tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post5522289798390598611..comments2024-03-29T10:51:27.752+13:00Comments on Not PC: Hide v Roy: The story of he and she [update 4]Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-2338917795907278852010-08-24T20:49:43.817+12:002010-08-24T20:49:43.817+12:00@F3: "[M]y kind of wacky reasoning is that su...@F3: "[M]y kind of wacky reasoning is that such radio waves may cause damage to living organisms in my property, such as bacteria, insects, worms, even humans (may cause cancer) or at worse, the radio waves may interfere with some taniwha's in the airspace in my property.<br /><br />My response to that is: take such a dispute to mediation where you will need to provide objective evidence of harm or interference caused by my actions, and I will then compensate you for any damage done and desist from further assaults on your property.Richard McGrathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-81080387485017687272010-08-24T20:45:37.643+12:002010-08-24T20:45:37.643+12:00@David S: "Resources have not been given out ...@David S: "Resources have not been given out to the most productive, or the most deserving, but by whoever is able to stick a flag in the ground and say, 'this is mine, try and take it from me'." <br /><br />That's true for the first owner of a piece of land. Often governments would gift settlers a hundred acres of previously unused land on which to eke out a living. In a libertarian society, any transfer of ownership of that land would be subject to common law.<br /><br />How on earth would you determine who was the most 'deserving' owner of a piece of land?Richard McGrathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-24986159542545111582010-08-24T20:38:08.500+12:002010-08-24T20:38:08.500+12:00@Jameson: "The RMA seems the likely ammo, dis...@Jameson: "The RMA seems the likely ammo, discharged in a rural community that's been royally rooted by it."<br /><br />That's been raised in the past, and it's worthy of serious consideration. Thanks for the suggestion.Richard McGrathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-72951839964935990112010-08-24T20:35:28.229+12:002010-08-24T20:35:28.229+12:00@F3: "Do we want to ban political protests ap...@F3: "Do we want to ban political protests apart from doing it from our own houses/properties? Where is the freedom to protest then?"<br /><br />A few points:<br />1) Yes, I want an end to the 'tragedy of the commons' scenario of public ownership where common property is exploited by people who then refuse to take responsibility for their actions.<br /><br />2) People can still use private property - the worldwide web, airways, television, private stadiums, etc. - to protest. Nothing is stopping them from coming to a mutual agreement withy the property owner. There's no such thing as a free lunch. In fact the government should levy people for using public roads to protest, just as they impose road user charges on vehicles that ride over those roads. A private road owner might be happy to let Minto et al preach socialism all day long for free. It's a question of mutual agreement and free association.<br /><br />3) The right to protest does not mean a right to be provided with a soapbox, a pulpit and a microphone, paid for with other people's money.Richard McGrathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-70340287776616107302010-08-24T19:31:12.795+12:002010-08-24T19:31:12.795+12:00PaulB, here is why I don't support privatizing...PaulB, here is why I don't support privatizing roads. Political protests is vital for free-speech. Let me ask you this. Do you think that any sane road owner/s would allow John Minto, Sue Bradford, Matt McCarten to use their private roads for protest? I seriously doubt that a single road owner would allow this? If you think that I am mistaken here, then give an explanation of why would a road owner allow the likes of those mentioned above to use their private roads for political protests? Perhaps you an mention some hypothetical road owners (eg - Skycity) who would allow those protesters on their roads? The recent protests by unionists (Bradford/Minto/McCarten, et al) at the Skycity was an invasion of private property, however I would be happy for them to protest from the public road opposite the Skycity. Had the roads being in private hands, then I seriously doubt that the owners would allow those unionists to use their roads to protest against John Key's (and National) conference at the Skycity.<br /><br />Do we want to ban political protests apart from doing it from our own houses/properties? Where is the freedom to protest then? Think about it carefully. I marched down along Queen St to protest against EFA (during Labour - 2006)? Protest is vital for democracy. Once we privatize roads, then we see massive banning of political protests in using private roads.Falafulu Fisinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-58309212074726674762010-08-24T16:20:03.599+12:002010-08-24T16:20:03.599+12:00@David S:
I have no problem with joint or group o...@David S:<br /><br />I have no problem with joint or group ownership. I understand collective ownership to mean universal state ownership of an asset. Group ownership is something different; anything owned by a company is owned by its shareholders.<br /><br />As far as roads go, I know they have existed for thousands of years, but who's to say they won't be obsolete in 50 years from now, or do you know something I don't?Richard McGrathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-9286993504112979712010-08-24T11:55:10.065+12:002010-08-24T11:55:10.065+12:00It's a question of strategy, not policy.
