Category Archives: ACT

The Act Party Waikato,BOP Regional Conference July 2014.

act conference 7 14 009

Is it possible to trust a man who turns down a free beer… a Waikato Draught… and exclaims “I don’t drink beer… I drink wine…” !!!????

Hmmmm.

A Libertarian friend, and I attended the Act party BOP/ Wakato Regional conference yesterday, held in an Hamilton Airport Hotel conference room.
I was interested to meet Act’s new Leader, Jamie Whyte, and to hear him speak.
I took advantage of the fine weather to take my Triumph for a scoot.

I did not hang around for Dinner, or the evening discussions.
I’m not a member of Act, yet I would like to just tough on a few highlights of the day from my Libertarian perspective.

The meeting was also a party fundraiser, organized by Vince Ashworth and his wife, and Hamilton City Councilor and one time party president Garry Mallett was MC.

act conference 7 14 003

The Meeting kicked off a little after 3pm with Act’s Hamilton East Candidate, Ron Smith.
I was very pleasantly surprised with the content of his speech!
It was in my view the best speech of the day.
Mixed with humour, it was very Libertarian… not what I was expecting from an ex Waikato Uni Professor.
He said he was stepping up to the plate because he thought New Zealand was at a crisis point, and needed people in parliament to protect what he saw as positive gains… esp ‘Fiscal responsibility’.

Ron discussed how over a period of may decades his political outlook had shifted
considerably from the commonly held view that politics was simply a matter of various opinions on how best to organize community projects, and interests etc, to a far more sophisticated and enlightened view…. having figured out via decades of trial and error that the ‘Big Government’ model simply *doesn’t work.*
(Applause from me! :-))
None the less Ron warns …“There is a ‘Gaggle’ of politicians and their supporters, and esp the media which continues to live in denial”
Ron was very critical of the Waikato Times saying that in the past they had interviewed six candidates of various other (socialist) parties, and given them each a substantial space in the paper, yet had not bothered to interview anyone from Act.
(I myself have experienced this sort of prejudice from the Waikato Times myself, and it is appalling that such an important paper fails so miserably… and so often, in it’s journalistic integrity!)
Ron also decried the calibre of the journalism… their silly and irrelevant questions about ‘Cats’, etc.

He expressed his high regard for Jamie Whyte’s prowess as a political analyst.

Some of the last things Ron said which had me nodding was that many of the problems being faced by New Zealanders are rightly ‘Individual problems’… thus best lest to the individuals themselves to solve, and rightly singled out Security… internal Law and order as being a legitimate concern of government, and External security.
I asked him later of by this did he mean that the government should stop wasting money on things like America’s cup, and spend more on our Military… speaking personally he said “Yes… but a have not discussed any of this yet with Jamie Whyte”.

act conference 7 14 005

Next up was Dianne Mulhern “Why I support Act”… she decried those New Zealanders whom harbour ‘a sense of entitlement’ considering welfare to be ‘A right rather than a privilege’.

She said she likes Act because they had a tuff stance on crime.

On Taxes she said… “I would like to hold on to more of my own money…
My Husband and I run a business, and we pay taxes and taxes on taxes, and we have had enough!”
She explained that they tried protesting paying GST on top of a particular government Levy yet were forced to submit and pay up when they were threatened with court action.

act conference 7 14 012

Before a coffee break Jamie Whyte stood up to speak.

His speech was primarily a summary of what he has been releasing as his ‘Sunday Series’, which are available to view on the net.

He started with saying that he is proud of the High calibre of personnel within Act’s ranks and is grateful there as plenty of wisdom there to tap into, and gain good advice.

He used David Cunnliffe’s “ I am Sorry I am a man” , to contrast his vision of Act as a Party championing Individualism, and self responsibility in comparison to Labour’s collectivist mindset with it’s ‘Guilt by association’ type mentality … their fixation with having a ‘gender equal’ spread in their party list as being more desirable than making *impartial selections* based upon personal virtues and merits rather than sex.

He said Equality before the Law was the most important principle of justice, and that Lady Justice is symbolically blindfolded so that she does not see the identity of the persons with whom she is judging.

Without mentioning the National parties culpability, he talked about the institutionalized Racism which New Zealand suffers which grants privileges to Maori.

Clearly New Zealand does not have a just system… we have race based seats in parliament, Raced based state ‘advisory boards’, etc .
The RMA says Maori are more important, and have more say in matters of Development, and land management.
He said that because Maori have poor statistics in areas of Health, wealth, and crime that it appeared to many that Maori are disadvantaged, and that these things meant that it was difficult for some people to appreciate the fact that legally speaking Maori are privileged, and non-Maori are discriminated against.

To further make his point he said he knew of a woman with two sons, one born to a Maori Father, the other had a non-Maori father.
He said currently the way the Law is written that the Non-Maori son would have to score an ‘A’ to be accepted into Law School, whereas the Maori son would be accepted even if he only scored a ‘C’.
This not only unfairly discriminates against Non-Maori, but that ironically it means that because Maori don’t need to exert themselves to the same degree to get by… many don’t… and thus this ‘easy road’ does not tend towards an ethic of striving for success.

This is the sort of reason why Legal privilege is not working out to be in the best interest of the Maori people… socialism is failing them!

He said that even their racial legal privilege if it was working for them he would still oppose it on principle.

He said that in post election negotiations with National, Act would push for some sort of inquiry/ board it investigate ending the current race based laws and institutions of government.

When the opportunity came for questions from the floor, I said I agreed with what he had said, yet asked if it was prudent to wait until post election negotiations to formulate Acts policy for ending racial privilege.
I said that he ought to draw a line in the sand before the election and lay out not negotiable conditions for entering a coalition, because this would strengthen his position post election, yet he was not prepared to do that.
I asked if at a very minimum he would be prepared to say that Act will not enter into a Coalition with National, if it also included coalition with the Maori party?

