Monthly Archives: February 2013
A call for civil (servant) obedience
People from the Crown Law Office have been reading this blog. Specifically they have been reading State rapes former Barnardos counsellor.
It’s not clear whether the Crown Law Office want the blog post taken down or whether they just intend to use its existence to try and deprive Johan (the former Barnardos’ counsellor) of his relentless advocate. I won’t explain more because an explanation might breach a suppression order (I think sometimes suppression orders are deliberately vague and not made in good faith).
You can read more about this on Chris Wingate’s blog.
I think it’s fitting to pay tribute to Johan’s relentless advocate Robert Lee who has spent thousands of hours at his own expense fighting for justice for Johan…
A message to those at the Crown Law Office –
You serve the Crown (the Queen) and she took an oath to cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all her judgements
Presumably you all took an oath similar to the following…
“I, [name], swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law, in the office of ; and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of New Zealand without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God.”
To truly serve the Crown and do your duty you need to betray your colleagues that defy the Law and cause injustice.
Wikiriwhi for Hamilton Mayor.
How to solve Hamiltons Rates crisis>>>> http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK0709/S00333.htm
If only Hamilton had listened to me! Your 38 million dollar mistake >>>> http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/2011/10/if-only-hamiltonians-had-listened-to-me-your-38-million-dollar-mistake/
Party Rebels over ‘Intrusive’ Census.
Libertarianz Northland coordinator Helen Hughes burning her census 2001.
Libertarianz Northland coordinator Helen Hughes. Photo / John Stone A political party is urging people opposed to the “coercive nature” of the Census to take part in mass civil disobedience and destroy their Census forms in protest.
But anybody who takes the advice of the Libertarianz Party to indulge in “burning, shredding, defacing or ignoring” the Census form sent out by Statistics NZ could find themselves facing a $500 fine, with another $20 for each day they fail to comply.
Libertarianz Northland coordinator Helen Hughes will be holding a party on Census day – March 5 – to “responsibly” destroy her form with others opposed to the information gathering exercise.
Ms Hughes admits it’s exhorting people to take part in a mass form of civil disobedience, but said many didn’t like the intrusive nature of the Census and don’t trust the Government.
“Nobody should destroy their [Census] forms unless they know what they are protesting against. Yes, it’s urging people to break the law, but when the law is wrong then protest is absolutely necessary.”
She said she and the party were opposed to more government intervention and saw the Census as a benign way of brainwashing people into giving up private information.
Read more here: NZ Herald
Related Blogpost…. The Census. Are you really free?
The census is a rediculously expensive waste of Taxpayer money!
Read about it here:
Join the Facebook ‘Event’ ‘Avoiding the Census’ Here:
Effigies of Evil
Micah Kinard interview
Susceptible to Retinal Based Reprogrammability
‘Tis not contrary to reason
Elsewhere, my co-blogger Tim is arguing with commenter Terry about Objectivist ethics.
The key to their dispute is the following brief remark by commenter Matt (quoting Terry).
“It’s not rational to accept a value from another without giving a value in return” why not, on standard means ends accounts of rationality that’s perfectly rational, some argument for this conclusion is needed.
Matt refers to “standard means ends accounts of rationality”. David Hume, the greatest philosopher who ever lived, gives such a standard account in the following passage.
[P]assions can be contrary to reason only so far as they are accompany’d with some judgment or opinion. According to this principle, which is so obvious and natural, ’tis only in two senses, that any affection can be call’d unreasonable. First, when a passion, such as hope or fear, grief or joy, despair or security, is founded on the supposition or the existence of objects, which really do not exist. Secondly, When in exerting any passion in action, we chuse means insufficient for the design’d end, and deceive ourselves in our judgment of causes and effects. Where a passion is neither founded on false suppositions, nor chuses means insufficient for the end, the understanding can neither justify nor condemn it. ‘Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. ‘Tis not contrary to reason for me to choose my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me. ‘Tis as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowledge’d lesser good to my greater, and have a more ardent affection for the former than the latter.
— David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature
Let’s be clear. The Objectivist account of rationality is not a standard means-ends account.
Rand stuffs all manner of rabbits into the Objectivist rationality hat. This enables her to pull all manner of rabbits out of the Objectivist rationality hat. It’s sleight of hand! Here‘s an example.
“The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving VALUE FOR VALUE. [ Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,”The Virtue of Selfishness, 31] (emphasis mine)
“It is only with (other men’s) mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest COINCIDES WITH THEIRS. WHEN THEY DON’T, I ENTER NO RELATIONSHIP” [Galt’s speech, Atlas Shrugged] (emphasis mine)
How much more explicitly could Miss Rand state the case?
The above supports without contradiction the fact that a rational man who identifies that it is not in his customer’s interests to deal with him (regardless of his customer’s protestations to the contrary), he will not deal with him. Why? Because it is not rational to accept a value from another man without giving a value in return.
If you define ‘reason’ as being such that the rational interests of men do not clash, then you may conclude that when the interests of men do clash, the interests of one or more parties are not rational. But this is just pulling a rabbit out of a hat. If your account of rationality is such that it is not rational to accept a value from another man without giving a value in return, then you may conclude that it is not rational to accept a value from another man without giving a value in return. But this is just arguing in a circle.
The Objectivist’s code of ethics is fine insofar as it goes. An Objectivist will not take from his fellow man without giving in return. But none of the injunctions of Objectivist ethics, such as “Thou shalt not steal,” flow from a standard means-end account of rationality. Rand simply incorporates such injunctions into her own account of rationality and then claims that it is irrational to steal!
Objectivist ethics is contrary to reason.
Jesus Just Left Chicago
Jesus just left Chicago
And He’s bound for New Orleans
Well now, Jesus just left Chicago
And He’s bound for New Orleans
Workin’ from one end to the other
And all points in between
Took a dive through Mississippi
Well, muddy water turned to wine
Took a jump through Mississippi
Muddy water turned to wine
Then out to California
Through the forests and the pines
(Oh, take me with You, Jesus!)
You might not see him in person
But he’ll see you just the same
You might not see him in person
But he’ll see you just the same
You don’t have to worry
‘Cause takin’ care of business is his name
New Book. Twisting the Treaty.
Six notable authors, have just published a challenging new book about the way the Treaty of Waitangi has been twisted to be greatly in favour of Maori tribes in the last 30 years. These twistings include the rewriting o…f our history by political “historians”, the never-ending so called Treaty claim process, and privatising and giving away our foreshore and seabed, as well as our native flora and fauna, and the rorts that apply to our sea fishery.
If you are interested in these matters, then this book, “Twi$ting the Treaty – A tribal Grab for Wealth and Power” provides readily readable discussion on these topics. The Cover below.
Warning – the book is factual and is non-PC, one of its charms in my view.
The book is available at a retail cost of $40. It has 414 pages and 16 photo pages.
But with 16 self-contained chapters it does not have to be read all at once.
Where to obtain it:
1 Good bookstores throughout NZ or
2 Write to Tross Publishing, P O Box 22 143, Khandallah, Wellington, 6441 with your order and cheque
3 Also see our website, www.trosspublishing.co.nz for info and to order.
Enjoy your reading.
^^^^ Hat Tip: Tom Henry via Facebook.
Libertarians Tim Wikiriwhi and Guest Peter Cresswell On the New Freeland Radio Show.
Great to see Ex Libertarianz Party Leader Peter Cresswell listed as a Co Author of Twisting the Treaty!
Watch Here @ Eternal Vigilance for further commentary on this Book.
P.S Deep Purple in Concert Tonight! Yeah!