi cunts!fuck the libertarianz you racist nazi cunts!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-90755419019434678922008-11-06T22:35:00.000+13:002008-11-06T22:35:00.000+13:00Davy-boy said;"So please continue pontificating ab...Davy-boy said;<BR/><BR/>"So please continue pontificating about perfection, and leave us to man the pumps."<BR/><BR/>1) You came here and asked us for our thoughts. Which we gave. You are free to go back to polishing your knobs at any time.<BR/><BR/>2) You may be manning the pumps, but as we keep pointing out, your pumps are loaded with petrol. Until you stop preaching this wet idealism of "my vote counts" we can not move on with an approach based on realism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-40252132792154731142008-11-06T22:09:00.000+13:002008-11-06T22:09:00.000+13:00I'll be posting on this shortly, given I've had my...I'll be posting on this shortly, given I've had my shot at how to vote in electorates (which in most cases isn't that important).<BR/><BR/>There are three ways opponents of the Clark government can vote:<BR/>- Vote for a change in personnel but virtually no change in policy, so the advance to more government at best slows<BR/>(National).<BR/>- Vote for the growth in government to stop (ACT).<BR/>- Vote for a party that wants to radically shrink government (Libz).<BR/><BR/>Your vote has a tiny marginal difference on the outcome, it isn't that big a deal, but it is a statement of what YOU want.<BR/><BR/>That is why I am voting Libz. I want it to be a positive act, I want it recorded that I am one of the thousands who want substantially less government. I want to change the terms of the debate, not compromise with it for the sake of not offending or upsetting those who don't get it.<BR/><BR/>Freedom lovers voting National I just don't get. Freedom lovers voting ACT I can understand, because they would rather their vote count towards a new government for certain than risk the vote being counted and being redistributed. However your single vote wont change the government, but it will record what you believe in. If you want and believe in what ACT will do in the next 3 years, go for it, but don't pretend it is anything much more than what National used to be in the early 1990s.Libertyscotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12741049550997300680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-91493410322061593522008-11-06T19:56:00.000+13:002008-11-06T19:56:00.000+13:00Peter, thank you for your invitation. I will decli...Peter, thank you for your invitation. I will decline.<BR/><BR/>I regard Libertarianz principles and policies as "nice if you can get them". And I wish you luck. <BR/><BR/>But personally I don't see that you have any hope in a million years of convincing enough people of your ideas that it will ever happen. Things are more likely to get worse, instead. <BR/><BR/>I have had no response to my questions about the Anti-Electoral Finance Bill marches. We joined in with people from Act, National and probably other parties too to fight together for freedom from the Labour/Green/NZFirst monstrosity imposed on NZ. <BR/><BR/>And yet you regard your allies in that cause as "evil". As equivalent to the election-stealing Clark that so riled your leader that he issued a court challenge.<BR/><BR/>I do not share your idealism.<BR/><BR/>I'm a realist (since "pragmatic" is associated with all sorts of nasty compromise in your eyes).<BR/><BR/>Analogies are fraught with danger, because opponents can often find the edges where the analogy falters, and use that to try to defeat the argument. <BR/><BR/>Disclaimers aside, I see Libertarianz like a volunteer firebrigade, sitting around while the fire rages. There are other brigades trying to put out the fire using water hoses, foam, and even some with bucket chains. But the Libertarianz brigade is sitting around talking. Why? Because they are dreaming of a monsoon bucket. They have pictures of it on their station walls. They know it will be ideal for the job, (slightly overkill for this particular fire at the moment) but which they won't be able to afford until long after all of them, and all of the rest of us, are burnt to a crisp.<BR/><BR/>So please continue pontificating about perfection, and leave us to man the pumps.WWallacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14154851267085370864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-60299799686637712572008-11-06T19:42:00.000+13:002008-11-06T19:42:00.000+13:00Well fuck that. I'm voting for a party that will b...<I>Well fuck that. I'm voting for a party that will be in a position to lower my taxes after 8th November. I don't think the Libertarianz will be that party.</I><BR/><BR/>But (a) if there's a party in a position to lower your taxes, they'll do that whether you vote for them or not; (b) your vote isn't going to make a blind bit of difference either way; therefore the only sensible positions are either not to vote at all, or to vote for who you <B>want</B> to win, and not worry about their chances.