The...It's a question of strategy, not policy. <br /><br />The reason why the Libz aren't getting traction is because they're not focussed. A shot gun against a tank is utterly useless, but one well-aimed round through the driver's lookout can create all kinds of havoc. <br /><br />There's no budget and no resource. Their best chance is one candidate in one small electorate addressing one pain-point. Be unashamedly a one issue party — like the Greens — campaigning to dedicate your entire term to nailing it. Then, like the Greens, Trojan Horse the rest of the army.<br /><br />The RMA seems the likely ammo, discharged in a rural community that's been royally rooted by it. From the RMA it's only a short step to summating the entire Libz constitution under the umbrella of private property rights. But the trick is to sell it as one policy directed at one problem.<br /><br />Give the local candidate a run for his money and the media will provide the advertising. At the very least it'll soften them up for a push in 2014, and perhaps attracted an investor or two.<br /><br />Getting the good doctor into the Beehive has to be the priority, and the only way to do that is accept the reality that the Libz are seen as hard-right-wing. The campaign has to neutralise that by offering a single promise that will positively effect the lives of the electorate. <br /><br />And we mustn't forget, farmers generally trust their doctor.<br /><br />madamex@clear.net.nzJamesonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-82506028328420281212010-08-24T11:41:17.683+12:002010-08-24T11:41:17.683+12:00Paul, what happens if someone finds some uranium/p...Paul, what happens if someone finds some uranium/plutonium mineral source in his/her property? I am sure someone in South Auckland would want to sell it to the Iranians? But I bet that some Libertarians would feel uncomfortable with such poor person in South Auckland doing that. Those same Libz would have no problem with the government stepping in to ban such person selling his uranium/plutonium to the Iranians, and this is the position that I would take, i.e., the government ban such person for doing so. But Libertarians who support such government ban would be contradicting their principles? Where is the freedom of that citizen who owns the plutonium to do what he wishes? <br /><br />The other examples, is that some libertarians would support the restrictions placed by US government on the sales of high tech equipments to countries like Iran, North Korea and so called rogue states? IBM had been forbidden in the past from selling super-computers and advanced technologies to states that the US government view as a threat to US interests or world peace. But aren't those companies should be free to do what they like? They should be allowed to sell their technologies to whoever they want to sell to? My point here is that some Libertarians would support the US government banning & placing restrictions on the sales high tech equipments to rogue states and at the same time bitching about the government should not interfere in the market, blah, blah, blah! In fact, I support the banning of sales of high tech equipments to rogue states, I am pro-government on there.Falafulu Fisinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-22603210203104165502010-08-24T10:55:04.252+12:002010-08-24T10:55:04.252+12:00FF,
Your property rights are not respected by gove...FF,<br />Your property rights are not respected by government ownership of the airwaves either - the taniwhas are still getting interfered with.PaulBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-37139619185896018132010-08-24T09:57:59.707+12:002010-08-24T09:57:59.707+12:00The idea of privatizing roads is insane. Why don&#...The idea of privatizing roads is insane. Why don't we start privatizing the atmosphere? Privatizing the airspace? I don't want to listen to radio-left-wing therefore their transmission radio-frequency must not pass thru my airspace even though I will never tune in to that station. Well, my kind of wacky reasoning is that such radio waves may cause damage to living organisms in my property, such as bacteria, insects, worms, even humans (may cause cancer) or at worse, the radio waves may interfere with some taniwha's in the airspace in my property.<br /><br />Once you start doing all this privatization, then the very concept of freedom disappears. Specific junk of land can be privatized, businesses can be privatized, but for fuck sakes don't privatize the atmosphere, airspace and public roads, because doing so, will kill freedoms that the Libz supports. Something can be privatized and some things should be owned by all (the govt is the caretaker).Falafulu Fisinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-38499774093298088202010-08-23T22:36:23.736+12:002010-08-23T22:36:23.736+12:00"Such a collective just needs to be organised...<em>"Such a collective just needs to be organised separately from central government, and be unsupported by coercive means."