Again he refused.
He then attempted to suggest that the Maori Party were reasonable people!

For me this was very disappointing!
Had he not just spoken about Law and order, and that equality before the Law was the most important principle of Justice?… and yet he was not prepared to make a minimum condition of coalition with National … in any way shape or form, to end the travesty of Waitangi separatism and our apartheid laws and institutions!
What more I gather Jamie does not have a very good grasp as to just how great a swindle is being perpetrated upon the people of New Zealand.
I think to the degree that he has investigated these matters, that he has by and large swallowed the modern ‘Revisionist history’ which portrays the Maori as victims of Land alienation via Greedy and underhanded means.
One thing is clear to me, Jamie has obviously been deceived by the Maori party- Mana split, and considers The Maori party to be reasonable… in comparison to Hone Harawera!
He does not realize that they are both *exactly the same*, only the Maori party are more cunning… more politically savy… more sly… whereas Hone Harawera is far more open and honest!

It is truly a wonder to me that Act would even consider entering a coalition with the Maori party…the party which represents the vested interests which are capitalizing from the injustices of our current apartheid system?
But then again how could anyone even contemplate getting into bed with the National party anyway?

Sigh.

I asked him what’s the point of getting into parliament without your principles?
He insisted he was taking them with him.

For me it is difficult to witness.
I believe he is sincere in his convictions.
He certainly is honest enough to say that he wont be drawn to make pre-election non-negotiable coalition conditions.
I have no doubt that he believes this course of action is the best policy to get Act back into parliament as part of the ruling coalition… that is his focus.
Yet I cant help but think that he is making a massive mistake.
Not only is he failing on the moral level, but is making a grievous miscalculation, and not learning from the Ghosts of Acts past.

I will have to talk about these spooks in another post… I will simply say that by taking this course of action Jamie is not giving the enlightened voter any solid reason to believe a vote for Act is anything more than a vote for National… and a perpetuation of the Status quo.

act conference 7 14 020

Several other people spoke, including Richard Prebble, whom is a bit of a character and in the words of Gary Mallett… is the Act party’s hardest working, and most dedicated battler.
His speech was a reinforcement of Jamie as the best possible candidate to lead the party, and went on to discuss Acts chances at election time.
He sighted many ‘advantages’ Act had which are reason for optimism.
“…A vote for Act is not a wasted vote..”
He is full of assurance that their Epsom candidate David Seymour will be victorious, and with the party vote hoping for as many as 9 Mp’s.

During a short open forum, questions on Immigration were raised… most flavoured with the usual petty xenophobia and mean-spiritedness … “Foreigners steeling Kiwi jobs”, to which I was very pleased to hear Jamie’s (and others) enlightened and benevolent responses.
He clearly has sensible, and humane ideas about immigration, and tabled several arguments which thwart many of the phobias that fuel anti-immigration.
He mention that migrants were a much needed source of labour to do jobs that Kiwis didn’t want to do.
Beth Houlbrooke also pointed out that migrants contribute greatly to our economy, with many of the higher skilled individuals actually creating *More jobs* for Kiwis…not less.

The one negative comment I have to say about Ron Smith is that he seemed to harbour fears about Indonesian Boat people reaching our shores, and that in his opinion New Zealand should adopt/ partner up with Australia’s ‘Final solution’ (my words).

My heart breaks when I think about the horrific treatment of desperate refugees by the Australian government.

I just cant fathom how people can be so heartless against such people whom are simply looking to escape a hell hole, and find a safe place to raise their kids.

I am sickened by the inhumanity of those Americans whom equate innocent Mexican children crossing the US Border to escape the hell of the Drug war… as being Mexican Gangster killers!

I think about the Jews whom were trying to escape the Nazis being turned away and sent back to the German ovens.
I think about the Children drowning at sea.

Can we not have a more humane border policy which allows some sort of Private voluntary association to take in these people and work to assimilate them into our society?
This is a subject for another blogpost… back to the Act Conference.

act conference 7 14 023

The Act party as Jamie presents it is the most conservative flavour… the least radical.
Though apparently Act is the party of Law and order, personal freedom and self responsibility, we don’t hear anything as Brash as decriminalization of cannabis… at least not at this conference.
One of the biggest problems I see for Jamie is that if he thinks that he can start off this ‘luke warm’ way, thinking that as the party grows stronger that at a later date he will be able to steer the party in more Libertarian direction, that he will then realize that he has not created a ‘Liberal’ party at all!
He will have filled his ranks with conservative center right socialists (Quazi-Fascists) whom will resist any move towards *Real Reforms*… and if he thinks it is necessary to appease conservative center right socialists *to get into* parliament, I say he will have to continue to do so *to remain* in parliament
This has always been the curse of Act… The conservatives have always thwarted the Idealist ambitions… and this is why Act has achieved virtually nothing in all its time in parliament.

So I worry that because Jamie is taking the road of least resistance, that not only will this make it difficult to differentiate Act from National in the eyes of the most enlightened voting New Zealanders whom are looking for a *Real alternative* …costing him votes, instead of filling Act with principled Idealists, whom love justice, he runs the risk of simply swallowing up disgruntled National party voters and pragmatists whom would sell their own grannys to remain in parliament… ahead of struggling for progress.
His way may be quicker… but it will end miserably.
My way may be a bit slower… yet I believe the end results would be far more spectacular!

Anyway….

There were several other speakers and many other interesting questions debated yet sadly I have run out of time and space to report them.
It’s 1am and I start work at 6!
I will have to edit’ spell check this tomorrow nite.

They had a very good turn out…a full house… I estimate 50+.

