Transitions to freedom: Shall we kill them in their beds?

Two bakers are talking politics. "How do you roll back the state?" asks the first. "One roll at a time," answers the second.

A poor joke, but good advice. If you're serious about rolling back the state, then you set your compass in the direction of more freedom and less coercion, and you start hacking a path in that direction through the overgrown thickets of the overbearing state one hard-fought step after another.

You might start by preparing 'transitional policies' - policies that introduce more freedom and reduce coercion one machete stroke at at a time.

Writing in the Intellectual Activist (July 1995), Robert Tracinski gives the necessary principle for formulating all such policies:

In judging a measure, one cannot hold it responsible for all aspects of a mixed economy - only for those aspects it changes. These changes can be evaluated by a straightforward application of the principle of individual rights: Does the reform remove some aspect of government control or does it add more control?...It is not a compromise to advocate reduced government control in one sphere even if controls in other spheres are left standing. It is a compromise, on the other hand, if one seeks to purchase increased freedom in one area at the price of increased control in another.

Ayn Rand explains Tracinski's point about the error of compromise: “When a man has ascertained that one alternative is good and the other is evil, he has no justification for choosing a mixture. There can be no justification for choosing any part of that which one knows to be evil."

Clear enough: Start with what you find, and design the means to work step by step towards your goal, without ever purchasing increased freedom at the expensed of increased coercion. This is what is meant by the phrase ‘ratchet for freedom.’

A principled opposition -- call them 'Party X' -- would promote such policies. An intelligent opposition would design such policies to be picked up and passed around. To be picked up and passed around (and to be worth passing around) the policy should pass The Test of the Three Ps: it should be Practical, Principled, and arse-grabbingly Provocative. Provocative enough to be passed around; Practical enough to be work; Principled enough to move the game in the right direction. The principle with each policy must be clear: More freedom with no new coercion. Below are some examples of some policies that pass the test, but first, here's four proposals that fail:

• Shall we kill them in their beds? How about this: presently, a strong case can be made for the proposal to kill the entire front bench of Government in their beds, along with the Leaders of all Opposition Parties and all the various Human Wrongs Commissars. Practical, and easily done (although I'd expect difficulties coordinating the overabundance of volunteers.) Certainly provocative – and strongly based on the principle of self-defence. A proposal I’m sure we could all live with, so to speak.
  But as Tracinscki says, we activists must beware of purchasing freedom in one sphere at the expense of increased controls in another - the subsequent police crackdown on the assassins would undoubtedly remove all the freedoms gained by such a move, and for that reason it should be shunned -- and I say that with obvious sadness.
  
  
• Flat Tax: Here’s another example of this same error. A “low flat tax” would reduce taxes for some, true, but this reduction would be purchased at the expense of increased sacrifice by those whose present tax rates are below the chosen flat rate. Far preferable is the Libertarianz transitional proposal (and Green policy) to offer a threshold below which no tax at all is paid, along with the slow and gradual increase in the level of this threshold.
  
  
• School Vouchers: The idea of school vouchers is popular (not least with the purveyors of twilight golf and the owners of Wananga o Aoteaora). Vouchers do purchase wider choice, it’s true, but only at the expense of either bringing private schools even more under the Ministry’s boot (as a once relatively free early childhood sector now understands), or of throwing the taxpayer’s money away on bullshit. Best just to give the schools back and be done with it.
  
  
• Cap & Trade & Fishing Quotas: For some reason these two are currently fashionable with some US free-marketeers, but it doesn't take much examination to realise both measures purchase the very minimum of freedom, if at all, and do so at the expense of increased bureaucracy and the effective nationalisation of industry and of fish stocks respectively – and in the case of ‘cap and trade’ sets a finite limit on industrial production. Even carbon taxes would be better than this. Tax credits even better.
  

So those are some failures. By contrast, here’s two measures that do pass our test:

• A Conscientious Objection Tax Policy would increase freedom and, far from requiring more controls and more regulation, would actively promote and engender their removal. Here's how it could work: The Conscientious Objection Tax Policy should allow an individual to opt out of paying for and using the government’s die-while-you-wait Health system, its factory schools, and its featherbedded welfare – to conscientiously object to the theft required to pay for these multiple disasters, to agree to make his own arrangements for these (thank you very much), and in return to pay only 10% income tax!
  At a stroke the objector is better off (and with no new government controls introduced), and like all good policies, the Conscientious Objection Tax Policy would have a flow-on effect, kickstarting an explosion of freedom in the currently stagnant Health, Education and Welfare pools.
  
  
• Here’s another intelligent transitional measure, the Transitional Drugs Policy proposed by my colleague Dr Richard Goode.
  Why not make drug law both more rational and more free by legalising all drugs less harmful to health than tobacco and alcohol? Who could object, right? Even Jim Anderton and Jacqui Dean don’t want to ban alcohol. Yet. (Although Jacqui isn't too sure about water). According to Britain’s Lancet journal of medicine, under this standard we could immediately legalise for recreational use (in decreasing order of harm): Buprenoprhine, Cannabis, Solvents, LSD, Methylphenidate, Anabolic steroids, GHB, Ecstacy, Alkyl Nitrites, Khat, and di-hydrogen monoxide.
  On what rational basis could anybody object? More freedom, less government, safer drugs, less money going into gang leaders’ pockets – and the apostles of moral panic challenged to explain the rational basis of their War on Drugs. Everybody except Jacqui Dean kicks a goal.

“Shall we kill them in their beds?”–or, Transitions to Freedom: Good & Bad

A post from the archives offering advice for any putative Party X wanting to roll back the state.

Two bakers are talking politics. "How do you roll back the state?" asks the first. "One roll at a time," answers the second. A poor joke, but good advice. If you're serious about rolling back the state, then you set your compass in the direction of more freedom and less coercion, and you start hacking a path in that direction through the overgrown thickets of the overbearing state one hard-fought step after another.

You might start by preparing 'transitional policies' - policies that roll back the state and reduce coercion one machete stroke at at a time. Writing in The Intellectual Activist (July 1995), Robert Tracinski gives the necessary principle for formulating all such policies:

In judging a measure [advises Tracinski], one cannot hold it responsible for all aspects of a mixed economy - only for those aspects it changes. These changes can be evaluated by a straightforward application of the principle of individual rights: Does the reform remove some aspect of government control or does it add more control?... It is not a compromise to advocate reduced government control in one sphere even if controls in other spheres are left standing. It is a compromise, on the other hand, if one seeks to purchase increased freedom in one area at the price of increased control in another.

Ayn Rand explains the error of compromise:

When a man has ascertained that one alternative is good and the other is evil, he has no justification for choosing a mixture. There can be no justification for choosing any part of that which one knows to be evil.

Clear enough then: Start with what you find, and design the means to work step by step towards your goal, without ever purchasing increased freedom at the expensed of increased coercion. This is what is meant by the phrase ‘ratchet for freedom.’ A principled opposition -- call them 'Party X' -- would promote such policies. Policies that implement more white, with no new black.

An intelligent opposition party committed to working for more freedom and less government would design such policies to be picked up and passed around.

And in order for them to be picked up and passed around (and to be worth passing around) the policy should pass The Test of the Three Ps: it should be Practical, Principled, and arse-grabbingly Provocative. Provocative enough to be noticed; Practical enough to be work; Principled enough to move the game in the right direction.

The principle with each policy must be clear and unequivocal: More freedom with no new coercion.

Below are some examples of some policies that pass the test, but first, here's four proposals that fail:

• “Shall we kill them in their beds?” How about this: presently, a strong case can be made for the proposal to kill the entire front bench of Government in their beds, along with the Leaders of all Opposition Parties and all the various Human Wrongs Commissars. Practical, and easily done (although I'd expect difficulties coordinating the overabundance of volunteers.) Certainly provocative – and strongly based on the principle of self-defence. A proposal I’m sure we could all live with, so to speak. But as Tracinscki says, we activists must beware of purchasing freedom in one sphere at the expense of increased controls in another - the subsequent police crackdown on the assassins would undoubtedly remove all the freedoms gained by such a move, and for that reason it should be shunned -- and I say that with obvious sadness.
  