</em><br /><br />Correct, it could be a company, trust, LAQC, Kibbutz whatever. I don't think any libertarian would have a problem with that. That's how I understood Richards message.PaulBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-27320354440075252272010-08-23T21:39:11.079+12:002010-08-23T21:39:11.079+12:00"By freedom Libz mean lack of interference fr..."By freedom Libz mean lack of interference from government (i.e. government action restricted to the use of retaliatory force) and a respect for property rights by the citizenry."<br /><br />I define freedom the same as you, actually. I just reject the idea that reducing the scope of the government is a one stop cure-all. It's ignores the history of how governments arose in the first place, and it ignores everything that we've learned about human sociology. <br /><br />For a society to respect property rights, a dispute as long as human history would have to be resolved. Human beings do not create, we transfigure. All that we've accomplished has been based on using existing resources, resources which have always been obtained through the use of force. Resources have not been given out to the most productive, or the most deserving, but by whoever is able to stick a flag in the ground and say, "this is mine, try and take it from me". <br /><br />You can't expect a peaceful society , based on respect for the individual, to evolve all of a sudden out of the quagmire that we have right now, without so much as a thought towards the fact that without the very thing libertarians are against - the initiation of force - is the same thing that the ownership of capital is based on.<br /><br />As for your other comments RE economics, competition etc. Roads have existed for thousands of years.. Thousands, they're not a new thing. <br /><br />It's possible we'll find an alternative at some point in our development, but saying that I lack imagination for pointing out the obvious, that right now they're a natural monopoly and should be managed by a collective is just a lazy excuse for an argument.<br /><br />Is there actually some kind of libertarian basis for rejecting the collective ownership of assets? I think it's a huge misconception that the only libertarian solutions are market solutions. There's nothing un-libertarian about people sharing ownership. Such a collective just needs to be organised separately from central government, and be unsupported by coercive means.David S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-84518646202492233332010-08-23T21:32:55.325+12:002010-08-23T21:32:55.325+12:00@Baby Lon: "2008 - 1,070"
Actually, acc...@Baby Lon: "2008 - 1,070"<br /><br />Actually, according to the Elections NZ website Libz got 1,176 party votes.<br /><br />In electorates, we received a total of 1,739 votes.<br /><br />In my electorate, I received more votes than ACT candidates Denz, Mallett (fourth president of ACT, and former Hamilton city councillor), Carline, Tattersfield, Tabachnik, Ormond, Hufflett, McCaffrey, Dittmer, Bridge, Scott, Davidson, McClelland and Gardiner did in their electorates; and the same number of votes as ACT candidate Kearney.<br /><br />If Libz is proving an abject failure at selling the libertarian message, what judgement should be pronounced upon the 15 ACT candidates above, with a high profile leader and much bigger party organisation backing them?Richard McGrathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-4913787083624240342010-08-23T20:33:18.303+12:002010-08-23T20:33:18.303+12:00@David S: "[If motorists feel the owner of on...@David S: "[If motorists feel the owner of one road is excessively zealous, they may be able to choose to bypass that particular route and contract with a different road owner.]<br /><br />This is so obviously impractical, no-one but those on the hard right would support it."<br /><br />David, you know a hard right government would never support privatisation of roads, because that would make them less able to control people. <br /><br />But if for 'motorists' you substituted the generic term 'users' and for 'road' substituted 'hospital', <br />'superannuation plan', 'supermarket', 'telecommunications company', 'airline' or 'ferry company', does it still seem so impractical.<br /><br />You seem limited by an imagination that can't conceive an alternative to monopoly ownership of all roads. Yes, I admit it is difficult to picture an alternative to what we have now, but do you not think that with financial incentive and the freedom to think, a bright young entrepreneur couldn't come up with novel ways to widen consumer choice when it comes to transport.<br /><br />Hell, the day might come when roads may be redundant, and could be converted back to agricultural or other use. <br /><br />David I'm not saying I have the answers to making provision of roading competitive, but do you not even think it's a worthy goal, given that competition reduces prices to the consumer and lifts living standards?Richard McGrathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-57086541240467556972010-08-23T20:17:44.559+12:002010-08-23T20:17:44.559+12:00@James: "I would have US Libertarian "sa...@James: "I would have US Libertarian "salesman" Michael Clouds ideas on presenting liberty to people front and centre of a new campaign to raise Libz profile and ignite interest"<br /><br />At last, a constructive comment! Thanks, James. I have read and listened to material by Michael Cloud, and he certainly makes some great points.Richard McGrathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-35161951321281154122010-08-23T20:12:59.211+12:002010-08-23T20:12:59.211+12:00@ACT Yoof: "Can all you fucking libertarians ...