To return to my original question, I think Jamie Whyte is an honest politician, whom is in stark contrast to the General Demagogue herd, in that he is careful not to make promises that he is not sure he can keep.

Despite my criticism…. Despite my disappointment… I like Jamie, and many of his Supporters.
I certainly believe he would be a good man for New Zealand to have in parliament.
I think Ron Smith is an excellent candidate for Hamilton east and I would encourage Easters to give him their vote but alas I don’t think he wants them… He’s fishing for party votes.

Though I am not a member of the Act party, I am certainly willing to help them expound the principles of Equality before the Law, of reducing the size and expense of government, of increasing Liberty, self reliance and self responsibility, etc and hope that I have opportunity to talk with Jamie again soon.

He’s a smart guy, and I look forward to watching him in action, and the rest of Act’s new line up which includes at least one Ex Libertarianz Party member, and another Libz Supporter.

No doubt in Jamie’s mind *any* movement he manages to pull our government in the right direction… no matter how small… is a real moral victory.
It’s hard to argue against that.

I would certainly love it if Act was to grow into a Powerhouse of Libertarian Idealism!

Dreams are Free!

Talk is cheep.

My criticisms have little weight.
Personally, as a Politician I am a complete failure…. I may make NZ history as being the most unsuccessful person who stood for election.. yet to me Politics is not about the art of compromise, but about Resolute and unwavering integrity to principle.
To me it’s *not a wasted vote* to vote for a candidate whom best represents your personal values and Ideals…. Even if … According to the mainstream media…they have no hope of governing.

I’m rambling again…

Now I’d better get my arse down to the Electoral office and get my paperwork to stand again as a Libertarian Independent candidate for Ham West.

Tim Wikiriwhi.
Libertarian Independent.

Update:29-7-14 Winston Peters is a politician for whom I harbour much contempt, yet having just received word that John Key is now willing to conciser a post election deal with him, having ruled out the Conservative party, none the less Peters has boldly announced that he will not join any coalition with The Separatists of the Maori or Mana Parties…. which is exactly the sort of courageous and principled stand I was hoping that Jamie Whyte would make a minimum condition in any deal with National.

Read about This line in the sand >>>Here<<<

Update 3-8-14.

No faith in Mother Earth

http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/climate-report-jamie-whyte-do-nothing-video-5879217

https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/climate-change/a-proposed-bible-science-perspective-on-global-warming/

What does the bible say about climate change?

“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?  Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?  Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life ?  “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin.  Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.  If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?  So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’  For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.  But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.  Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” -Matt 6:25-34

“While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” -Genesis 8:22

After the fall of man, the days on earth became numbered. Not because of man made CO2 emmisions or over population of the human race, but because of the sinful nature of men. You can ride a push bike, plant trees, build wind mills and solar panels all you like if you want to save humanity. If you want real salvation, Jesus is your only hope! Amen.

How exactly do the government deal with climate change? We have an ETS which is taxing on businesses and consumers. The cost of an ETS essentially means, less business and subsequently less employment. Also means higher electricity and fuel prices which contributes to the high cost of living. Do the people of NZ really want this? As Jamie Whytt said; the people of NZ arn’t worried, we should just do nothing.

 

 

There ain’t no easy way

logo_new

This September 20, vote Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party for Truth, Freedom and Justice!

To vote ALCP, you’ll need to make sure that you’re registered to vote. Are you on the electoral roll? Enrol, check or update now!

But, dear readers, I do appreciate that you may not want to vote for the ALCP. In fact, you may not want to vote at all. Not voting at all is certainly better than voting for any of the other parties on offer! (With the possible exception of the revivified ACT Party.) And not voting is your democratic right. At least, it is in New Zealand.

Across the ditch, voting is not a democratic right, it’s a democratic duty! That’s right, in Australia voting is compulsory. But compulsion is tyranny! The day that voting becomes compulsory in New Zealand is the day I never vote again. I hope that day never comes.

If you don’t want to vote at all, you don’t need to be on the electoral roll, right? So how do you get off of it? There ain’t no easy way.

70,000 voters removed from electoral roll

About 70,000 local election enrolment packs have bounced back to Registrars of Electors marked ‘gone no address’.

The Electoral Commission mailed update packs to the 3.1 million people on the electoral roll at the start of July, to make sure everyone who’s eligible is correctly enrolled to vote in this year’s local elections.

“If you are one of the 70,000 or so voters whose pack has come back to us because you’ve moved house and not updated your enrolment details, you have been removed from the electoral roll, and won’t be able to vote unless you re-enrol,” says Murray Wicks, National Manager, Enrolment Services.

So one way to remove yourself from the electoral roll is to intercept your election enrolment pack, tell a little white lie by marking it “gone no address” and send it back whence it came. But telling lies is bad, even little white ones.

Death is another option, but it’s a tad extreme. How do dead people get removed from the electoral roll, anyway? I’m not sure. Across the ditch, at least voters are provided with a means to remove a dead relative. But here? I couldn’t find anything on the Electoral Commission’s website.

It looks like moving house is the only other option. And then hoping that the new residents of your old home return your election enrolment pack marked “gone no address”. Instead of simply binning it. Which is what I’d probably do …

I suppose the reason that there’s no easy way to get off of the electoral roll is that it’s compulsory to be on it. But why? Why does the government need a list of all eligible voters? I.e., a list of all adult New Zealanders not already in prison? Isn’t that what the Census is for? Sinisterer and sinisterer …

LEAP NZ’s Angus Fisk’s criticism of Dodgy Police decision not to prosecute John Banks, and other Public officials.

angussss

Angus Fisk…Retired NZ Policeman and member of LEAP NZ.