• Flat Tax: Here’s another example of this same error. A “low flat tax” would reduce taxes for some, true, but this reduction would be purchased at the expense of increased sacrifice by those whose present tax rates are below the chosen flat rate. That means it’s a new coercion. Not good. Not good at all. Far preferable is the Libertarianz transitional proposal (and Green policy) to offer a threshold below which no tax at all is paid, along with the slow and gradual increase in the level of this threshold.
  
• School Vouchers: The idea of school vouchers is popular, but so too is living at someone else’s expense. Vouchers do purchase wider choice, it’s true, but only at the expense of either bringing private schools even more under the Ministry’s boot (as a once relatively free early childhood sector now understands), or of throwing the taxpayer’s money away on bullshit ( Remember the Wananga debacle?). So school vouchers fail the test.  Best just to give the schools back and be done with it.
  
• Cap & Trade & Fishing Quotas: For some reason these two are still fashionable with people who fancy themselves as free-marketeers (at least, that’s what it says on their lapel pins). But it doesn't take much examination to realise both measures purchase the very minimum of freedom, if at all (compared to the other measures designed to “fix” the alleged problems these are designed to meet), and do so at the expense of increased bureaucracy and the effective nationalisation of industry and of fish stocks respectively – and in the case of ‘cap and trade’ sets a finite limit on industrial production. Even carbon taxes would be better than this. Tax credits even better.

So those are some failures. By contrast, here’s two measures that do pass our test:

• A Conscientious Objection Tax Policy would increase freedom and, far from requiring more controls and more regulation, would actively promote and engender their removal.
  Here's how it could work: The Conscientious Objection Tax Policy should allow an individual to opt out of paying for and using the government’s die-while-you-wait Health system, its factory schools, and its featherbedded welfare – to conscientiously object to the theft required to pay for these multiple disasters, to agree to make his own arrangements for these (thank you very much), and in return to pay only 10% income tax!
  What a deal.
  At a stroke the objector is better off (and with no new government controls introduced).
  Further, without the figleaf by which statists pretend big governments are there to “help” taxpayers, the advocates for taxing the hell out of you and I would be in the position of having to state clearly they are in favour of naked theft. 
  And like all good policies, the Conscientious Objection Tax Policy would have a flow-on effect, kick-starting an explosion of freedom in the currently stagnant Health, Education and Welfare pools—because how else are these dire disasters going to attract custom if they don’t wake their ideas up?
• Here’s another intelligent transitional measure, the Transitional Drugs Policy proposed by my colleague Dr Richard Goode. Why not make drug law both more rational and more free by legalising all drugs less harmful to health than tobacco and alcohol? Who could object, right? Even Jim Anderton and Jacqui Dean don’t want to ban alcohol. Yet. (Although Jacqui wasn't too sure about water). According to Britain’s widely respected Lancet journal of medicine, under this standard we could immediately legalise for recreational use (in decreasing order of harm): Buprenoprhine, Cannabis, Solvents, LSD, Methylphenidate, Anabolic steroids, GHB, Ecstacy, Alkyl Nitrites, Khat, and di-hydrogen monoxide. On what rational basis could anybody object? More freedom, less government, safer drugs, less money going into gang leaders’ pockets – and the apostles of moral panic challenged to explain the rational basis of their War on Drugs. Everybody except Jim Anderton and Jacqui Dean kicks a goal.

There you have it. Two measures that will advance freedom without introducing any new coercion.

What other ideas can you come up with?

The Government report card: 'Not Achieved'

Libertarianz party president Craig Milmine welcomed an enthusiastic group of activists and supporters to the election year party conference in Auckland over the weekend.  Here's a lightly edited copy of his welcoming speech:

Good morning

My name is Craig Milmine, president of the Libertarianz Party, and it is my pleasure to welcome you to the 2008 Libertarianz Annual Conference.

I am proud to preside over Libertarianz because it seeks to protect individual rights and works to reduce government interference in all aspects of our lives.   Since I'm a teacher in my professional life, I would like to present this morning an NCEA report card in individual rights for the parliamentary parties, and offer the only sane and rational alternative available: Libertarianz.

Let's look first at the Labour Party's result for 'Helping the Poor: 101,' which will assist in showing you that at this 2008 general election the Libertarianz Party is effectively the only opposition party around.

In an upcoming election where there is no discernable difference between Labour and National, or Labour and anyone else, Libertarianz is the only party that in this election will be offering tax cuts and cuts in government expenditure.  We do not have our heads in the sand and think we can have our sand and eat it too; unlike every other party we understand that cutting taxes means cutting government expenditure. We are the only party that knows that cutting taxes and government expenditure is a good thing, and why.

• We know that reducing people's dependence on the state promotes independence and cooperation. Living on a state benefit would have to be one of the most soul-destroying and ambition-destroying lifestyles there are. It offers no incentive to improve your lot; it leaves beneficiaries at the mercy of the bureaucracy; and it actively punishes beneficiaries for earning money by imposing an incredibly high marginal tax rate on any earnings you might make.
• We know that at the same time as having supposedly record low unemployment levels, the Clark Government also has a record high number of people on state benefits. Along with the usual array of benefits, there is Working for Families where families on the government benefit are given an incentive not to work because (once again) the marginal tax rate actively punishes families for earning more money.
• We know this too: that Labour is determined to have more beneficiaries stuck in poverty with barriers preventing their ascent, because Labour needs a poor class who they they rely upon for votes.

Cutting government expenditure is a fantastic thing and Libertarianz are proud to say it. Cutting government expenditure allows us to cut taxes. Cutting government expenditure allows people to keep their own money in their pocket, or their savings account.  Cutting government expenditure means that government consumes less, while businesses can invest more.  To everybody but Michael Cullen and Bill English, it should be obvious which is more productive.

As a transitional policy, Libertarianz will happily support moves to remove all income tax below $10,000, effectively making this a tax-free threshold for everyone. This will reduce the high marginal tax rate that beneficiaries face when they look for paid employment. This simple act will do more to help Labour’s underclass of poor than anything they have offered up in their eight and a half years of born-to-rule power.

With the value of the surpluses that Labour has been taking, they could have gotten rid of GST altogether. This would have directly helped the poor of New Zealand because the poorest in New Zealand have to spend the highest proportion of the income on GST. I am brought to the conclusion once again that Labour needs the poor to stay poor so that the Labour Party can maintain their block of gratefully miserable beneficiaries.

At a time when low-skilled jobs are being exported overseas, the government has raised the minimum wage –- effectively driving these industries out of the country even faster.  As the market responds to a more expensive labour market, the results are a smaller manufacturing sector, automated supermarket checkouts, low numbers of restaurant serving staff per customer and highly automated factories .

We are seeing all of these in New Zealand but we still have record beneficiary numbers and the largest drop in people in paid employment in 19 years.  These are the people locked out of earning a wage by the government making their labour too expensive. Price fixing of low-skilled labour through minimum-wage laws is causing unemployment, poor service and the flight of New Zealand industries overseas.

If elected Libertarianz will move to reduce or preferably remove minimum wage laws in New Zealand.

So by Labour’s declared standards of “we must help the poor,” Labour themselves are failing abysmally. Only Libertarianz will remove the government barriers that are keeping  New Zealand’s poor poor.

Maybe I’m being a bit harsh on the Labour Party. Perhaps its time to give them some NCEA gradings. Being a secondary school teacher I have to give out the grades of Not Achieved, Achieved, Achievement with Merit, Achievement with Excellence and Not Yet Competent. At this point I must ask you all to stop laughing.

For all the reasons already stated, I’m going to give the Labour Party a Not Achieved for 'Helping the Poor: 101.'

For their grade in 'TAX:101,' you will recall that in 1999 the Labour Party pledged no tax increases for 95% of the population. With over 15% now in the upper income tax bracket -- inflation caused by government expenditure has pushed incomes into higher tax brackets -- while new taxes on petrol, and increased taxes on cigarettes and alcohol have added to this effective tax increase, I think it is fair to give the Labour party a Not Achieved for 'TAX:101.'

Michael Cullen has been promising tax cuts since 2004 – perhaps in this instance we should take him at his word about promised upcoming tax cuts and say that it is Not Yet Competent for 'TAX:102' – however missing the assessment deadline by four years would normally count as a Not Achieved, even under NCEA's low standards.

