He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God. (NIV)
All posts by Richard
Are the Greens communists? (Part 2)
So, in other words …
National didn’t force upper income earners to pay $2billion extra a year in tax. They then said there isn’t enough money for our welfare programs for low income earners so we have to sell the assets. But who could afford to buy shares?
Those whom National didn’t force to pay an extra $2billion.
On top of that, National spent around $100m on the MRP privatisation process. As many as 100,000
or so New Zealanders bought shares, or about $1000 per investor. So they didn’t give a one-off tax rebate of $22.50 per NZer and sold the company to 2.25% of NZers instead.
The National government bungled the asset sales but at least they’re not communists.
Got Jesus?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— (NIV)
Write a letter, you’ll feel better!
I drafted this letter to Peter Dunne while sitting on the train this afternoon.
Dear Peter,
Re: Psychoactive Substances bill
I understand that your main motivation for promoting this legislation is safety.
I am concerned that the safety testing process for potentially approved psychoactive substances will be unnecessarily long-winded, prohibitively expensive, cruel (if tested on animals) and either too stringent or too lax to be effective. It will not be practically possible to establish likely adverse long-term effects of new psychoactive substances.
Drug users did not ask for this legislation.
Why not legalise substances such as cannabis, methylphenidate, BZP and MDMA?
All these substances have been trialled on humans and have good safety profiles.Methylphenidate is routinely prescribed to children. Why not legalise it for adult recreational use?
Cannabis has been used safely for millennia. No one has ever died from a cannabis overdose.
If cannabis were already legal, demand for synthetic cannabinoids would be negligible and the proposed legislation would be unnecessary.
Yours sincerely,
Richard
Comments are welcome before I send it.
Satan Laughs As You Eternally Rot
There are two kinds of Christians in this world. Those who post tributes to Jeff Hanneman, Slayer’s recently deceased guitarist, on Facebook. And those who post comments like this on said tribute posts.
A sad wasted life. Hell awaits.
I took umbrage at this, and messaged the author. He explained
It was a sad life. I wish he would have turned to Christ, but it didn’t appear that he did.
Fair comment. I, too, am sad that Jeff did not repent before he took his final breath. But a sad, wasted life? And hell awaits? On a tribute thread?
Yes, folks, this is the post on which you get to speculate (in the comments) on Jeff Hanneman’s afterlife destination!
Here’s what I believe.
Hell, or “Hades” in the original Hebrew, is the grave. And that is where Jeff Hanneman will soon be. (After his funeral, but I’ll get to that.) In God’s eyes, we are all sinners, and the wages of sin is death, so (other things being equal) we’re all going to die. It’s a simple enough argument, and even atheists agree with its conclusion. But here is Christ’s promise to mortal man.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Christians live in the hope that one day Jesus will return to fulfill His promise. Then shall be the Resurrection of the Dead and the Final Judgement. After which there is rest for the wicked, who succumb to the Second Death (Satan Laughs As You Eternally Rot) while the redeemed enjoy eternal life.
It’s a simple, stark choice. Do you go to the grave, or do you submit your life to Christ? Doing God’s will is all that’s asked of you. It sure beats pursuing your own pitiful plans!
But the reality is that that’s what Jeff Hanneman did. And he succeeded, by earthly standards. He drank lots of Heineken. Lots. And he screwed lots of hot metal chicks. Lots. As rock stars do. And then he settled down and married his lovely wife, Kathy. (So, this is all speculation, but I bet I’m not wrong.) And, in the meantime, he wrote the best songs for, and played lead guitar for, the greatest heavy metal band of all time. I am in awe. This is not a good Christian life by any reckoning, but a sad, wasted life? I don’t think so.
I am grateful to Jeff Hanneman for his life. He has brought me, and countless other metallers, hour upon hour of listening pleasure. And he’s saved people’s lives. Slayer’s music has given many disaffected, disturbed, depressed young people, on the verge of topping themselves, the strength to carry on. (Again, this is all mostly speculation, but I bet I’m not wrong.)
Thank God for Jeff Hanneman.
That’s my comment on my friend’s Facebook thread, and it leaves the comment at the top of this post for dead. Which brings me to my final point. The commenter’s Christian brothers and sisters will, I hope, at least understand where the commenter was coming from. But non-Christians (as I was, until recently) will not. I took exception to the comment because it was a steady diet of such dismissive, derogatory, judgemental comments from Christians that helped sustain my more than three decades of atheism in adult life.
We are Christ’s representatives on earth, and we should act like we know it. It’s one reason I founded this blog. To reach out to other Slayer fans!
Jeff Hanneman’s afterlife destination is ultimately up to his Maker. May God have mercy on his soul.
J Day 2013
Founding principles of the Conservative Party. Long form.
In a previous post I made a case that Colin Craig’s Conservative Party (CCCP) fails as a conservative party. Binding citizens initiated referenda and a liberal electorate? It’s a FAIL.
In this post, I critique the principles of the CCCP from a libertarian perspective. I’ll be brief.
Check out the Conservative Party’s founding principles. Here they are, in short form and long form (below).