From A Fisk…
Sent this off yesterday………
The Editor
Otago Daily Times
I submit the following open letter to the Commissioner of Police for publication in your paper.
The Commissioner of Police,
Sir,
The incidence of the NZ Police taking upon itself not to prosecute certain cases on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to warrant charges being laid has come to light as an increasing and unwelcome phenomena.
Most recently we have the unedifying instance of the case against Mr John Banks for submitting a false election return in which your judgement of insufficient evidence has been proven to be flawed threefold; first by a member of the public laying a private prosecution, then by the Crown Prosecutor taking on the case and finally by a judgement of the Court finding Mr Banks guilty. Then today I read of Sir David’s finding of excessive force by a Constable who employed pepper spray, a baton and two ‘shots’ of a taser to subdue an offender. Again the police considered that there were insufficient grounds for prosecution. Media reports of other similar instances seem to crop up all too often.
The practise is not new – I also know of a case, now dated, against a former police Sergeant for forgery, perverting the course of justice and perjury (of which you will have intimate knowledge by virtue of your service as a Detective in the Far North in the 1980’s) being written off on the same grounds not-withstanding abundant evidence to the contrary – but is becoming too commonplace.
Surely, it should not be necessary for a former Police Sergeant to remind the Commissioner of Police that the Courts are the right and proper venue for judging such cases, not behind the closed doors of Police Headquarters since the latter raises the question of why such dubious decisions are being made within the higher eschelons of the Police. Is it mere professional incompetence, an inablity to grasp the facts of a case? One would hope not given the considerable experience of our most senior police officers and the legal advisory resources available to them. Or could there be some more sinister motive; favouritism, partiality, corruption even? I make no judgement here, I am merely reflecting the growing public disquiet on the subject I perceive about me.
The fact is it is not necessary for the police to have an absolute and watertight case before a prosecution is lodged. Reasonable grounds to suspect an offence are sufficient criteria. It is up to to Courts then to decide the worth of a case. I would argue there is no harm in police losing cases in Court since this merely demonstrates that they are doing their job properly – and not usurping the Courts role. How many cases are disposed of in this convenient manner? And what proportion relate to police misconduct/politically delicate matters? Do we need some sort of Judicial auditing to ensure our police are up to the job, perhaps?
Prevailing Police practise does little for the good name of the Police; indeed it contributes to a growing public cyniscm on the integrity of the Police. I urge you to either address this issue or to stand down for somebody that will.
Angus Fisk

************************************************************************

bad good

Awesome Angus!
While I believe it is prudent to allow some police discretion with regards to minor issues,
Your remarks are particularly true when dealing with Public servants, politicians, police, etc because the faith of the people needs to be maintained.

The whole Banks/ Dotcom affair has been a laughable joke (I’m not talking about the Raid… that was serious Tyrannical Bullshit!).
It is fitting that a power tripper like Banks should finally reap some of the ‘love’ he has sown against so many peaceful peeps… (re The war on drugs).

A Political Spider got caught in a political web.

This Saga makes a mockery of the silly rules regarding election donation disclosure… as if a 25k anonymous bribe is ok… 50k… becomes a crime!
It also shows how politicians like Banksy ‘work the system’…. “Hey Dot… break it down into two donations…. and we fly under the radar….” 🙂

Angus is truly a Hero.
He has commented on a very serious corruption which infests the Police culture from the Top down.
Now we have a Police Chief who publicly hailed a corrupt policeman whom framed an innocent Man…. costing him his farm and sending him to Jail for 9 years!

Now how is it that this is the sort of guy we have at the top????
Surely *If anything* this attitude is a clear indication of his *Un-fitness* for the roll.

Read about that >>> Pressure grows on top cop to retract Hutton funeral eulogy

How many people have forgotten that the NZ Police also failed to Press charges against Helen Clark’s Labour Party regarding their 2005 ‘Pledge card’ election fraud and theft of nearly half a million dollars by which they were able to *Pervert the democratic process*… Defraud Don Brash of his opportunity to End Waitangi separatism… and Keep their filthy hands on power????
Then Libertarianz party leader Bernard Danton privately sued Helen Clark for Fraud, which case was only nullified by the Machiavellian Labour party writing retrospective legislation to prevent a guilty verdict.???

Read about that here>>>> Labour escapes charges on pledge card but case found

Helen Clark could become the next Secretary General of the United Nations!

Read about it>>> Former PM Helen Clark tipped for UN’s top job

The Police have lost their way.
They have become Political players…. Stooges and Gangsters… rather than servants of the rights and liberties of the public.

They are in dire need of reform.
This requires an entire Enlightenment Re: the philosophy of Law, and code of police conduct as servants of the people rights and liberties…. rather than Political enforcers… and lobbyists for their own power and vested interests.

Tim Wikiriwhi.
Christian Libertarian.

**************************************************************

Read about the Police Dodgy decision not to prosecute John Banks >>>here<<< Read more from Angus>>>> LEAP NZ Law Enforcement against Prohibition. New Zealand.

Read more from me…. Legalised Force attracts Thugs and Bullies like flies to…

Tracinski’s ratchet

LIB

The last time I stood as a candidate for the Libertarianz Party was in the 2008 general election. We gained 0.05% of the party vote. We needed to gain 5% of the party vote to reach the MMP threshold and get 6 libertarian MPs in Parliament.

We needed to be 100 times more popular with voters. But then what? What if we gained 5% of the vote and ended up with 6 libertarian MPs in Parliament? What would we actually do once we got in there?

To be honest, I didn’t give the question a great deal of thought at the time. But Peter Cresswell did. He advocated a principled rule of thumb which I’m going to call Tracinski’s ratchet.

Writing in the Intellectual Activist (July 1995), Robert Tracinski says

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.