In 'Economy:101' -- the Labour Party upon taking office promised to turn New Zealand into a knowledge economy and raise our incomes up into the top half of the OECD.  That’s a pretty straight forward Not Achieved.

In 'Education:101' – literacy rates are appalling. Not Achieved.

In 'Health:101' – Not Achieved doesn’t even begin to describe the mess that is the public health system.

In 'Free and Fair Elections:101,' the Labour Party initially did not achieve, but in an unprecedented revision of the course through retrospective legislation, Labour managed to Achieve with Merit in the newly named course of 'Protection of Incumbency:101.'  This course has recently awarded a scholarship to Robert Mugabe, so the Labour Party is in good company. Of course in passing 'Protection of Incumbency:101' they automatically failed to achieve in 'Rule of Law:101' and 'Lack of Corruption:101.'

In fact, looking at Labour’s record of achievement – there are only two things a libertarian can find favour with; these were the passing of the Civil Union legislation and prostitution legalisation. That is all I can find in nine years of rule. On that basis, it is well and truly time for them to go.

But what of the alternatives.

Let’s take a minute to count all the ways that the National Party policies differ from the Labour Party’s.

• The Labour Party has bought a big train set.  National has pledged not to sell it.
• National is looking to reintroduce Think Big for telecommunications. Labour is looking to Think Big with Rail.
• Labour will continue to grow New Zealand’s bloated bureaucracy.  National will keep our bloated bureaucracy as it is.
• The Labour Party will not charge interest on student loans. The National Party will not charge interests on Student Loans
• National will bring in tax cuts without any cut in expenditure. Labour will bring in tax cuts without any cut in expenditure.
• The National Party supported banning Party Pills. The Labour supported banning party pills
• The Labour and National party will not get rid of the Maori seats
• Labour and National both supported the prohibition on smacking.
• Labour will introduce policies to destroy New Zealand’s economy in order to have no actual impact on global warming. National has berated the Labour Party for delaying the introduction of policies that will destroy New Zealand’s economy in order to have no actual impact on global warming.
• Both National and Labour support the Resource Management Act, which is preventing new, cheap electricity generation. The RMA is now restricting housing development in New Zealand so much that we have some of the most expensive housing in the world as a proportion of income. The mortgage interest payments alone on the average house price in New Zealand is nearly twice New Zealand’s average income. That is without paying any of the principle off. Both Labour and National’s response to this has been a mixture of more rules and regulations about forcing developers to build cheaper housing.
• The one thing to National’s credit is that they will get rid of the Electoral Finance Act – the largest assault on Free Speech that New Zealand has seen since the Muldoon era of controlling the media. For this National should received an Achieved – which could rise to an Achieved with Excellence if only they would get rid of taxpayer funding of political parties, and remove the law that prevents political parties from spending their own money on election broadcasting.

So, while I will be thrilled to see the Labour Party go because I believe that politicians should be changed as regularly as nappies– and for the same reason -- National offers absolutely no alternative.

What of the other parties?

The report card for the Greens reads as follows (in language that would not be deemed "supportive" enough to go on an actual school report card):

• 'Legalising Marijuana:101' - the Greens show a general disinterest in this subject – which is a shame because it was the only thing they were good at.
• 'Transport Efficiency:101' – The Greens opposition to any transport initiative except highly subsidised, often empty, wasteful, carbon dioxide spewing buses and trains indicate that they have no fucking clue about the environment whatsoever.
• 'Energy Alternatives:101' – The Greens's opposition to electricity generated by hydro, coal, gas, wind or nuclear indicates that for the Green Party, the lights are not on, and there is nobody home.

Moving to New Zealand First:

• In accepting the 'Baubles of Office:101' Winston has done exceptionally well and he has continued to excel in the course 'Typical Xenophobic Rant Against Anyone Slightly Foreign:101,' managing to just outdo the Maori Party.

In 'Being a Member of the Labour Party without Actually being in the Labour Party:101,' United Future and Jim Anderton’s Progressive Party have done very well this year, andhave excelled in Lapdog:102 and 103. However they will need to maintain this level of achievement in the course of 'Being a Member of the Labour Party Without Actually Being in the Labour Party:101' if they want to be a member of the National Government next year.

Out of the parliamentary parties – that leaves the ACT party. What have they been up to?

When Labour, United Future, the Greens, Jim Anderton and NZ First were rorting the electoral system, Rodney Hide was busy showing off his new body. The leader of the Libertarianz got over showing off his body years ago and (much to the consternation of Dunedin’s letter posters) and has moved on to showing up the government. While Rodney Hide was busy dropping his dance partner on dancing with the stars, Bernard Darnton was dropping off papers in the high court challenging the Labour party’s 2005 election pledge card rort. An action that Bernard would have won, had the government not retrospectively changed the law.

However in doing so, Labour started the electoral slide that they are now experiencing. Labour’s slide continued with the passing of the anti-smack law. Libertarianz were right there in the organisation of opposition to this law. Mitch Lees organised a march on parliament. Where were ACT?

My understanding is that the ACT tax policy is that the total tax take will not rise beyond the level of inflation. This makes ACT the only party in parliament not offering a tax cut!

If any one of these parties offered a consistent message of freedom and rolling back state interference in our lives then we could dismantle Libertarianz right now and join them. However, there is no sign of that happening. Libertarianz has been around 12 years and we are here to stay.

We are effectively the only opposition party. We have been in amongst all of the important political questions of the day from the freedom of speech, free and fair elections, through to providing real solutions to government caused problems such as housing unaffordability and a failing health system.

When we make submissions to parliament, our principles are recognised and the politicians occasionally take heed of what we say. The “nanny state” argument is reported as being a “huge” factor by government insiders in preventing the government from introducing even more draconian legislation than we have already seen.

At the Last election, all of the small parties were squeezed by a close election between National and Labour, and the Libertarianz vote was squeezed by a National leader with visible libertarian leanings.

All that has changed. The National Party is the Labour Party is the National Party is the Labour Party. One party has a lot of teachers, gays and unionists, the other has a lot of farmers and middle class businessmen. The people may be different. The policies are not.  They are statist from top to bottom.

Libertarianz have very different policies. Our policies are radical in that they will get the state out of our lives and allow human ingenuity, ambition and compassion to flourish. We offer an enormously positive and liberating set of policies. In contrast to every other political party we are offering to hand back control of your life – to you.

Libertarianz has developed a number of transitional policies that show how we can reduce government in a step-by-step process – always with the libertarian goalposts in sight. Today we will hear another of the transitional policies being presented.

We have some strong advertising campaigns well into the planning stage. Today we will present Libz.TV and Libz in Print.

This election, Libertarianz will be putting up more candidates than ever before – both in electorates and on the list. Nominations are still open but we already have more people putting their name forward to stand as electorate candidates for Libertarianz than stood in 2005.

Many of these candidates are first-time candidates and we will be hearing from a number of them as well as some experienced ones throughout the day.

We plan to fight this election as serious contenders. Our ideas are interesting, principled and they work. This makes a huge contrast with the other parties. If we can get the necessary publicity and funding -- and our programme for both is already underway -- we can make a realistic go at getting Libz in parliament. Electoral success in New Zealand is not that hard, despite the Electoral Finance Act.

I hope that by the end of today that you will come away with ideas, confidence and networks to enable you spread the freedom message this election.

Well, that completes the report card, so it is now my great pleasure to declare the Libertarianz Conference open for business. . .

You can visit the Libertarianz website now and join up for Election '08.  Go to it!

UPDATE 1:  A video of Craig Milmine's report card for the National Party's performance -- part of what  got you all so excited here -- is now up at the Libz TV site.

Enjoy.

UPDATE 2:   We said earlier in commenting upon this post that

    If we are under some misapprehension [about ACT's tax policy] Rodney can simply stand up in Parliament this afternoon and announce ACT's tax policy is to cut taxes to [?]%.
    He can then announce a long list of freedom related policies, legislation ACT would repeal, spending cuts ACT would manifest and all other measures that [former] ACT supporters desperately want.