The Conservative Party has the following beliefs:
A belief in loyalty to a sovereign and united New Zealand, the supremacy of democratic parliamentary institutions and the rule of law;
A belief in the institutions of Parliament and the right of citizens to direct government by the democratic process including binding citizens initiated referenda;
A belief in the division of government responsibilities between central and local government;
A belief in the equality of all New Zealanders and that all citizens, regardless of race, gender or religion, have equal rights and privileges;
A belief that the state must ensure the safety of citizens, and seek justice for victims of crime. Offenders should be punished for their offending and, where possible, rehabilitated and required to make good the losses they have caused;
A belief in a balance between fiscal accountability, pragmatic social policy and individual rights and responsibilities;
A belief in a decent society that values life, individual privacy, the freedom of the individual (including freedom of speech, conscience, worship and assembly), the right to defend one’s self and property, the importance of family and the role of civil society;
A belief that the best guarantors of the prosperity and well-being of the people of New Zealand are:
(1) A climate in which individual initiative is rewarded and excellence is pursued;
(2) The freedom of individual New Zealanders to pursue their enlightened and legitimate self-interest within a competitive economy;
(3) The freedom of individual New Zealanders to enjoy the fruits of their labour to the greatest possible extent; and
(4) The right to own property;A belief that it is the responsibility of individuals to provide for themselves, their families and their dependents, while recognizing that government must respond to those who require assistance and compassion;
A belief that the natural environment and resources of New Zealand should be used responsibly ensuring that future generations inherit an environment that is clean and safe;
A belief that New Zealand should act responsibly among the nations of the world;
A belief that good government should be responsible, accountable and limited, attentive to the people it represents, and whose representatives at all times conduct themselves in an ethical manner, displaying integrity, honesty and concern for the best interest of all;
A belief that all New Zealanders should have reasonable access to quality health care and education regardless of their ability to pay.
I’ve emphasised some points in bold.
It’s a libertarian non-negotiable (and a no-brainer) that the War on Drugs™ must end. My libertarian critique is from the point of view of a drug user. It’s no secret that I’m a drug law reform activist. I’m a member of the ALCP and NORML. And I like to smoke pot. Occasionally.
So, to begin with, there is no such thing as “a balance between … pragmatic social policy and individual rights and responsibilities.” This is either meaningless nonsense or a sad excuse to violate individual rights in the name of “pragmatic social policy”. Here’s an example of the CCCP’s pragmatic social policy.
More controls on alcohol, gambling and drugs
That’s under the heading “Social, Law and Order”. But I just noticed, under the heading “Health”
Natural health products remain widely available with no undue restrictions
What about natural health products that are also drugs, such as cannabis?! I guess I should ask Colin.
Next, the CCCP professes belief “in a decent society that values … the freedom of the individual (including freedom of speech, conscience, worship and assembly).” What about cognitive liberty? Whose mind is it, Colin? Whose business is it if I choose to tweak my endocannabinoid system in the privacy of my own home?
Jesus Christ was not the only one to give us two new commandments. Timothy Leary also gave us two new commandments (“for the molecular age”), viz.
Thou shalt not alter the consciousness of thy fellow men.
Thou shalt not prevent thy fellow man from changing his or her own consciousness.
Christian libertarians follow both Christ and (on this issue) Leary!
Lastly, I have a couple more questions for Colin. Is it in my “enlightened and legitimate self-interest” to smoke pot? And, who are you to say?
RIB Jeff Hanneman
Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman died early this morning of liver failure.
He will be remembered as guitarist and song writer for the greatest heavy metal band of all time.
He was 49. He is survived by his wife Kathy, his sister Kathy and his brothers Michael and Larry. And, of course, his fellow band members and a legion of fans.
Hanneman had been off the road since he contracted necrotizing fasciitis—thought to be from a spider bite—in early 2011. It’s not known what role the disease played in Hanneman’s liver failure.
Founding principles of the Conservative Party. Short form.
The adage says that there is no such thing as bad publicity. If you hadn’t heard of Colin Craig’s Conservative Party (CCCP) a week ago, you have by now.
Talking heads are touting the Conservative Party as the post-2014 replacement for ACT as National’s coalition partner. History will remember ACT as sadly schizoid, consisting of two factions, a conservative faction (e.g., Muriel Newman, John Banks) and a libertarian faction (e.g., Heather Roy, Rodney Hide, Don Brash), one faction being in ascendancy at one time, and the other faction being in ascendancy at another.
So, I thought I’d briefly consider the Conservative party from these two perspectives, a conservative perspective (this post) and a libertarian perspective (next post).
Check out the Conservative Party’s founding principles. Here they are, in short form (below) and long form.
The Conservative Party has the following beliefs:
- The rule of law and government by democratic process including [binding] citizens initiated referenda
- Responsible, accountable, and limited government
- Careful stewardship of natural and financial resources
- That government must protect life, freedom and property
- Equal rights and privilege[s]
- The freedom of the individual
- The responsibility of the individual
There’s nothing objectionable here—indeed, as stated these principle are more libertarian than ACT’s founding principles and echo the libertarian mantra of individual freedom and personal responsibility—but for one thing, viz., binding citizens initiated referenda.