PC called this rule of thumb a ratchet for freedom. Or, more freedom with no new coercion. Or (as I remember it, anyway), new white, no new black.

It looks almost like a corollary of the Libz slogan More Freedom Less Government, doesn’t it?

Here’s what PC says in his post Transitions to freedom: Shall we kill them in their beds?

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

PC then gives a couple of examples of policies that pass the test (including my own Transitional Drug Policy) but also some that fail. Here are a couple of the proposals that fail.

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.

Two policies very popular with the libertarianish ACT Party. You can now see why Lindsay Perigo dubbed them the Association of Compulsion Touters. Not pure enough! Pragmatism over principles and how soon until we arrive at the bottom of the slippery slope?

10377446_10154267203975574_7197730999236087931_n

The problem with Tracinski’s ratchet is that it doesn’t work. If Tracinski’s ratchet doesn’t allow us to move from an oppressive, progressive tax regime to a low, flat tax then what use is it, really? If Tracinski’s ratchet doesn’t allow us to move away from one-size-fits-all state factory farms of the mind to a school voucher system any time soon, then patience is a virtue.

Here’s a thought experiment to illustrate the general nature of the problem.

Suppose we were lucky enough that we already lived in a prosperous country with a low, flat tax rate. (The opposite of the actual case, but just suppose.) And suppose that the Libz got elected to Parliament and found themselves in opposition to a fiscally irresponsible socialist “tax and spend” government. Suppose that the government tables legislation—let’s indulge in some newspeak and call it the Fair Tax Act—that would replace the low, flat tax rate with an oppressive, progressive tax regime but with the sweetener of a tax-free income threshold of, say, $25,000. How would the Libz vote?

The new tax system means some new freedom. Low income earners will find themselves paying less tax. More of their own money staying in their own pockets. But the new tax system also means lots of new coercion. Middle to top income earners will find themselves paying a lot more tax. So, some new freedom but also some new coercion. The measure fails to pass the Tracinski’s ratchet test. Libz vote against it.

But the government passes the measure anyway. And, over the next Parliamentary term, the economy suffers. (Predictably enough.) All the economic indicators are bad. So bad that the main opposition party campaigns on the platform of repealing the Fair Tax Act. And wins the election! The Libz also sneak back in, too.

Now suppose that the new government tables legislation—let’s call it the Fair Tax Repeal Act—that would simply revert to the previous low, flat tax regime. Gone is the oppressive, progressive tax regime but so, too, is the tax-free income threshold. How would the Libz vote?

Reverting to the previous tax system means lots of new freedom. Middle to top income earners will find themselves paying less tax. More of their own money staying in their own pockets. But reverting to the previous tax system also means some new coercion. Low income earners will find themselves paying a lot more tax than they were before. So, some new freedom but also some new coercion. The repeal measure fails to pass the Tracinski’s ratchet test. Libz vote against it.

So there’s the problem right there. Nearly always, Tracinski’s ratchet means that bad legislation cannot be straightforwardly repealed. Unless it is really, really bad legislation. Bad through and through. Didn’t give anyone any new freedoms at the time, so repealing it isn’t going to take any new freedoms away, just restore old ones.

(PC does offer a partial defence of Tracinski’s ratchet, but I’ll get to discussing that in a future blog post. I’m not done with Tracinski’s ratchet yet! Spoiler. A partial defence isn’t good enough, and the whole concept of Tracinski’s ratchet is deeply flawed.)

The Psychoactive Substances Act is really, really bad legislation. Bad through and through. Pure evil, in fact. It meant plenty of new coercion (thousands of previously legal recreational drugs banned) and no new freedom. Some manufacturers and retailers were allowed to continue to sell products they were already legally selling, but only if they applied for and were granted interim product licences at $10k a pop. No new freedom, just more new coercion. And now the Act has been amended. All interim product licences have been revoked. Yet more new coercion.

So Tracinski’s ratchet would, at least, allow Libz MPs to vote to repeal the Psychoactive Substances Act. But only because it is thoroughly bad.

The Misuse of Drugs Act is thoroughly bad legislation, too.

Repeal the PSA! Repeal the MODA! End the War on Drugs™!

Oh, wait. That’s right. I almost forgot that over the past year I’ve changed tack and sailed off course and become an apologist for Socialist Statism. We can’t just repeal our draconian drug laws, damn it. Because that would be way too much freedom all at once. People might overdose and put pressure on the public health system and we can’t have that. Got to keep costs down and taxes up.

It is my personal view that we should legalise all drugs. But in an orderly, paternalistic, supervised fashion. Starting with cannabis. Let’s see how cannabis legalisation goes, and take it from there. If it were up to me, I’d rank all drugs in order of safety, and legalise them in that order, over an extended period of time. That’s my policy. Obviously, most of the recently banned synthetic cannabinoids would be some way down the list …

Where was Jamie Whyte while Laila Harre was getting high?

dotcom_funding_critical_to_leadership_decision_1875034129

So Laila Harre has seized the initiative… and the high ground on Cannabis Law reform.
Good for her!
I chuckle because this will test the bonds of the Internet Mana Marriage.

Will Hone Harawera do a ‘Hone Banksy’ on her?

We all witnessed last election ‘Righty Hone Banks’ knife his dear leader, Don Brash for publicly expressing his views that Cannabis should be de-criminalised.
We all know this treacherous disloyalty cost the Act party and Don Heavily … though Banksy still got his Baubles of power.
Consequently Acts support under ‘National Banks’ sunk to absolute Zero.
(Did Banksy and his Fascist Faction really think Freedom lovers would support such a Carnie side show?)