And it looks like Rodney and Roger were listening.  Today at lunchtime, Rodney and Roger held a press conference to announce at least the first of the two points above.  Reports Stuff:

    ACT would immediately make the first $10,000 of income tax free, which would give an average wage earner an immediate tax saving of $50.
    Then it would abolish the 39c "envy rate" and make the whole system as low and flat as possible.
    ACT will release details of its tax and other policies on Sunday.

Do you see now what honest criticism can do? I look forward now to seeing announced on Sunday the long list of freedom related policies, legislation ACT would repeal, spending cuts ACT would manifest and all other measures that [former] ACT supporters desperately want to see.

Weekend Ramble, #23

Another ramble through sights and sounds and snippets that caught my eye over the week. . .

• As the Nats meet in Auckland's Langham Hotel to gird their loins for next year's election, they might give some thought to the political fortunes of UK Conservative leader David Cameron, on whom John Boy Key has adopted his all-things-to-all-men weasel-wording politics. Notes the Express this week (hardly the voice of Tory discontent), the weasel-words and bullshit are wearing thin:

  DAVID Cameron faces a summer of discontent from his own supporters, it emerged last night. Several major backers [this one for example] were said to have given the Tory leader notice that he has two months to sharpen up his act or face trouble at the party’s conference ...
  One senior Conservative said last night: “The leader’s got roughly 60 days to make us look like a party that could win an election, let alone form a Government. If he can’t do that, then hard questions will have to be asked.” New policy proposals have ... failed to capture the public’s attention, while one prominent donor has demanded that Mr Cameron do some “rethinking”. A poll yesterday put Labour on 41 per cent against 32 per cent for the Conservatives.
  
  Much more damaging for Mr Cameron, however, was the finding that just 27 per cent of voters now say they believe he is a good leader, compared to 43 per cent in February.

  Cameron's spin-without-substance act is wearing thin, just as it deserves to. Something for John Boy's boys to think about.
  
  
• Entrepreneurs are what moves the world. What are the top ten signs that you're made to be an entrepreneur? [Hat tip Stephen Hicks]
  
  
• A few books are a few of my favourite things. Books of early NZ history are high on my list of favourite books, but they're always either expensive or difficult to get hold of. Until now. I just finished reading John Logan Campbell's entertaining Poenamo, and searched on the web to check a few names and place names, and discovered not just that Poenamo itself is online, but literally dozens of early NZ classic are also online in their entirety courtesy of the Auckland University Library. What a magic resource.
  
  
• Another lesson from history from the recent Sudanese diaspora, what Stephen Browne calls the Haight-Ashbury Lesson: "Any society that renounces violence, even in self-defense, becomes a magnet for those willing to use violence to get what they want." Find out more at this post on lessons from history, including two related lessons, the John Wesley Hardin Lesson, and the Dian Fossey Lesson.
  
  
• More confessions from a former warmist. Says David Evans, "I used to work for the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO), and I used to believe that carbon emissions probably caused global warming." Now he doesn't. Read why, and about the machinations at the AGO in this extended piece here [pdf], of which the similar piece appearing in The Free Radical was an edited version: My Life with the Australian Greenhouse Office, and Other Reflections - David Evans.
  
  
• Steve McIntyre continues to investigate the temperature record of the world's carparks, which it seems is what the surface temperature record mostly seems to be measuring. His latest investigation is a rural station, one which is considered by The Team to be a quality station because its night time footprint shows few lights, what The Team refers to as Lights=0. As McIntyre say, Lights might be zero, but air conditioners are about 22.
  
  
• Many people trying to wrap their heads around the stumblings of the Reserve Bank's Alan Bollard -- stumblings which to many of us are mired in the failure of the economic theory on which the bank is based -- find it difficult to think like an economist. ("Who would want to?," I hear someone say.) Let's face it, economic thinking is difficult, even (perhaps especially) for trained economists. Says Andrew Cassell,

  I finally understand why economics is so hard for many people to grasp.

  It's not because of complexity. The rules of supply and demand aren't inherently more difficult to fathom than those that apply to, say, politics, or cooking, or sports. [Although that all important principle of comparative advantage seems to leave many non-economists slack-jawed.]
  

  Yet while most people have no trouble wrapping their brains around these subjects - indeed, millions will be eagerly absorbing their finer points this weekend - (What are you watching: Meet the Press, celebrity chefs or college football?) - few have a similar appetite for economics.

  And now I know why, thanks to Alan Fiske ..., a professor of anthropology at UCLA.

  Stripped of jargon, Fiske points out that the concept of market pricing is both conceptually difficult and a relative late-comer in human affairs, and consequently difficult for those "a step or two [down] the evolutionary ladder" to grasp. I guess that's a point equallly applicable to the equally advanced concept of individual rights -- a concept that sadly seems to escape most people; one might even say especially economists.
  
  
• Speaking of economic concepts that are difficult to understand, "trade deficits" is another. Spend more on imports than is earned in exports, and morons will be heard mouthing nonsense about the "problems" with the trade deficit. Alex Robson at the CIS is the latest to put the morons down: Trade Deficit's Poor Image - Alex Robson. Send a copy to Winston Peters.
  
  
• Walter Williams points out another thing about free markets too easily forgotten by those so eager to disparage them: markets are simply the sum of voluntary decisions taken by free people.

  Tyrants are against the free market because it implies voluntary exchange. Tyrants do not trust that people acting voluntarily will do what the tyrant thinks they ought to do. Therefore, they want to replace the market with economic planning, or as [politicians] call it — industrial policy. Economic planning is nothing more than the forcible superseding of other people's plans by the powerful elite.

• Seguing quickly from economics to sex, David Friedman has some thoughts on mating and money. It reminds Samizdata's Jonathan of this post from Harry Hutton: How to Win with Women. Obvious advice, really.
  
  
• Speaking of women, here's mathematical proof that girls are evil. Didn't we know that all along?
  
  
• Power napping. Having a nap at work is about as popular with the boss as being caught having sex on the boardroom table (how's that for a nifty segue?). Yet as this Personnel type says:
  

  Several research studies demonstrate the benefits of napping in the middle of the day. According to Newsday, in an article discussing this topic, those who take a nap several times a week have improved cognition and response time and a 37% lower risk of death from heart disease.

  Should we perhaps review our views on sleeping at work? Or in parliament? What would Peter Dunne, for example, be like with "improved cognition"? How would we know?
  
• Women at war: When new British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith gave a speech about the dangers of terrorism, she took it as an opportunity to flash some cleavage. Some were upset at talking terrorism with one's décolletage on display, but not Marcus Bachler who cuts straight to the point with this comment: "I have to admit that flaunting one's cleavage at Muslim terrorists who would like to see all women wearing the Burqa is quite appropriate."
  
  
• Where do you find God in America? It seems to Times columnist Daniel Finkenstein that "the Bible Belt, which was traditionally seen as stretching from Texas, across states like Tennessee and Alabama, to Virginia – has been flipped up, through “tornado alley” and into Northern states like the Dakotas." See the map at left (redder is more faith-ridden; click to enlarge), and compare it to the electoral map for the Bush-Kerry election to draw some conclusions about the almighty in American politics.
  
  
• While we're doing maps and related stuff, here's a neat World Clock with all sorts of nifty information. For instance it tells me in the time it's taken to wrote this post that 204 people have been born and 148 have died, there's been 96 abortions and 24 incidences of cancer, 100,000 barrels of oil produced and 157 cars. Very cool.
  
  
• One of my favourite lecturers in intellectual history is John Ridpath. The man is erudite, assure and emotional when it matters, and the Ayn Rand Bookstore now has his audio lectures at bargain prices, up to fifty percent discounts on some titles. What a deal. Two to start with are The Greatness of the 18th Century Enlightenment, and Ideas and Revolution: Locke and America; Rousseau and France. And if you haven't already heard the debate Capitalism V Socialism: Which is the Moral System, then you're in for a treat.
  PS: IF you want to sample Ridpath first, here's three online lectures courtesy of the Ayn Rand Institute (requires free registration):
  
  • In the Dawn's Early Light: Patrick Henry—Beacon for America
  • America Under Attack!: What Would the Other George Do?
  • George Washington: Integrity and the Founding of America
    
    
• As far as contemporary intellectual history goes, we're not at the end of history yet, but buy we are in an era of post-post-modernism, says Stephen Hicks in this superb aesthetic commentary, written as an introduction to artist Michael Newberry's artistic manifesto: Post-Postmodern Art - Stephen Hicks.
  