The idea of binding citizens initiated referenda is a populist one. It’s been promoted in the recent past by populist (although not necessarily popular) parties such as the Direct Democracy Party, the OURNZ Party, and the NZ First Party.
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. But democracy plus binding citizens initiated referenda is even worse. It’s like two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. Except that if the wolves win the referendum vote, a good government cannot simply ignore them. Popularity must trump principle. And this is inimical for the CCCP’s credibility as a conservative party.
One of the principles of the Conservative Party (see above) is that government must protect life, freedom and property. But the Conservative Party would put our property, our freedoms and our very lives at the mercy of citizens initiated referenda!
Would you vote for the Conservative Party on a single issue, viz., abortion? David Farrar asked Colin Craig, Would Colin Craig vote for abortion on demand if a majority of the electorate backed it? Colin Craig replied
A challenging situation could arise if a Conservative Party candidate is elected as the MP for an electorate. He is then being sent to parliament to represent an electorate (not a party). I do believe that an MP is required to faithfully represent those who sent him even if he does not agree with them. A simple servant-master situation.
If the electorate required the MP to vote in a way that was against his conscience (and “yes” abortion on demand is against mine), he has in my view the following options:
- To vote as directed by the electorate (against his own conscience)
- To abstain on the issue
- To go back to the electorate and negotiate with them. If there is an impasse then to offer his resignation.
- To ignore the electorate and vote as he pleases
The first and last options (1 & 4) I believe to be incorrect choices. The first, because it breaches conscience, and the last because it usurps the servant role of the representative (it would be unfaithful to those who sent him). This leaves only 2 & 3 as options in my view. Personally I would elect the third option.
To close then, “no” I would not vote for “abortion on demand” but I would recognise that as an electorate MP this might require my resignation. If so then I would be pleased to stand aside so that a representative who was “more in tune” with the electorate could take my place.
Farrar describes this as “a thoughtful nuanced response.” I think that “show stopper” is more accurate. Colin Craig prioritises the will of the majority over the life of the unborn child. A simple case of the people’s wishes being done and that my friend is democracy.
Concerning the notion of Liberty, and of moral Agency.
The plain and obvious meaning of the words Freedom and Liberty, in common speech, is The power, opportunity, or advantage, that any one has, to do as he pleases. Or in other words, his being free from hindrance or impediment in the way of doing, or conducting in any respect, as he wills. — And the contrary to Liberty, whatever name we call that by, is a person’s being hindered or unable to conduct as he will, or being necessitated to do otherwise.
If this which I have mentioned be the meaning of the word Liberty, in the ordinary use of language; as I trust that none that has ever learned to talk, and is unprejudiced, will deny; then it will follow, that in propriety of speech, neither Liberty, nor its contrary, can properly be ascribed to any being or thing, but that which has such a faculty, power or property, as is called will. For that which is possessed of no will, cannot have any power or opportunity of doing according to its will, nor be necessitated to act contrary to its will, nor be restrained from acting agreeably to it. And therefore to talk of Liberty, or the contrary, as belonging to the very Will itself, is not to speak good sense; if we judge of sense, and nonsense, by the original and proper signification of words.— For the Will itself is not an Agent that has a will: the power of choosing, itself, has not a power of choosing. That which has the power of volition is the man, or the soul, and not the power of volition itself. And he that has the Liberty of doing according to his will, is the Agent who is possessed of the Will; and not the Will which he is possessed of. We say with propriety, that a bird let loose has power and liberty to fly; but not that the bird’s power of flying has a power and Liberty of flying. To be free is the property of an Agent, who is possessed of powers and faculties, as much as to be cunning, valiant, bountiful, or zealous. But these qualities are the properties of persons; and not the properties of properties.
There are two things contrary to what is called Liberty in common speech. One is constraint; otherwise called force, compulsion, and coaction; which is a person’s being necessitated to do a thing contrary to his will. The other is restraint; which is, his being hindered, and not having power to do according to his will. But that which has no will, cannot be the subject of these things.— I need say the less on this bead, Mr. Locke having set the same thing forth, with so great clearness, in his Essay on the Human Understanding.
But one thing more I would observe concerning what is vulgarly called Liberty; namely, that power and opportunity for one to do and conduct as he will, or according to his choice, is all that is meant by it; without taking into the meaning of the word, any thing of the cause of that choice; or at all considering how the person came to have such a volition; whether it was caused by some external motive, or internal habitual bias; whether it was determined by some internal antecedent volition, or whether it happened without a cause; whether it was necessarily connected with something foregoing, or not connected. Let the person come by his choice any how, yet, if he is able, and there is nothing in the way to hinder his pursuing and executing his will, the man is perfectly free, according to, the primary and common notion of freedom.
– Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, 1754
Are you up for A Careful And Strict Inquiry Into The Modern Prevailing Notions Of That FREEDOM OF WILL Which Is Supposed To Be Essential To Moral Agency, Virtue And Vice, Reward And Punishment, Praise And Blame? Then feel free to come join us at the next meeting of the New Inklings. (Tuesday 30 April, 5:00 pm, Trax Bar and Cafe, Platform 1, Wellington Railway Station.)