From all the rhetoric I have herd from ‘lefty’ Hone Harawera… he is as anti- Decriminalisation as his Pakeha counterpart to his Right.
Things could get ugly for Laila… just as they did for Don.
This could be an interesting week in politics.
As a Libertarian, I am always hoping that more, and more parties adopt policies in favour of ending prohibition on Cannabis because to achieve such reforms through parliament and maintain them requires a broad multi-party consensus.

jamwy

And thinking more about this one must ask the obvious question as to where the hell is Act’s new Brash-man Jamie Whyte on this Issue?

What can voters infer from his silence that either he doesn’t give a shit, or that the great Fraudulent Liberal prohibitionist Banksy still wearing the Pants in the Act party?

Why is it that all we hear from James is all about *Business*…. nothing about individual freedom and responsibility?

Why the hell has he allowed The Lefty Freaks of Internet Mana seize the High ground on this fundamental issue of Personal freedom?

Am I the only one who thinks this is farcical?
It’s quite embarrassing for Act… or should be.
How can Act claim to be the part of Personal Freedom and Anti- Nanny State when they are being out shined on this important matter???

Come on Jamie….
Are you going to let the Lefty Freaks win all the support that is out there for Cannabis Law Reform?
Are you only concerned with Business interests?
Where is your stuff on Freedom and getting rid of Socialist Nannyism?

Why Do You think silence is the best policy?
I think you are letting one of your greatest opportunities slip through your hands…

Rather than standing tall like a Beacon in stormy Seas you appear to be just another Grey suited politician whom calculates that conservatism on such issues is the best way to ‘win a seat at the table’.

I should not have to point out what a monumental *Fail* such Compromises have historically proven to be for Act.
Power without principles is hopeless.

That sort of wet flannel politics is why they have achieved absolutely *Zero* for all their time in parliament (worse than zero actually if you count the Super city fiasco)… and it is why Act have no credibility today.
How about growing a pair and showing some Brash principles… rather than playing possum on such a vital, yet contentious issue!
Brash was onto something great.
His biggest mistake was getting John Banks into the Act Party.
John Banks has achieved nothing but being the flunky for John Key.
Is a vote for Jamie Whyte’s Act *still* nothing more than another vote for John Key’s National party?
It seems that way from where I’m sitting.

Tim Wikiriwhi.
Libertarian Independent.

fernando-h-cardoso-commission-on-drugs-750px

Read>>>> GLOBAL COMMISSION ON DRUG POLICY

Read about Laila Harre’s press release >>>> Here <<<< Read more from me .... Tick…Tock… Tick… Puff Puff. Where does Act’s Jamie Whyte stand on Cannabis Law Reform?

Open letter to Act’s new leader Jamie Whyte … Stop being National’s Lapp-dog.

Norml J Day Protest Hamilton 2014

Ross Meurant: The case for decriminalisation

Tick…Tock… Tick… Puff Puff. Where does Act’s Jamie Whyte stand on Cannabis Law Reform?

jam wh

Currently nobody knows!
Will he maintain Political Dinosaur John Bank’s status quo position or will he show he’s got bigger gonads, more heart, and more scruples, by actually putting forward a more enlightened policy which actually gives some substance to Acts claims to be a party founded upon principles of personal freedom and responsibility?

Is Jamie serious about Personal freedom or is that just a hollow sounding platitude to him like it is for so many in the Act party.
So many Act-ites are really only interested in one thing….Financial freedom.
In every other sense they are Nanny Statists.
That’s why they supported John Banks.

If Jamie intends to forge his own brand and restore any credibility of Act in the eyes of the voting public… he needs to Act now.
He needs tell the voters his position on Cannabis Law reform *Now*… to get the debate going, and so that Act’s position can be made know at the National day of Protest which will be held this Saturday… everyone knows it as Jay Day.

I await with anticipation …. to see what Mettle he has.
In my view should he boldly step up and announce that Act will support Decriminalisation, I will be impressed.
This will suggest to Libertarian minded people that he is brave, and far more Enlightened and progressive than Act’s former Fascist Helmsman.
Should he fail to put out a press release in the next day or two Libertarians, and the thousands of Cannabis users can only assume one thing… that he is a political game player who is prepared to sell out principles under the delusion that via such shyster trading in souls…. that he will himself have a better chance of gaining Baubles of power.

This subject is a political Hot potato at the moment because of the absolute spineless flip flop of the National party and Peter Dunne in regards to Legal Highs, and the Psychoactive Substances Act in the wake of Labour David Cunliffes desperate and dirty Election year tactics to ride the wave of mindless phobia, media sensationalism, and non-scientific condemnation of synthetic cannabis use.
We have witnessed a full revival of the Witch Craze… “Synthetic Reefer Madness” .
No doubt many of the unprincipled ‘conservative’ Faction in Act would be waving their calculators and saying it would be ‘inexpedient’ in these circumstances to release a policy of Cannabis decriminalisation… yet they *Always* say that…every election year!
They all stood behind John Banks in opposition to Don Brash when he boldly advocated reform and argued for it’s Justice.

One wonders how such hypocrites can claim to be a party of small government, a party of Individual Freedom and reform when in reality they don’t have any policies which distinguish them from the Status Quo!
This faction honestly dont care that Cannabis users are being oppressed by the thousands via draconian Laws.