  
• Hicks points too to this thoughtful piece From Cynicism to Postmodernism, which argues that "Contrarianism has a proud intellectual heritage, but in its postmodern flowering it merely became juvenile, complacently smashing up the entire interlocking crossword puzzle of human knowledge." The "crisis" of postmodernism is a crisis of intellectual adolescence.
  
  
• You might have seen Captain Hops' Beer Haikus that have been featuring at Real Beer Fridays. Sample: Sometimes - by Captain Hops
  
  Sometimes just a sip
  Can restore my faith in man
  and sometimes it can’t.
  
  There's another chap who does what he calls Netflix Haikus. Great idea. Sample, about the classic film noir 'Pick Up on South Street':
  
  Richard Widmark sneers.
  Thelma Ritter finks, sells ties.
  Audience nods off.
  

  Perhaps the idea is better than the execution. Maybe I'll try one myself. A political haiku. Who do you think this describes:
  

  Without a clue he leads
  From behind, in a fog made
  Opaque by appeasement.
  
  
• 'Bayesian Judo' from Eliezer Yudkowksy:

  I was once at a dinner party, trying to explain to a man what I did for a living, when he said: "I don't believe Artificial Intelligence is possible because only God can make a soul." At this point I must have been divinely inspired, because I instantly responded: "You mean if I can make an Artificial Intelligence, it proves your religion is false?" He said, "What?"

  The conversation continues here.
  
  
• The NZ visit of the vile Saddamite George Galloway seems to have gone by remarkably quietly. I must confess I wasn't entirely unhappy being away from Auckland the weekend he was here oozing filth. Any reports from anyone they'd like to share about what he got up to?
  
  
• Speaking of vile bedfellows, Trevor Loudon has begun a series explaining How Socialist Extremists Took Over the NZ Labour Party. Part 1 is here, and Part 2 here, neither of which take us up to the present mob, or even the post-Soviet era. I assume it's going to be a long series.
  
  
• I'm disappointed that Idiot/Savant, normally forthright in defence of free speech, has chosen to go all mealy mouthed over the government's proposed Electoral Finance Bill. If it doesn't violate our our pathetic and toothless Bill of Rights Act, he seems to argue, it seems to be fine with him for the government to ration dissent, and to limit democracy. Where are free speech's defenders when the chips are down?
  
  
• Speaking of politics, let me remind you that while other parties might like to pretend that 'policies' is a dirty word, Libertarianz is in the process of rolling out the transitional policies discussed at last week's Wellington conference.
  

  ** Phil Howison outlines the process whereby school and state may be painlessly and urgently separated in this speech posted at his Pacific Empire blog: Free the Schools.
  **And I attempted to outline the reasoning behind offering transitional policies in my own speech, Revolution & Environmental Judo, a 40 minute speech which you can hear by clicking the link.
  **And a few people have asked me to post all the audio from the afternoon's global warming forum, so here it is:
  

  1. Leader Bernard Darnton's contribition (3 min.) - "if socialism and central planning don't work at seventeen degrees, then why would they work at nineteen?"
  2. President Craig Milmine (4 min.)
  3. Luke Howison (4 min.)
  4. And after those pithy contributions, then there's me blathering on for 19 minutes, which includes some discussion of Libz' proposed Seven-Point Transitional Plan for Environmental Deregulation, which includes a Carbon Tax, a Fishy Story, a Plan to Make Maoris Rich, and our own Kyoto Treaty. That might encourage you to listen in. ;^)

• A reminder of the insanity of the Kyoto Treaty's aim to cut carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2010 comes with the release by David Benson-Pope's former ministry of what they say is NZ's carbon emission trends for the past two decades. I suggest you looks at the graph that comes with the report, realise that NZ industry is largely carbon-based, and contemplate the extent to which industry would need to be destroyed in order for the Treaty promise to be carried out. Sobering, no?
  
  
• Why the War on Drugs needs to end: Craig D points out the obvious, that the drug related harms we see cited so often are mostly a result of the War on Drugs itself, not of drugs themselves.
  
  
• Iraq. Everybody has an opinion, and John Lewis among others has pointed out the many lessons that WWII has for Iraq, and for the war with Islamic Totalitarianism. Tony Blankley points out another lesson from June 25, 1942, when WWII looked to be lost and Churchill looked to be on his way out . . . See The Hinge of Fate in Iraq - Tony Blankley.
  
  
• Paul Potts might still be all the rage with people who've never before realised the power of opera, even when sung as poorly as it is by Potts. For those who do want to hear opera as it should be sung, here's two legendary singers singing the legendary Wagner duet, from Tristan and Isolde -- Kirsten Flagstad and Lauritz Melchior at YouTube singing the 'coitus interruptus' duet from Act II. And here's the gorgeous Anna Moffo singing 'Sempre Libera' from Verdi's La Traviata. Says Daniel, "Note how ridiculously fast she takes her trills while still perfectly landing every note, and note also how high she goes while still keeping support and emotion in her voice. That's a high E-flat she hits at the end, only two half-steps below the highest note in Der Holle Rache [from Mozart's Magic Flute]. "
  
  
• Wagner fans have been sorely mistreated over the years by what has come to be called 'Eurotrash' directors, who've used Wagner's genius only as a stage on which to pour their own misbegotten egos. But Eurotrash is everywhere, a fashionable form of vice from which few theatrical geniuses are free. Heather McDonald describes the nasty trend in The Abduction of Opera.

  Mozart’s lighthearted opera The Abduction from the Seraglio does not call for a prostitute’s nipples to be sliced off and presented to the lead soprano. Nor does it include masturbation, urination as foreplay, or forced oral sex. Europe’s new breed of opera directors, however, know better than Mozart what an opera should contain. So not only does the Abduction at Berlin’s Komische Oper feature the aforementioned activities; it also replaces Mozart’s graceful ending with a Quentin Tarantino–esque bloodbath and the promise of future perversion.

  Welcome to Regietheater (German for “director’s theater”), the style of opera direction now prevalent in Europe.

  The Onion satirises the trend: Unconventional Director Sets Shakespeare Play In Time and Place Shakespeare Intended.
  
  
• And finally (yes, there is an end), if you think your inbox looks cluttered, just imagine how cluttered God's must be. After all, as Tom Waits says, he's everywhere isn't he, always looking at the big picture, yet he's always there to help you out of those little jams. Have a look at this screenshot of God's Inbox. Amusing.
  

Seven Steps to Beat Back the Socialist Wildlife

When I posted my Seven Steps to Beat Back the Socialist Wildlife a while back -- seven transitional policies to advance the cause of environmental deregulation -- I received several thousand emails (well, one) insisting I publish them together as a tome you can download.

So I have. 

By clicking either on the picture to the right of you or the following link (this one here) you too can download all 26 PDF pages of these seven environmental policies that are so cunning you could put an Italian accent on them and call them Machiavelli -- all of them using MMP to beat back the grey ones, and leave property rights in the place of superiority they  should be.

I plan to hand one or two to a few of the politicians at Fieldays later in the week. 

Feel free to do the same job by email.  ;^)

NB: Links are now fixed.

Welcome to 'Sunday Star Times' & 'Herald' readers

Hi there, and welcome to NOT PC --- and to NOT PC's posts on Education.

Check out the Libertarianz' transitional education policy here at Libz TV. Read the full Libertarianz education policy here. And here's just a few of my favourite posts on the subject here at NOT PC...

• Another apology we'd like to hear
• Education: Buying less with more
  
• Curing South Auckland
• Illiterates still sadly surging forth. Ambulances positioned firmly at cliff base.
• Recipe for indoctrination
• Degrees by decree
  
• Holding students back
  
• Education vouchers, and why I'm against
• Cue Card Libertarianism: Education
• Posts on Literacy

NB: Libertarianz advertising is entireley funded by the voluntary donations of supporters. If you want to help support Libertarianz advertising this year, including the weekly promotion of Libz transitional policies in the Sunday Star and elsewhere, then head here to donate. Thanks.