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-51959865172214356502008-11-06T18:01:00.000+13:002008-11-06T18:01:00.000+13:00davidinnzI din't resort to anything, I identified ...davidinnz<BR/><BR/>I din't resort to anything, I identified fact. Obviously that makes you uncomfortable. Must be your guilty conscience. <BR/><BR/>What you have been attempting is to claim value exists in the "pragmatism" of abandonomg that which you value in favour of supporting its antithesis. I'm being most charitable by identifying that activity as delusional and its practitioners as bullshit artists. You should do your best to avoid partaking in their behaviour. <BR/><BR/>An interesting commentary on the practice was written back in the days of the slave trade. A well known figure wrote that he was anti-slavery. He did not support the contention that one should own another. He also wrote about how there were other people who, while agreeing with him in private (in secret), did not accept the contention that they ought to support and promote the anti-slavery cause themselves. They were "pragmatic". <BR/><BR/>The self-justification such people offered was that they supported those who might undertake to limit slavery slightly (perhaps regulate it a little more tightly and slightly "improve" the situation). After all, the promoters of the anti-slavery cause were known extremists. Anti-slavers were too marginal to count. They did not have sufficient support to attain government authority. <BR/><BR/>So, the idea of outright support for those who sought to ban slavery completely would not be countenanced by some of the very people who (privately) said they agreed with the notion of banning slavery completely. They excused themselves by simpering that the nation would never accept a ban. Therefore they did nothing save support the staus quo and rationalise that support. Presumably they sought to assuge their guilt by self-deception and delusion- or perhaps they were plain old bullshitters, liars and, at base, immoral themselves. Whatever the case, these were people who knew the practice was evil yet accepted its continuance. Why? Because they considered they were being "pragmatic". <BR/><BR/>What impotence!<BR/><BR/>Similar essays describing this type of curious rationalisation, along with the self-contradictory behaviours of its practitioners, have been written regarding the support of the "pragmatic" for the Nazis along with their treatment of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies etc. It's damning.<BR/><BR/>Lately I have been reading Solzhenitsyn. He too is scathing about people who pretend that it is practical to abandon principle and/or morality in support of an ill defined hope that somehow a miracle would change an undesirable evil into something else- somehow. In general these people put their blind faith in Comerade Stalin or the local commissar (who supposedly wasn't quite as bad as the rest etc). They were "pragmatic" indeed. Worth reading some Solzhenitsyn if you take the time to think about what he is getting at. But, I digress.<BR/><BR/>In the end, you are not being practical or realistic at all. Supporting the opposite of that which you value will not bring you closer to that which you value. <BR/><BR/>LGMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-88688927123623813912008-11-06T17:59:00.000+13:002008-11-06T17:59:00.000+13:00There is one argument and one argument only for vo...There is one argument and one argument only for voting ACT: that they're in parliament, and Libertarianz isn't.<BR/><BR/>That's it. That's the argument that I hear all the time.<BR/><BR/>Not that they have better policies, better arguments, or even better people that Libertarianz -- which they emphatically don't.<BR/><BR/>And the point ignores a couple of other things. It ignores the way real political change happens: not through bums on parliamentary seats, which is after all only a reflection of the culture whose votes help to fill those seats, but by ideas being replaced with better ideas.<BR/><BR/>If you want more freedom, you need to actually <I>promote</I> freedom, and the ideas that underpin it. And you need to promote them honestly, openly and consistently. You need to argue for it, and explain its benefits.<BR/><BR/>But ACT has never ever done that. Ever. Instead, they've resiled from freedom themselves.<BR/><BR/>No policy to dump the RMA.<BR/>No policy to end the war on drugs.<BR/>No policy to dump the Treaty and replace it with a new constitution enshrining real individual rights.<BR/>And now,at this election, no policy even to cut spending, or to cut the size of government -- just to "cap" both in accordance with the inflation rate!<BR/><BR/>Fact is, ACT has been absolutely hopeless at promoting freedom and at being ambassadors for freedom -- hell, Roger Douglas doesn't even know it's <I>about</I> freedom; and rather than calling for 0% tax, as they once did, ACT's current economic policy calls for an <I>increase</I> in the size and spending of government -- and as the perceived exemplars of freedom, it's no wonder all their presence has done is to diminish demand for the product.<BR/><BR/>Rather than giving freedom and free markets a good name, they've made it instead a byword for mendacity.<BR/><BR/>Or haven't you noticed that, Davo?<BR/><BR/>But, failing to understand that point, the argument from the punters still goes "They're in there, and you're not."<BR/><BR/>So in that case, since their mere presence in parliament is all that gets you excited, perhaps you could tell me then what ACT have actually DONE in all those years in parliament -- that is, <I>actual concrete achievements that have advanced the cause of freedom</I> to show for all their twelve bloody years pretending to be a freedom party.<BR/><BR/>Answer: bugger all.