And their Modus opperandi has not been a success story, but a tale of absolute Failure!
Act’s wishy washy compromises have meant that in all the years they have been in parliament, they have achieved absolutely nothing.
They have simply been Sycophantic Lap dogs which have allowed Nation to apply their Nanny Statism!
The history of Act is one long tale of spineless sell outs…. they even were prepared to support a National- Maori party Coalition!
That says it all really.
The argument that it’s best to compromise so as to remain in the game… has been absolutely proven to be vacuous!
Yes individual Mp’s may have kept themselves warm under the wings of the Dragon… yet they achieved Zero for the people that voted for them… and thus they have lost all their support.
John Banks was the final nail in the coffin.
Jamie took the reigns with Act Polling >>>Zero<<

Well Brash has Gone… the way of Julius Caesar… Friends Knives sticking out of his Back!
John Banks shot himself multiple times in the foot regarding Lies in the Dotcom saga… and about his infamous Cuppa tea.
Now we have the Philosopher Jamie Whyte… Will do a Banksy on Cannabis users or will Be more Brash than Brash?
Ie will he be an inspiring leader willing to make some bold and principled moves, and have the Iron will to tell the Wimpish weasles at his back to pull their heads in and support the reforms… or stop pretending to be Liberals, Go join the National party, and dont let the Door spank you on your way out!
I honestly believe New Zealanders are crying out for a Real Leader, of a real Party of reform.
I believe the time is perfect to make such a move which is in diametric opposition to all the other parties…. esp in the light of the great reforms going on around the globe… particularly in America… and the Massive scientific enlightenment going on in respect to how safe Cannabis is, and how beneficial it is in respect to mental health, and as a powerful Anti-Cancer and anti Epilepsy Medicine.

Jamie could become the leader of the New Zealand enlightenment on this subject,and ride an upsurge of support into power…. which I believe is there wait for someone to vote for.

So I hope Jamie reads this post today, and Act’s upon it.
I would love to include his name in my Speech for this Saturday as a Man who is championing the justice of Ending Cannabis prohibition.

What say you James????
Time is of the essence.

marijuana-girl

You ain’t ever gonna stop this!
No amount of Jackbooted Tyranny has ever worked… nor will it eva!
Recreational use of Cannabis is virtually Harmless a is certainly not a Crime!
The Unjust laws which have purported a War against peaceful people are Criminal!
We await Liberation!

Tim Wikiriwhi
Libertarian Independent.

Update: 2-4-14…. ‘Twas the night before Jay Day, when all thro’ the house. Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse…
Surprise surprise!
Not Really.
No news on the Act front re Cannabis Law reform… so Norml NZ speakers at tomorrows Jay Day cant inform the thousands of Pot smokers and Libertarians that a vote for Act is a vote for liberty and justice.
I also take from this that Their New Leader Jamie Whyte is not prepared to go out on a limb for the sake of a persecuted yet peaceful minority, but intends playing populist politician and snuggling up to Nanny Statists National.
This has never worked for Act party Policies… only ever for Act party politicians… in the short term.
In the long term it has guaranteed their demise thus i foresee another miserable outcome for Act voters.
I would have loved to have shared a better report yet unfortunately it looks as if Jamie has failed to sweep the Act house of all the dead wood, and instead it taking their tired old unprincipled path towards political irrelevance.

Tim Wikiriwhi.
Disappointed Activist for Ending Cannabis Prohibition.

Read more…. Hell’s Bells! Drugs and Alcohol are being consumed in an Adult manner by the employed masses!

NZ Research finds Synthetic Cannabis Low Risk. The Star Trust.

Low Crime Stats contradict Legal High mania mongers.

Eternal Vigilance welcomes food porn queen Higella Lawson to New Zealand!

Medical Cannabis. Wonder Drug! Halts Epileptic Seizures in Children! PTSD. Etc etc.

Hightimes. Biologist Explains How THC Kills Cancer Cells.

New Prohibitions. How our Police and Government work for Criminal Gangs.

Righteous Law Enforcers want to end the War on Drugs.

The Exit Drug… Cannabis.

Off the Grid. Jesse Ventura says Legalise Marijuana!

LEAP NZ Law Enforcement against Prohibition. New Zealand.

Pastors Focus On Decriminalizing Unjust Drug Laws.

Monumental Stoners: Thank Reefer and The KJV for the Enlightenment and Liberty.

One does not simply brand cigarettes

one_does_not_simply_brand_cigarettes

I read this in the news last week.

Cigarette plain packaging closer

New Zealand has the “sovereign right” to protect its citizens and will not be told what to do by tobacco companies, Tariana Turia says, as plain packaging of cigarettes passed its first hurdle.

Last night Turia, Associate Minister of Health, introduced the Smokefree Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill into Parliament, and it passed its first vote by 118 votes to one.

It has now been referred to the Health Select Committee for public consultation. National, Labour, the Greens are all supporting it, while New Zealand First was expected to support it at least through to select committee.

Eventually the legislation would see all branding removed from all tobacco products, aside from the name of the variation in small plain type, with large warnings about the risks posed by smoking.

Turia said that despite legal challenges to similar measures across the Tasman, she was confident it met New Zealand’s international obligations.

Mandatory plain packaging is the latest government intervention to stop people smoking.

I’m against it. It’s creeping totalitarianism!

The tobacco industry is against it. British American Tobacco spokeswoman Susan Jones says

Plain packaging constitutes a severe restriction on the use of our intellectual property, including trademarks. This is a huge concern to us, as it would be to any business, because the effect is to render our trademarks unusable.

John Banks is against it. He says

I don’t believe the State should seize property rights from legitimate companies selling legitimate products

What I find particularly interesting is that Jones and Banks both make their argument against plain packaging on the basis of intellectual property rights, specifically trademarks. But there are no intellectual property rights! Or, there shouldn’t be!

There’s no doubt that the introduction of private property was hugely civilising. Property rights in the tangible fruits of one’s labours means that one’s possessions are legally secure. Whereas, before the invention of private property, one could walk into stores and just take things, now it’s theft!