The youngest libertarian in the room...

A few of the speeches from last weekend's Libertarianz conference in Helengrad have now been digitised and made web-ready (we hope). Here's the first three:

• Thirteen-year-old Callum McPetrie explains being 'NZ's Youngest Libertarian' (the text of his speech is online at his blog, Libertarian Front). What inspires an intelligent thirteen-year-old to get passionate about liberty? Find out. (6 min., MP3)
  
• Leader Bernard Darnton talks about 'Steps to Freedom.' (16 min., MP3)
  
• And talks again about global warming, as part of the afternoon warming forum. (3 min., MP3)

Enjoy, and keep your eyes peeled for more, including release of Libz transitional policies as outlined here.

UPDATE: Didn't take long to find more: Phil Howison has posted at his Pacific Empire blog the text and audio of his own speech : 'Free the Schools,' a draft outline of how to separate schools and state with as little pain as possible.

Superannuation

Like many of you I was fascinated both by the common sense suggestion of raising the superannuation age to 67 while removing disincentives to taking up annuity products – a suggestion said to save taxpayers around $100 billion by 2061 – and by the knee-jerk reactions to the common sense proposal to address what is a growing albatross round the neck of every taxpayer.

The idea that 65-year-olds must leave work and get paid for the rest of their lives by other taxpayers is immoral, demeaning, and ultimately unaffordable; and something has to be done. It is a failed experiment – a collapsing pyramid scheme that is costing taxpayers around one-sixth of what Inland Revenue extracts from them each year. The report by investment services company Mercer doesn’t go anywhere near far enough, but it does at least state the obvious:

      Consulting services company Mercer says the double whammy of an ageing population [see Bernard Hickey’s chart at right] and the global economic crisis highlights the urgent need to address the issue of retirement saving, and reduce reliance on New Zealand superannuation . . . [*}

True, all too true. Add to that double whammy another two-base hit: the diminishing number of under-65s in the future who will be expected to pay for it all [see below right].

      "The solution to our retirement savings conundrum [says Martin Lewington, head of Mercer in New Zealand] rests in both growing the economy - ultimately increasing the size of the funding pie - and addressing the social and welfare issues associated with an ageing population and ensuring all New Zealanders can live comfortably in retirement." 
    "It's time for the government to take decisive action and balance the politics in the current debate with what's ultimately best for New Zealand, particularly in regards to the 'hot potato' issues such as raising the eligibility age for NZ Super."

All very sensible, yet barely even radical enough to make the difference that’s needed -- which is no doubt why the government dismissed the idea without consideration. “In my view New Zealand super in its current form is affordable,” sniffed John Key, giving his best impersonation of King Canute holding back the retirement tides by his ability to fake reality. “I've made it quite clear,” he confirmed, “that it would be my intention to resign from Parliament if I broke that promise I made to New Zealanders."

All the better – that’s a two-for-one deal I could sign up for!

But in the meantime, while the government’s policy is to fake reality and shut down debate, even the Mercer proposal barely even makes a start on this problem which isn’t going away, and isn’t getting any smaller.  Within the next forty years New Zealand will move from a position of having 1 in 10 people over age 65 to 1 in 4 people over 65. 

That’s a pyramid scheme with too many blocks missing.  Holding your nose and stamping your feet isn’t going to make that problem disappear with the next tide.

And given that the “decade of deficits” promised by Treasurer Bill English is mostly needed to keep the welfare gravy train going, of which the lion’s share is the bill for the retired, we should see every new tranche of borrowing needed to fund the shortfalls as a new and additional government programme.  One we can’t afford.

We already face the prospect with the Government Superannuation Fund of the government taking a larger and larger share of local companies.  And we now face the prospect of watching it throw away its your money away on local ‘PPPs’ instead of genuine investments.  How much more difficult do we have to make it before we finally face reality and realise that the concept of a twenty-to-thirty year taxpayer-funded retirement is unsustainable?

It’s not like it’s too difficult to sustainably and painlesssly wean the country off this albatross.  Take George Reisman’s simple suggestion for reforming American Social Security for example**, which I’ve paraphrased slightly to give it a local flavour:

    First, following a period of two to three years to allow time for necessary adjustments to be made, immediately raise the retirement age from 65 to 70.
    This, of course, would be a major disappointment to everyone who had counted on starting to receive a pension sooner. Fortunately, there is a way to give these people a substantial form of relief, which would go a long way toward alleviating their hardship. That is, at the same time that sixty-five year olds are refused a pension, enact for their benefit a “senior citizens' employment-income tax exemption” in the amount of, say, $90,000 per year. . .
    The far greater part of the taxes thereby waived for these seniors on their income derived from employment would be taxes the government would never have collected in the first place, since most of the seniors would not have been working otherwise. The elimination of the government's payment of pensions to this group would far outweigh any loss of revenue from those sixty-five year olds who would have worked and paid taxes on their incomes even in the absence of the rise in the Social Security retirement age.

Which might even be enough to allow a similar exemption for all over-60s, which would give them a chance to prepare.

    This income-tax exemption should be extended and enlarged year by year until it embraces everyone in the 65 to 69 year-old age group. And, of course, it should be progressively increased from year to year to keep pace with rising prices and rising wage rates. Indeed, it should eventually be extended to apply to everyone 65 years old or older. In this way, the years remaining in life past today's customary retirement age might become truly “golden years” for millions of people, who at last would be freed of the burden of income taxes on their earnings derived from employment.

Who would be prepared to speak against freeing up that particular burden?  But let’s keep going:

    The retirement age of 70 should be retained perhaps for as long as fifteen years, to make it possible for all workers aged 55 and over at the time of its enactment to take advantage of it. Thereafter, however, the retirement age should be gradually increased further, to 75, over, say, a twenty-year period, rising at the rate of one calendar quarter for each passing year. Thus, workers aged 54 at the time of the reform's enactment would be eligible for social security at the age of 70 ¼, while those aged 35 at the time of its enactment would not be eligible until the age of 75.
    The system should accept no new pension recipients after the end of this twenty year period. In other words, it would be closed to workers 34 years of age and younger at the time of the reform's enactment. These workers, who would remain permanently ineligible, would all have ample time to make their own provision for the future. The superannuation system itself would progressively decline and ultimately disappear as its pensioners passed away.

A relatively painless way to accomplish the necessary reform.  But there’s one more thing to be done to ensure that no new impositions are imposed on anyone:

    The government's very considerable savings from reduced pension obligations over an initial phase-out period totaling almost forty years from start to finish, should be earmarked for tax reductions for workers who will never be able to enter the system, i.e., in the above scenario, workers aged 34 and less at the time of the reform's enactment. As these workers advance in age, new workers will be entering the labor market. There will thus be an increasing number of workers to bear the burden of the Social Security system's final phase. This will permit Social Security tax rates to be steadily reduced on this group, until they disappear altogether.

Reisman makes both the economic and the moral case to end government superannuation.

    The end of Social Security would be the end of something that should never have been started in the first place. The root of the system is the philosophy of collectivism, in that it forces everyone into a giant stewpot as it were, in which individuals are compelled to support the parents and grandparents of total strangers, whether they want to or not, in exchange for themselves later on being compulsorily supported by the children and grandchildren of total strangers.
    And, of course, standing between the generations has been a mass of politicians and government officials who have used whatever excess has existed of these forced exactions over current pension payments, to fund ordinary, current government spending.
    If a private insurance or annuity company had done such a thing and used its excess of premium income over current payments, to finance the consumption of its owners and employees, for whatever purpose, including the funding of charities and public works, the company officials would now be spending long terms in prison. For it would be very clear that they had embezzled the funds of their clients. Yet exactly that in essence is what politicians and government officials have done, on a scale far surpassing all private financial frauds combined over the whole of human history.

The creators of the world’s super scheme were bigger Ponzi operators than Bernie Madoff.  As US Circuit Judge Anderson said in the 1922 Lowell v. Brown case[*], the Ponzi scheme was “simply the old fraud of paying the earlier comers out of the contributions of the later comers.” So long as the number of late comers—you might call them suckers—grows, the fraudulent scheme has life.  When it stops growing, the reality is the same for us as it was for Bernie Madoff.