@ACT Yoof: "Can all you fucking libertarians get off from criticizing ACT?"<br /><br />If ACT do or say something praiseworthy, Libz will be the first to acknowledge and welcome it, just as we have applauded Labour when they occasionally accidentally do something with which we agree. It's just that currently ACT seem consumed with internal power struggles and utilising the baubles of ministerial power than promoting freedom.Richard McGrathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-89522170700244082762010-08-23T19:44:50.406+12:002010-08-23T19:44:50.406+12:00@Oswald Bastable: "The only party even remote...@Oswald Bastable: "The only party even remotely close and you lot are out with the daggers."<br /><br />Unfortunately, Os, becoming more remote by the day.Richard McGrathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-88684180096180844522010-08-23T19:42:26.017+12:002010-08-23T19:42:26.017+12:00@David S: "I don't think there would be m...@David S: "I don't think there would be more freedom if the Libz got into power."<br /><br />By freedom Libz mean lack of interference from government (i.e. government action restricted to the use of retaliatory force) and a respect for property rights by the citizenry.<br /><br />How do you define freedom, David?Richard McGrathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-38770721226119473502010-08-23T19:35:57.915+12:002010-08-23T19:35:57.915+12:00@ACT Yoof: "ACT needs someone like Garret to ...@ACT Yoof: "ACT needs someone like Garret to kick arse and tell it is of what ACT stands for."<br /><br />Sorry, Yoof, I can't understand your grammar. Please translate that sentence into English for us.<br /><br />Mmm... so, ACT need to use force rather than peaceful persuasion to convince people that their ideas have merit. Rather telling, I thought.Richard McGrathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-35728290788097336362010-08-23T19:31:26.300+12:002010-08-23T19:31:26.300+12:00@Trevor: "Driving drunk is an act of criminal...@Trevor: "Driving drunk is an act of criminal negligence."<br /><br />So, at what blood alcohol level does driving become an act of criminal negligence? Why was driving at 99 mg/100 ml in a 1960s deathtrap automobile with no seatbelts not criminally negligent; yet driving at 81 mg/100 ml in a 2010 car with airbags, disc brakes ABS and ESC somehow criminally negligent?Richard McGrathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-31246146643640447662010-08-23T19:25:58.456+12:002010-08-23T19:25:58.456+12:00@Berend:
"The freedom party has so much attr...@Berend:<br /><br />"The freedom party has so much attraction its 500 members can't even got 500 other people to vote for it."<br /><br />Only just wrong, Berend, but wrong all the same, as Baby Lon pointed out: 2008 - 1,070.Richard McGrathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-90643045409086162702010-08-23T17:15:09.417+12:002010-08-23T17:15:09.417+12:001996 - 671 Votes
1999 - 5,949
2002 - didn't wr...1996 - 671 Votes<br />1999 - 5,949<br />2002 - didn't write the cheque<br />2005 - 946<br />2008 - 1,070<br /> <br />Based on the above results, the Libz should take a look at THEMSELVES before pissing in the pocket of ACT. If you guys really want to start gaining some political traction, humping ACT's political corpse is not the way.. cut out a good deal of that cultist, mutual prostate-tickling Randroid horseshit for a start.Babylon And Onnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-82349058932457927212010-08-21T19:14:34.013+12:002010-08-21T19:14:34.013+12:00The thing is, if privatisation worked effectively,...<i>The thing is, if privatisation worked effectively, I think most regulation would still exist, it just wouldn't be determined by central government. Things like blood alcohol limits would almost certainly exist as a prerequisite for using roads, and there'd be no libertarian basis for objecting as long as the people defining such regulation were the the people directly affected by those decisions, IE the owners of the roads and the people who use them.</i><br /><br /><br />That kind of regulation, yes of course. Freedom is not anarchy.<br /><br />Driving drunk is an act of criminal negligence. So the courts would still be involved, defining limits and standards.Trevornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-69259776468405479562010-08-21T14:52:00.298+12:002010-08-21T14:52:00.298+12:00Whaleoil has busted the smear plot against Hide bi...Whaleoil has busted the smear plot against Hide big time.<br /><br />I think some people owe our Rodney a very big apology.....<br /><br />http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/2010/08/20/anatomy-of-a-failed-leak-coup-smear/Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-50291325072326675642010-08-20T21:58:34.416+12:002010-08-20T21:58:34.416+12:00I think that Mr Garret should become the deputy le...I think that Mr Garret should become the deputy leader of ACT. WHY? Because he speaks the truth. ACT needs someone like Garret to kick arse and tell it is of what ACT stands for.ACT Youthnoreply@blogger.com