<BR/><BR/>But, I hear you say in response, that you're deaf to all that, and that ACT are just the best of a bad parliamentary bunch.<BR/><BR/>So what if they were?<BR/><BR/>If the choice is between being strangled slowly or having my throat cut quickly, I prefer to choose neither. Which is to say that the default position for voting is not to presume one should vote for someone and pick the best of a bad bunch, one who will perhaps just strangle you slowly, but to presume one would not vote at all <I>unless</I> one could find someone with whom one agreed.<BR/><BR/>And since I couldn't do that, I and my colleagues helped found a party we <I>could</I> vote for.<BR/><BR/>It's called Libertarianz. And that's where my vote is going on Saturday.<BR/><BR/>I invite you to join me.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-17448846543162668782008-11-06T17:06:00.000+13:002008-11-06T17:06:00.000+13:00Come on Dave, give Key a chance to violate individ...Come on Dave, give Key a chance to violate individual rights!<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you that there are better ways to achieve change than standing for Parliament (well maybe Blair :-))<BR/><BR/>As for flag waving, libertarians tend not to go in for that collectivist nonsense. It's more about not sanctioning evil (and all those excellent points Julian made).Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510709497077490801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-79820123983250979222008-11-06T16:24:00.000+13:002008-11-06T16:24:00.000+13:00Agreed, Sean, It is not silly to check your premis...Agreed, Sean, <I>It is not silly to check your premises. It is called logic.</I> The "ad finitum" was the silly bit.<BR/><BR/>The attitude you are taking to party voting appears to be in the same league as:<BR/>* Workers Party<BR/>* The Bill and Ben Party<BR/>* Alliance<BR/>* Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party<BR/>* Democrats for Social Credit<BR/>* Direct Democracy Party<BR/>* New World Order<BR/>* New Zealand Pacific Party<BR/>* The Family Party<BR/>* The Kiwi Party<BR/>* The Republic of New Zealand Party<BR/>* Resident's Action Movement<BR/><BR/>I'd call it "symbolic flag waving" at best, and "sideshow grandstanding" in less charitable moments.<BR/><BR/>The Darnton v Clark effort was far more effective in raising your profile. <BR/>(Notice, incidentally, that it was Darnton v <B>Clark</B>, and not Darnton v <B>Key</B> for those of you who believe that National is more evil than Labour?)WWallacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14154851267085370864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-11152333677533608102008-11-06T16:08:00.000+13:002008-11-06T16:08:00.000+13:00Blair,Working to change public opinion (or culture...Blair,<BR/><BR/>Working to change public opinion (or culture) is the most important thing. Without it you won't win any votes nor raise a Militia.<BR/><BR/>Still, thanks for the campaign advice.Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510709497077490801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-76725228623456904732008-11-06T16:03:00.000+13:002008-11-06T16:03:00.000+13:00Hmmm well in order to legitimately claim I have us...Hmmm well in order to legitimately claim I have used "the false alternative fallacy", you have to show there is another alternative.<BR/><BR/>Standing for wonderful policies, but not trying to get elected, is not an alternative.<BR/><BR/>If the Libertarianz really wanted to get elected/build a movement, they'd pick one seat, raise $30k, find a charismatic candidate, and pour all their energies into it.<BR/><BR/>I don't see them doing that. Which tells me they care more about being right than changing the world around them.Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865567065778234500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-9274608010460155832008-11-06T16:02:00.000+13:002008-11-06T16:02:00.000+13:00I don't really feel I have to name any - it's ACT ...I don't really feel I have to name any - it's ACT for god's sake, their approach is fairly well known (so I thought). Anyway, a vote for ACT will get more freedom, a vote for anyone else is a vote for centrism/leftism and that's it, sez I!StephenRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08717556420960471541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-25132228849683534242008-11-06T15:59:00.000+13:002008-11-06T15:59:00.000+13:00Stephen said,"That's because ACT hates freedom - m...Stephen said,<BR/><BR/>"That's because ACT hates freedom - might as well vote Worker's Party for all the differences there are between the two."<BR/><BR/>It's true you haven't named any!<BR/><BR/>But you are not really in this predicament when you have the option to votes Libz, now are you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-7579187648660261652008-11-06T15:55:00.000+13:002008-11-06T15:55:00.000+13:00David,Thanks for posting the full context. My poin...David,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for posting the full context. My point stands. It is not silly to check your premises. It is called logic. <BR/><BR/>Nor is my point ad hominem. Pointing out the short-comings of your argument is revealing the truth. Truth is not a logical fallacy. If I said "you are a sheep-fucker therefore you are wrong" I would be commiting the fallacy, irrespective of your relationship with sheep, because your relationship with sheep is not a pertinent to the argument. (Note, David does not have any such relationship with sheep, this is just an illustration)<BR/><BR/>I know you did not make any religious reference to Key. That was purely for comic value. No need to respond.