All posts by Richard

Matthew, Slavery

Matthew 22:15-22

1 Comment

Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away. (NIV)

Christian Libertarianism, Property

The Principle of Self-Custodianship

1 Comment

Glenn Peoples says that a Christian cannot be a libertarian. He says, “A Christian, by becoming a libertarian, compromises and gives up part of her Christianity.”

His argument is that libertariansm is based on the Principle of Self-Ownership or Individual Sovereignty

Each individual is the owner of his own life and has the right to live it as he sees fit, as long as he respects that same right in others.

and that this principle is incompatible with the commonly held Judaeo-Christian view that everything, including one’s own life, is owned by God.

The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it (NIV)

Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine (KJV)

It does not follow from this incompatibility that a Christian cannot be a libertarian, because libertarianism does not have to be based on the Principle of Self-Ownership. My view is that Christian libertarianism is based on the Principle of Self-Custodianship.

Each individual is the custodian of his own life and has the political right to live it as he sees fit, as long as he respects that same political right in others.

Freedom, Intellectual Property, Property, Semantics

Copying is not theft

5 Comments

Copying is not theft and copyright is not a property right.

Here are some other things which aren’t theft.

  • Rape
  • Murder
  • Adultery
  • Perjury

And here are some other rights which aren’t property rights.

  • The right to life
  • The right to liberty
  • The right to the pursuit of happiness
  • The right to a fair trial

Copying is not theft and copyright is not a property right. It baffles me that so many libertarians (Objectivists, especially) don’t seem to get this. Perhaps it’s because anarchists release viral videos like this one which confound two distinct claims, viz., copying isn’t theft and copying is fun.

Copying isn’t theft, but neither is rape. And rape isn’t fun. So perhaps copying isn’t good, clean fun, either, even though it’s not theft.

ALCP, Vote 2011

How I will be voting

1 Comment

I was 18 in 1984. I voted under FPP for the local New Zealand Party candidate. Despite gaining 12.2% of the vote, the New Zealand Party gained no seats. I didn’t vote again until the first MMP election in 1993. Under FPP, red authoritarianism or blue authoritarianism, unmitigated, is guaranteed. For a freedom-lover, voting under FPP is a pointless waste of time.

I will be voting to retain MMP. I support reducing the number of MPs to 100, and a threshold of 1%, for the reasons given here.

Stephen Berry believes the necessity of strategic voting in Epsom for the last three elections is an example of a fundamental flaw in the current MMP system. “The purpose of MMP is to make our elections as democratic as possible. However the five percent threshold means voters in Epsom having to vote for candidates they do not support in order to affect the national result. I say the solution to this is to remove the five percent threshold altogether. If a party gets 2% of the vote they should get 2% of the seats in Parliament.”

Some critics of Berry’s advocacy for eliminating the five percent threshold point out this will mean there are more parties in Parliament and make it more difficult to establish a stable Government. Berry points out, “Totalitarian regimes are often more stable than democratic ones but that doesn’t mean they are a good thing. The purpose of having a democratic election system is not to ensure a stable Government, but to provide representation for voters. The most democratic way to do this is through proper proportional representation. I would even argue that a system which makes stable Government more difficult could be seen as a positive. This would make it more difficult for a Government to raise taxes, increase economic regulations and write new laws that violate individual rights.”

Berry is right that “the five percent threshold means voters in Epsom having to vote for candidates they do not support in order to affect the national result.” But … What good is it for someone to affect the national result, yet forfeit their soul?

With friends of freedom like these …

last week I voted Banks and party vote ACT. I hate Banks. ACT isn’t good enough.

I’ll be voting for Act and I’ll utilize my Epsom electorate to candidate vote Banks. He’s an abominable piece of slime

… who needs enemies?

I will party vote for the ALCP. My electorate vote will be for the ALCP’s Mana electorate candidate—myself. :-)

Jihad on Drugs™, Peter Dunne, Vote 2011

This garbage is not worth replying to

3 Comments

On 11 August 2003, Greg Soar, Coordinator of the GreenCross Medicinal Cannabis Support Group, sent a letter to United Future MP Judy Turner.

He cc:ed his letter to United Future MPs Peter Dunne, Paul Adams, Gordon Copeland, Marc Alexander, Bernie Ogilvy, Murray Smith and Larry Baldock.

From: gc soar [mailto:gcsoar@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 11 August 2003 10:13 a.m.
To: Judy Turner
Cc: Peter Dunne; Paul Adams; Judy Turner; Gordon Copeland; Marc Alexander; Bernie Ogilvy; Murray Smith; Larry Baldock
Subject: Medicinal Cannabis – from a dying person
Importance: High

Greg Soar
Coordinator
GreenCross Medicinal Cannabis Support Group of NZ Inc.
P O Box 27 209
Mt Roskill
Auckland 1004

11th Aug 2003

Judy Turner
United Future Health Spokesperson
Parliament Buildings
Wellington.