Confronting the reality of the situation is the first and necessary step to putting the unsustainable pyramid scheme to an end.

* * * * *

* * In the final chapter of his book Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, Reisman has a whole raft of similar transitional policies to pull the teeth of big government. And fortunately for you, you can read the whole chapter online.

LIBERTARIAN SUS: Open immigration – let’s do it!

This post arises from a question in reply to a comment I made at "Crusader Rabbit" last week on this post.  It also serves to address concerns raised by CR author 'KG' on Libertarianz immigration policy:

Q:  What's your solution to open immigration in light of Muslim terrorism?

The question of the ramifications of open immigration in this age of global terrorism is one that arises from otherwise libertarian-leaning folk from the blue corner in particular, (albeit not exclusively), and I understand their concerns.

Fifty-odd questions for National

By the time you read this post, I'll be holding up one end of the Libertarianz stand at Fieldays -- helping promoting reason, freedom and less government to an expected 150,000 punters strolling past our stand.

And since we'll be just three stands down the road from the National Party stand, we thought we should encourage passing punters to stop in and see them too, and ask any passing MPs some pointed questions.  In fact, for those so inclined, we'll be offering them some very pointed questions to ask.  Who better to ask them of, we thought?

And since we believe in fairness, we'll even give them advance notice of some of the very fair questions we've prepared for them ... 

Fifty-odd Fieldays questions for National

Q: RED TAPE: Which government departments will the National Party abolish to reduce government, in accordance with the stated aims of the National Party's constitution?
LIBERTARIANZ says: The Libertarianz unemployment policy is clear -- unemployment under Libertarianz would increase dramatically ... among bureaucrats, consultants and jobsworths. Start with the Ministries of Women's, Youth, Maori and Pacific Island Affairs, and NZ Rail and OSH, and then keep working on down ...

Q: SMACKING: At the anti-smacking rally outside parliament last year, National MPs stood up and said they were AGAINST the anti-smacking bill. One week later they all marched into parliament and voted FOR the Bill. Is there a word for that?
LIBERTARIANZ are opposed to the nationalisation of New Zealand children. Your children are YOUR children, not Sue Bradford’s – or John Key’s.

Q: RMA: You Introduced the Resource Management Act in 1991, and Simon Upton and Nick Smith oversaw it unchanged for eight years. Are you proud of that?
LIBERTARIANZ says: Private property rights provide the strongest possible protection for the environment and property owners. Libertarianz will repeal the fascistic Resource Management Act, and uncover the common law that decades of planning legislation have buried.

Q: COMPULSION: Is it true you are not a party of compulsion, as National's Kate Wilkinson said recently -- just before she was silenced for saying so?

Q: VOLUNTARISM: Do you support voluntary student union membership?
LIBERTARIANZ says: Supporting voluntarism on campus is a litmus test of freedom. If you don’t support students being allowed to choose with whom they associate, then what does that say about your support for freedom of choice.

Q: GLOBAL WARMING: You signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1998. Are you still proud of that?
LIBERTARIANZ says: Emission reductions required under the Kyoto Protocol will throttle New Zealand industry and energy production. Libertarianz advocate immediate withdrawal from this anti-industrial handbrake on prosperity.

Q: LABOUR-LITE: Is there any law introduced by the Clark Government that you WOULD repeal? Anything at all to which you wouldn't say "Me too"?
LIBERTARIANZ says: ‘Me too’ government is rotten government. Policies should be based on principles, not platitudes.

Q: ELECTION BRIBES: National originally said it would oppose interest-free student loans "with every bone in its body." Now you SUPPORT them! Where are those bones now -- in particular the 33 vertebrae?
LIBERTARIANZ says stop taxing students, and they can pay their own way through their studies. And keep your promises.

Q: EDUCATION: Three years ago National said bulk funding was "the first step towards providing the flexible education system that parents wanted." You've now abandoned even this timid first step. Do you no longer believe in a flexible education system that serves parents and children better?
LIBERTARIANZ says the separation of school and state is urgently necessary to liberate youngsters from the factory schools that are failing in everything but politically correct indoctrination.

Q: FOREIGN OWNERSHIP: Why won't you immediately overturn the pathetic ban on foreign ownership of so called strategic assets that saw the sale of Auckland Airport shares to Canada Pensions made illegal by this Government?
LIBERTARIANZ says it's not the Government's job to intrude upon a willing seller and a willing buyer. A principled party would know this.

Q: WELFARE: Why won't you immediately overturn Labour's Welfare for Working Families programme that is turning so many of the country's middle class into welfare beneficiaries?
LIBERTARIANZ says the moral cannibalism of enforced welfare should be abolished immediately, and beneficiaries urgently reacquainted with the ethic of self-responsibility – as should the National Party.

Q: DEFENCE: Why has the National Party capitulated completely on defending New Zealand? Isn't it true that the National Party's defence policy is now best summarised by the title of our national anthem: 'God Defend New Zealand'?
LIBERTARIANZ says: A country worth defending must be able to defend itself. New Zealand's woeful defence capability must be urgently upgraded --meaning more frigates, more Orions, surveillance aircraft for border protection, and rebuilding the strike wing of the Air Force.

Q: MONEY: After eight years of Labour, we are paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world -- how EXACTLY will you change that?
LIBERTARIANZ says the idea that governments can print money to create false prosperity must always be paid for in the long run.

Q: WAGES: The gap between NZ wages and those in Australia and around the world is getting bigger and bigger -- how EXACTLY will you change that?
LIBERTARIANZ says getting the government off your back and out of your business will light the blue touch paper of prosperity!

Q: MONEY: Grocery and petrol prices are going through the roof -- how EXACTLY will you change that?
LIBERTARIANZ says abolishing GST and ending the theft of motorists through hefty petrol taxes (nearly a dollar of every litre) will begin to make life affordable again.

Q: HOUSING: Every city around the world that has made town planners into kings has made housing seriously unaffordable for hardworking kids, whereas un-zoned cities like Houston are the most affordable places in the world to buy a house. What will you do to reduce the power of town planners in New Zealand?
LIBERTARIANZ says the rule of the town planners will only end with a stake through the heart of the Resource Management Act.

Q: EDUCATION: Ten years after Lockwood Smith introduced the NCEA, 300,000 Kiwi kids are functionally illiterate. Are you proud of that? And why is he still on your front bench?
LIBERTARIANZ says the separation of school and state is urgently necessary to liberate youngsters from the factory schools that are failing in everything but politically correct indoctrination.

Q: ENVIRONMENT: Why is Nick Smith more concerned with cutting greenhouse gas emissions and protecting Maui dolphins than he is in protecting hardworking New Zealanders who are losing their livelihoods by the throttling of industry and the closing down of fisheries? Isn't he in the wrong party?
LIBERTARIANZ says the environment is best protected with strong private property rights, not their destruction.

Q: GLOBAL WARMING: Why has National climbed on board the anti-industry bandwagon in calling for "strong action on climate change" – which means government action to stop private action. We know that socialism doesn't work at fifteen degrees, so why do Nick Smith and National think it will work at seventeen?
LIBERTARIANZ says New Zealand should drop the Emissions Trading Scheme forthwith, withdraw from Kyoto, and leave folk free to make their own choices on global warming.

Q: HEALTH: Even with billions of extra dollars poured into it, the die-while-you-wait health system hasn't improved -- how EXACTLY will you change that?
LIBERTARIANZ will end socialised medicine, allowing providers of all forms of prevention, treatment and therapy to compete in an open market. Tax relief leaves money in your pocket to spend for your own family's health care as you see fit.

Q: TAXES: Cutting taxes without cutting spending makes economic sense? Do you think anyone believes you when you say serious tax cuts don't require serious spending cuts to match?
LIBERTARIANZ says: Your money should be left in your pocket. A Libertarianz government will abolish all duties, tariffs, taxes and levies - except income tax, which as a transitional measure will be set at 25%, with an income threshold before payment of $50,000. And unlike National, Libertarianz has spending cuts to match.