<BR/><BR/>You said;<BR/>"The only wishful thinking going on is in your expectations of the size of the Libertarianz party vote and the influence that they will have in this election for promoting freedom."<BR/><BR/>This is clearly not the position of any poster. Deal with the actual arguments please, not the ones you wish you were making, so could easily defeat.Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510709497077490801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-31015309100765492512008-11-06T15:51:00.000+13:002008-11-06T15:51:00.000+13:00LGM wrote: So much for the "pragmatic" bullshit ar...LGM wrote: <I>So much for the "pragmatic" bullshit artists and their delusions.</I> and a list of stuff about National.<BR/><BR/>Rational people don't need to resort to vernacular, LGM. <BR/><BR/>I have never defended National, and have challenged my local MP (Nat) on many of those issues.<BR/><BR/>Looks like a red (or blue) herring argument to me. You can be pragmatic without voting National.WWallacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14154851267085370864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-87633757431704938342008-11-06T15:27:00.000+13:002008-11-06T15:27:00.000+13:00Contention: National supports freedom.Some eviden...Contention: <BR/><BR/>National supports freedom.<BR/><BR/>Some evidence:<BR/><BR/>Resource Management Act<BR/><BR/>Kyoto<BR/><BR/>Agreed to impose a carbon trading scheme<BR/><BR/>Anti-smacking Bill<BR/><BR/>Slightly different version of EFA<BR/><BR/>And there is much more. Still that will do for a starter.<BR/><BR/>The evidence is that National is not pro-freedom. So much for the "pragmatic" bullshit artists and their delusions.<BR/><BR/>LGMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-78533533987856843062008-11-06T14:43:00.000+13:002008-11-06T14:43:00.000+13:00Sean, please stop quoting me out of context. What ...Sean, please stop quoting me out of context. What I actually wrote was:<BR/><BR/><I>From your other assumptions about my assumptions I assume... no, this is a silly way to debate. Better to state what you do or do not believe. Or ask questions.</I><BR/><BR/>Of course it is silly to write about what you assume that I assume that you assume that I assume, ad infinitum.<BR/><BR/>Also please do not resort to ad hominem attacks. <BR/><BR/>I have never said "John Key is our annoited (sic) saviour". I have reservations about him, as you do. I think we are yet to see the real John Key. <BR/><BR/>The only wishful thinking going on is in your expectations of the size of the Libertarianz party vote and the influence that they will have in this election for promoting freedom. <BR/><BR/>How many votes in Parliament against the Anti-Smacking Bill or the Electoral Finance Bill or any bill regulating our freedom of choice of lightbulb or showerhead will come from Libertarianz? I can count on Act to vote for freedom on these. That is not what I call "evil".WWallacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14154851267085370864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-25018230057393366032008-11-06T14:40:00.000+13:002008-11-06T14:40:00.000+13:00You have named exactly zero freedom loving policie...<I> You have named exactly zero freedom loving policies. </I><BR/><BR/>That's because ACT hates freedom - might as well vote Worker's Party for all the differences there are between the two.StephenRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08717556420960471541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-74128847700284978292008-11-06T14:38:00.000+13:002008-11-06T14:38:00.000+13:00Clunking Fist,It is important to abstain when you ...Clunking Fist,<BR/><BR/>It is important to abstain when you are faced with evil option A and evil option B. Voting for either is an endorsement of evil.Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510709497077490801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-9579749445265122662008-11-06T14:35:00.000+13:002008-11-06T14:35:00.000+13:00Stephen,You have named exactly zero freedom loving...Stephen,<BR/><BR/>You have named exactly zero freedom loving policies.<BR/><BR/>QED!Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510709497077490801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-54854295112102238152008-11-06T14:30:00.001+13:002008-11-06T14:30:00.001+13:00What was the Libz vote at last election; 300? Sorr...What was the Libz vote at last election; 300? Sorry, I can't help but feel that by voting Libz, your vote is as valuable as that of one who abstains.Clunking Fisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18020166717482531977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-73167253010457666352008-11-06T14:30:00.000+13:002008-11-06T14:30:00.000+13:00David,Here is your most recent comment on logic;"t...David,<BR/><BR/>Here is your most recent comment on logic;<BR/><BR/>"this is a silly way to debate."<BR/><BR/>Do not pretend you are any friend of reason and the application of reason to reality. You have clearly substituted wishfull thinking (John Key is our annoited saviour) for evidence.Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510709497077490801noreply@blogger.com