Dear Ms Turner,

GreenCross has been in contact with UF regarding medicinal cannabis since late 2002. We met with Paul Adams in March 2003 to provide evidence from our doctors and other sources attesting that cannabis is helping our health problems. Mr. Adams chose to insist cannabis once damaged someone and would never change his mind about cannabis / medicine. He was so emphatic about not changing his mind he repeated himself three times during the conversation. This is very far from taking the time to examine proper evidence. When I pointed out people were suffering and dying Mr. Adams stated ” don’t be so dramatic there are other things you can use”.

My dear friend Evan Clive Shephard lived with HIV. He was so sick when he took his medications. Severe nausea to the point he couldn’t eat. His life was one long nausea session. More than once I was with him in public when he suffered severe diahorrea resulting in extreme embarrassment. Evan smoked cannabis when he could obtain some. It stopped his severe nausea dead in its tracks. No prescribed medications were able to do this. Unfortunately for Evan he could not afford cannabis so mostly went without. The medications were so nasty he chose a better life not taking the meds realising his time would be shorter but at least more enjoyable. Evans immune system depleted so badly due to his inability to stomach HIV medications he began to have lesions form in his brain. Toxoplasmosis is a nasty virus. My dear friend Evan lost his ability to talk, then his ability to walk and finall

I myself have the same nasty effects and currently my HIV medications are failing due to inability to stomach them. My cd 4 count is down to 54 and my viral load sits at 4.2 . I am afraid to say that I am losing the battle for the reasons stated. I would be willing to try Marinol at this point but my own specialist told me that at a conference he recently attended that to many people report an acute high. My specialists name is Dr Rick Franklin of the Auckland Sexual Health clinic and you may indeed check with him as to what I have said regarding Marinol.

If United Future and / or Paul adams are aware of these ” other drugs” we can use then why have we not been told what they are? GreenCross made several phone calls to Mr. Adams offices over the six months since the meeting only to never be given the courtesy of a response let alone an answer. Our members are upset Mr. Adams knows of medication better than cannabis yet makes us suffer by not informing us of what they are. We can only conclude one of the following.

1. Paul Adams / United Future does not want to help us. 2. Paul adams / United Future was wrong about the other drugs and should therefore reconsider the statement and opinions on medicinal cannabis.

Could United Future please supply us the names of these drugs or apologise to our members. We wish to work with United Future on this issue and an apology or drug naming would serve to placate some of our members who suffer daily.

During the meeting with Paul Adams I felt he was genuinely surprised when told that the sick are not medicating but actually going without. Too many people especially MP s seem to be of the impression we can have cannabis already albeit illegally. This is not true due to the cost. The sick are often on benefits and cannot afford $150.00 per week to medicate with. The prohibition of medicinal cannabis really does cause suffering.

As you are aware the Health Select Committee into cannabis recommends the use of medicinal cannabis. Again I have been receiving a flood of calls from our members [ membership means a registered medical practitioner has signed forms attesting the benefits of cannabis]. All of them have been in regard to your press statements along the lines of those mostly wanting medicinal cannabis are the social pro legalisers. This is offensive to those of us who face death and depleted quality of life from severe illness and who have doctors backing medicinal cannabis use but are left to go without the product for lack of ability to afford black market prices. Will you please inform our members as to how you arrived at such a conclusion.

We are all decent members of this society and deserve to be heard. In a press statement dated Aug 5 2003 you asserted cannabis use leads to methamphetimine use. This is not true and there are both international and local studies debunking the long held gateway theory. We feel that you have deliberately mislead the house.

GreenCross Medicinal Cannabis Support Group formally ask that you honour your role as an MP and apologise immediately for your attempt to mislead the house and members of New Zealand society. Education and advancement in social / medical policy can only be based upon truths. Anything less is indeed a crime.

Finally could United Future give their response to the fact doctors are signing forms attesting to the benefit of cannabis for their patient. Put this in context with your comments about the proponents of medicinal cannabis being pro legalisers and I am sure even you must admit why we feel so offended and utterly devalued of any worth.

I repeat that GreenCross Medicinal Cannabis support group wish to work with United Future on the issue and look forward to open and honest dialogue. Our members will not however sit quietly by when contemporary propaganda is exercised.

Sincerely

Greg Soar

On 22 August 2003, Greg Soar received a one line reply from Peter Dunne.

This garbage is not worth replying to

Hon Peter Dunne
MP for Ohariu Belmont
Leader, United Future

UNITED FUTURE – FOCUSING ON FAMILIES

More information at www.unitedfuture.org.nz