Q: CRIME: We know that violent crime against innocent New Zealanders is continuing to soar -- how EXACTLY will you change that? Why will you not recognise the right of New Zealanders to defend themselves and their families?
LIBERTARIANZ says real crimes with genuine victims like rape, robbery, murder and theft should be vigorously pursued and the rights of these victims enforced and upheld. The NZ Bill of Rights should be amended to uphold your right to self-defence and the right to possess the means thereof.

Q: WELFARE: We know that when nearly 300,000 New Zealanders are dependent on welfare that it's a lie to say unemployment is at "record low levels" -- how EXACTLY will you change the endemic welfare dependence that is the legacy of both National and Labour policies?
LIBERTARIANZ says the moral cannibalism of enforced welfare should be abolished immediately, and beneficiaries urgently reacquainted with the ethic of self-responsibility – as should the National Party.

Q; DPB: After watching case after case of unwanted children being murdered by their own whanau, when will you abolish the system whereby hard-working New Zealanders are taxed to pay for no-hopers to breed?
LIBERTARIANZ says: Recipients should be given three years notice that the failed DPB scheme will end, at which time it should be terminated forthwith.

Q: COMPLIANCE COSTS: Every government since Jenny Shipley's has promised to "reduce the burden of compliance and bureaucracy," but not one has yet managed it. How EXACTLY will you?
LIBERTARIANZ says there must be a separation of state and business. We must get the government's agents out of your business and out of your life, and slash the regulations that give them access.

Q: PRIVATISATION: Why will you not terminate wasteful dreck like NZ Rail and Maori TV, and sell off profitable enterprises like TVNZ? What happened to the National Party's principles of favouring smaller government?
LIBERTARIANZ says: State assets should be given back to those whose money paid for them - taxpayers - as shares to be sold or retained as you choose.

Q: NANNY STATE: Nanny State is going berserk. How exactly will you reverse the soft fascism of Nanny's onslaught?
LIBERTARIANZ says: The urgency of getting Nanny State out of our homes, out of our workplaces, out of your children's minds and out of our pockets should be understood now even by the National Party.

Q: EDUCATION: Why won't National allow tax credits for people paying for private education?
LIBERTARIANZ says if you withdraw your children from the state's factory schools, you deserve a refund.

Q: HEALTH: Why won't National allow tax credits for people paying for private health insurance?
LIBERTARIANZ says if you withdraw your custom from the state's die-while-you-wait health system, you deserve a refund.

Q: ELECTORAL CORRUPTION: Where was National when Libertarianz leader Bernard Darnton was suing Helen Clark for stealing nearly a million dollars of taxpayers' money to buy the last election?
LIBERTARIANZ says using taxpayers’ money to buy elections is corrupt, whoever is doing it.

Q: ENERGY: Will you repeal Labour's ten-year moratorium on the construction of new thermal power stations? Or would Nick Smith rather go hug a tree?
LIBERTARIANZ says the abolition of the Resource Management Act and withdrawal from Kyoto are urgently necessary to allow the long overdue construction of new, clean power generation.

Q: TRANSPORT: Why will you not sell off Michael Cullen's new train set so we're not in the hole even further for all its ongoing costs?
LIBERTARIANZ says all the government's white elephants should be sold off.

Q: PRIVATISATION: Why have you ruled out selling TVNZ, the power generators, all the SOEs and al the government's shares in Air New Zealand?
LIBERTARIANZ says all the government's assets should be sold off, or given as shares to long-term taxpayers.

Q: BUREAUCRACY: What will National do to make public servants our servants again, and not our masters?
LIBERTARIANZ says show them our unemployment policy -- unemployment under Libertarianz would increase dramatically ... among bureaucrats, consultants and jobsworths. Start with the Ministries of Women's, Youth, Maori and Pacific Island Affairs, and the Resource Management Act and OSH and work on down ...

Q: ANIMAL WELFARE: Why will you not rein in the maltreatment of farmers by the SPCA?
LIBERTARIANZ says a farmer's animals are his property, not the SPCA’s.

Q: RACISM: Don Brash stated that National believed in One Law For All. Does John Key?
LIBERTARIANZ says: Government should be colour blind. Law should be colour blind. There should be no favours based on race, colour, or 'treaty status.'

Q: RACISM: Why won't you abolish the Maori seats immediately? If it's right to do it in three years, why not now?
LIBERTARIANZ says: Mean what you say and say what you mean. Racist parliamentary seats should go the way of slavery and apartheid.

Q: WAITANGI: When will you end the corrupt Treaty Gravy Train and take power away from the corrupt Brown Table who are making millions from it?
LIBERTARIANZ says the politics of race and the myth of ‘partnership’ should be expunged from our legal system. Like good politics, good law is colour blind.

Q: GLOBAL WARMING: Why are you going to introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme of your own?
LIBERTARIANZ says: Throttling industry with feel-good law is wrong -- just flat out wrong.

Q: FISHING: Why won't National repeal Jim Anderton's draconian ban on set-net fishing. Do you care more about Maui dolphins than you do about the families and livelihoods of New Zealand's fishermen?
LIBERTARIANZ says: Human beings come before fish. (And if dolphins were so smart, they'd stay away from set nets.)

Q. LABOUR-LITE: What's the chief difference between your team and the Red Team? Better suits?
LIBERTARIANZ says if you want to vote Labour out, then voting to put Labour-Lite in is just a wasted vote.

Q. TRADE: How come the Labour party is better at getting free trade deals than National ever has?
LIBERTARIANZ foreign policy can be written in two words: free trade.

Q. TRADE: How come Phil Goff & Helen Clark are better at arguing the case for free trade than John Key & Bill English?
LIBERTARIANZ foreign policy can be written in two words: free trade.

Q. WINSTON PETERS: Will National once again offer Winston the baubles of office just so you can govern?
LIBERTARIANZ says Winston’s tantrums are too high a price to pay. In Parliament Libertarianz would firmly commit to supporting every law that both advances freedom and contains no new coercion. Which rules out supporting Winston.

Q. GLOBAL WARMING: Why did John Key change his view on Global Warming? Was there new evidence we didn't hear about?
LIBERTARIANZ says: The warmist charade is another scaremongering fiction, just like the Y2K, Asian Bird Flu and Ice Age scares of yore – another case of The Emperor’s New Clothes.

Q. Does the National Party Caucus beat the snot out of Nick Smith during morning break? If not, why not?

Q. FARMING: How come farmers have been better off under Labour? Please explain.

Q. ELECTRICITY: If Nuclear power was the right thing for NZ would National support it? If not, why not?
LIBERTARIANZ says: The abolition of the Resource Management Act and withdrawal from Kyoto are urgently necessary to allow the long overdue construction of new, clean power generation.

Q: ELECTRICITY: Good on Gerry Brownlee for taking the Clark Government to task for New Zealand’s shambles of an electricity supply. But what will National actually do that will make any difference to our supply shortage? And is he aware that it was National who signed the Kyoto protocol that makes new thermal power stations immoral, and introduced the Resource Management Act that makes building new power stations of any kind all but illegal?
LIBERTARIANZ says abolishing the Resource Management Act and withdrawing from Kyoto are urgently necessary to allow the long overdue construction of new, clean and reliable power generation.

Q. ECONOMY: Why has Labour out-performed National in terms of NZ economic growth rates each time they get into power? It’s not just luck, is it.
LIBERTARIANZ says: Failed policies of subsidies, ‘picking winners’ and micro-managing economics makes an economy insufficiently able to adapt to changing economic conditions. The only ‘managing’ governments should do is managing to keep themselves out of the way.

Q: LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Council rates are going through the roof! Why will you not repeal Local Government Act that Sandra Lee introduced to allow councils to charge like a wounded bull?
LIBERTARIANZ says all laws that allow politicians to put their hand in your pocket without your permission should be repealed.

Q: SUSTAINABILITY: Will you ban the word ‘sustainable’ from the government’s vocabulary?
LIBERTARIANZ says sacrificing our own prosperity to ‘future generations’ in the name of ‘sustainability’ is a con – it can only end in the poverty of both. Our grandchildren will not thank us for not building the dams, abattoirs, power stations, roads and houses today that will need in the future.

I'll let you know if we get any decent responses.

And if you'd like to contribute to help pay for the Libertarianz' stand, then we'd love to see the colour of your money.  :-)