Privatisation of land also seems to me to have been a good idea. (Not according to the geolibertarians.) But should we privatise everything? Should we privatise the whales? Should we privatise business names and logos? Should we privatise inventions? Should we privatise stories? Should we privatise air? Should we privatise the Moon?

camel-cigarettes-pack

Please understand that what constitutes private property is a system of restrictions, authorised and enforced by government, on who may do what with certain things. For example, making it illegal for anyone except the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company to use the word ‘camel’ and a picture of a camel in certain contexts is what constitutes the company’s intellectual property in the Camel trademark. To own a trademark is to restrict everyone else’s freedoms, e.g., to restrict their freedoms to talk about and draw camels.

Getting the government to restrict other people’s freedoms to use words, images and ideas is tantamount to theft and anathema to this libertarian.

Jones complains that plain packaging constitutes a severe restriction on the use of British American Tobacco’s intellectual property. Of course, it does. But here’s the irony. The very existence of a British American Tobacco trademark is constituted by severe restrictions on everyone else’s use of what previously they could freely use. Now it’s not simply everyone else whose freedoms are restricted. It’s everyone whose freedoms are restricted, including British American Tobacco. It’s now illegal for anyone to use the word ‘camel’ and a picture of a camel in certain contexts. One law for all!

I don’t think much of the trademarks argument put forward by Jones and Banks. The government giveth and the government taketh away. Problem?

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

Open letter to Act’s new leader Jamie Whyte … Stop being National’s Lapp-dog.

j  wy
Act’s New Leader Jamie Whyte.

Hi Jamie,

Congrats on your appointment as leader of Act.

I am a Libertarian, and I must confess that the Act Party has been nothing but years of disappointment after disappointment to the degree that I now have a loathing for the very name.

Will you change my opinion?
Will you win my support?
I would hope that you will make a condition of an coalition deal with National, that they break ties with the Maori Party and agree to remove all race based laws and institutions from our government and enshrine the principle of racial equality before the Law.
Getting into bed with the Nat/ Maori party coalition made a mockery of Rodney Hide.

I also think Act has trapped it’self in Epsom.
to win that seat you must sell out too many of your principles and pretend that you are ‘light blue conservatives’…. center right…. like National and this watery stance defeats you from where you ought to focus…. on getting past the 5% ….. by following *Core act principles*…. Racial equality before the Law…. and the decriminalisation of Cannabis…. more freedom less government.
These two policies are very popular and will push you past the 5% mark …. if you have the balls to follow through on them…. not like Don Brash who cowered before John Banks…. who should never have been recruited into Act’s ranks.

You must be well aware of the great reforms sweeping America in respect to legalisation of cannabis, and in regards to it’s harmlessness and medicinal value.
This is a real opportunity to tower over National and Labour.
A Balzy Act could become King maker!

Liberty lovers are waiting in droves for *a real Liberal* to stand up and confront the Socialists of the left/ right/ and center.

Regards Tim Wikiriwhi.
Libertarian independent.

Ps. I saw you on Paul Henery the other night and am concerned that you say you dont like the term ‘Libertarian’ and prefer the term ‘liberal’.
I assume you seek to distance yourself from ‘the tin foil hat’ that popular stereotype of a libertarian, yet I would have thought that would be much more palatable than being mistaken for a Commy lefty…. which is what ‘Liberal’ has come to mean.
It scares me that this is a sign of yet another political compromiser under the delusion that Compromise is the way to get into power…. yet all Acts arse kissing in the past has meant they have achieved nothing whatsoever while in parliament…. and they have slowly lost all their support.

Do something amazing!
Show some balls!
Sack all the compromisers who infest your exec.
Go back and re-recruit all the *Real battlers* who have deserted Act because of the lame-o expedience mongers refusal to draw lines in the sand.
Admit the mistakes that Hide, and Brash made.

Apologize to NZ for acts slide into being Nationals bitch.

Tell the people *principles Matter* Justice is not for sale, and you will fly past the 5% mark.
*This is the sort of Party New Zealand desperately needs*…. there is a gaping hole waiting to be filled.

Regards,
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Libertarian Independent.

Peak Rand

I was saddened to read that Lindsay Perigo’s forum Sense of Life Objectivists (SOLO) has gone down.

Here‘s my SOLO blog. I posted and commented there between November 2007 and February 2013.

In the end, SOLO’s proprietor succumbed to GDS. (He may yet succumb to something momentous.)

I had two main gripes with SOLO and SOLOists.

They misrepresented me. From the outset.

And they misrepresented themselves as advocates and champions of Reason. Typically, SOLOists have no interest in, and no aptitude for, Reason. As my posts here, here and here amply demonstrate.

Anyway, Perigo insists that SOLO is down but not out. It will be back from the dead, perhaps even as soon as next month. I look forward to the resurrected SOLO.

Meanwhile, in other news from beyond the grave …

philosopher_contemplates_act_leadership_role

Philosopher contemplates ACT leadership role

A former lecturer in philosophy at Cambridge University wants to save the ACT Party and take over John Banks’ Epsom seat.

He’s Jamie Whyte, a management consultant, writer and committed advocate of the free market who has been living in Britain.

With Mr Banks on the way out, ACT is in the worst shape it’s ever been in and history hasn’t been kind to the party.

Now Mr Whyte wants to captain the sinking ship.

“Jamie Whyte does well to save himself, but he’s going to do his best to save ACT,” says Mr Whyte.

“I believe in the principles of ACT.”

A philosopher leading a libertarian party? It’s the best news I’ve heard all year!

A free PDF of Jamie Whyte’s Free Thoughts is available from the Adam Smith Institute here.

From what I’ve read so far, Whyte is surely the man to lead ACT back from oblivion.

(He makes some points with which I disagree, e.g., his Times column, I don’t believe that believers really believe, contains a number of egregious errors. Perhaps I’ll point them out to him and explain why they’re errors. I’m sure he’ll listen to Reason.)