Category Archives: ACT

ACT, Dogs, Jihad on Drugs™

A big thanks to John Banks

6 Comments

1283_602115356489941_1520542584_n

Here’s today’s press release from John Banks, and a transcript of his speech to Parliament.

banner-banks-parliamentry

Banks Challenges Greens To Take Stand On Animal Welfare
Press Release By ACT Leader John Banks
Thursday, June 27 2013

ACT Party Leader John Banks today challenged the Green Party to stand by its principles on animal welfare.

Mr Banks says if the Greens truly care about animals, they should make a commitment to vote against the Psychoactive Substances Bill if Mojo Mathers’ amendment to rule out animal testing fails.

“There is simply no justifiable reason for unnecessary drugs to be tested on animals. They are not a lifesaving medicine, or something that will relieve suffering. People take these substances just for fun.

“Evidence shows animal testing is not necessary to prove the safety of mind altering chemicals, yet poor beagle puppies are being bred so these drugs can be tested.

“These puppies will be put in extreme pain, they will suffer and many will die – just so people can take recreational drugs on the weekend. I find that completely unacceptable.

“The Greens have been vocal in their opposition to animal cruelty. The Greens’ animal welfare policy states:

‘Experiments on animals should only be used where they are overwhelmingly beneficial and do not cause animal suffering’ and;

‘Animals must not experience suffering for economic or entertainment reasons’

“Green MP Mojo Mathers’ amendment to rule out animal testing for psychoactive substances is sensible and has my full support. But what if her amendment fails to get the numbers?

“The Greens have not made any commitment to vote against the Bill and may end up supporting it regardless. That’s not good enough.

“I have campaigned for animal rights all my life and that’s why I am taking a stance against this Bill. If the Greens truly believe their own animal welfare policies, they should follow suit,” Mr Banks said.

ENDS

banner-banks-parliamentry

Psychoactive Substances Bill – Second Reading
Speech by ACT Leader John Banks
Thursday, June 27 2013

I rise to oppose the Psychoactive Substances Bill.

This bill is well intentioned and aimed at ensuring psychoactive substances sold in New Zealand are as safe as possible. I want to pay respect to the Minister Todd McClay for his noble intentions with this bill.

However, I simply cannot support it.

I find it totally unacceptable that this bill fails to rule out testing these recreational drugs on innocent animals.

Protecting animals is ingrained in my soul.

I think most New Zealanders will be outraged at the idea that chemicals people use ‘just for fun’ can be and will be tested on harmless animals.

Animals will be put in extreme pain. Animals will suffer. Animals will die.

We must remember psychoactive substances are not a necessity.

Recreational drugs are not something one needs to consume. They aren’t lifesaving medicines or something that will relieve suffering. People don’t NEED to take them.

Their prolific use will cause widespread animal suffering.

There is simply no justifiable reason for unnecessary drugs to be tested on animals, and I for one find it deeply offensive that any Government would sanction it.

Animals will be in pain and will die all in the name of people wanting to take drugs on the weekend. That is simply unacceptable.
Animals must not experience suffering for economic or entertainment reasons.

I know the Select Committee inserted a new clause in the bill to state that animal testing should only be used when necessary, but that is not good enough.

Especially considering the Select Committee refused to hear from organisations such as SAFE and the RSPCA about the impact of animal testing.

Evidence shows animal testing is not necessary to prove the safety of these mind alerting chemicals.

Dr Ian Shaw of the University of Canterbury says non-animal testing can adequately establish whether a substance has unacceptable risks of acute toxicity.

Cell culture, ex vivo and SAR studies can all be used to establish the risks.

Even if animal testing was necessary, and I know the vast majority of New Zealanders will agree with me on this, I say tough luck to the drug manufacturers and their drug dealing distributors.

If you can’t prove your new found drug of choice is safe without putting animals in abject misery, you can’t sell your drug.

If you need to pay more for more expensive non-animal testing, again I say tough luck. That is the price you, who stand to profit from selling these drugs, must pay.

The reality is the bill could well result in drugs being test on animals in place such as China and India where animal welfare is shamefully non-existent.

The statement in the bill that overseas testing must be carried out in accordance with the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act is nonsense because there is no way for us to assess what goes on in the torture chambers of animal testing laboratories in Asia.

Despite assurances from former Minister Peter Dunne, this bill fails to rule to the use of the extremely cruel LD50 test.

These animal testing places test their drugs on man’s best friend – dogs. Or, more specifically, farmed Beagle puppies. These animals trust us, and expect to get care and love. It is obscene.

I also want to comment on the Interim Psychoactive Substances Expert Advisory Committee, and one of its members Bob Kerridge from the RSPCA.

The committee was tasked with advising about the use of animal testing.

Some have said that Mr Kerridge’s place on the committee and the committee’s view that animal testing should be condoned reveals that animal welfare groups support this bill. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I want to place on record what Mr Kerridge said to me:

‘It is a matter of record that I am opposed to any animal testing for the approval of psychoactive products, and my presence on this Committee does not alter or condone it.”

Those who have fought for many years for the rights of animals, such as SAFE and the RSPCA are outraged by this bill and it is disingenuous to say anything different.

Finally, I want to thank Mojo Mathers for her work on this bill. I will be supporting her amendment to prohibit the use of data, collected from testing on animals here or overseas, being used to support an application to get a psychoactive substance approved. It is a sensible amendment which will protect defenceless animals.

But I say to her and her Green Party colleagues, if your amendment at Committee stage fails to get the numbers, you should vote against this bill anyway.

The Green Party has been very vocal in its animal rights stance. If you truly believe your own policies you should be standing against this bill.

We are sacrificing Beagle puppies at the altar of recreational drug use. It is a disgrace to this country.

As the most powerful creatures on this Earth, humans have a responsibility to protect all animals from senseless, worthless and shameless cruelty at all times and in all places.

ENDS

Thanks, John, for speaking out for those who can’t speak out for themselves.

Readers, please support Mojo Mathers amendment. (The most effective way you can do this is by emailing the Maori Party MPs. I’m reliably informed that whether or not her amendment gets included is likely to come down to the votes of the Maori Party.)

Abortion, ACT, Conservative Party

Founding principles of the Conservative Party. Short form.

13 Comments

ask_colin

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.

binding_referendum

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.

watch4free-1346457945

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:

  1. To vote as directed by the electorate (against his own conscience)
  2. To abstain on the issue
  3. To go back to the electorate and negotiate with them. If there is an impasse then to offer his resignation.
  4. 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.

ACT, Apartheid, Libertarianz, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Treaty of Waitangi

In on the Con(stitutional Advisory Panel)

5 Comments

There’s another Treaty Debate on tonight at Te Papa.

Treaty Debate Series 2013 – My Voice Counts

This year, we focus on the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. Participants include two prominent lawyers and a panel of young people.

Kim Hill, 2012 International Radio Personality of the Year, chairs the second Treaty Debate of 2013. This year, we invite a panel of young people to discuss the Constitutional Review, which wraps up in late 2013. They answer the question: What are the issues you care about?

The event is introduced by Claudia Orange, Te Papa’s Treaty of Waitangi scholar, and Carwyn Jones, from the New Zealand Centre for Public Law.

The Treaty Debates are organised by Te Papa in partnership with the New Zealand Centre for Public Law at Victoria University of Wellington

I plan to go along to give John Ansell some moral support, perhaps I’ll assist by holding one end of his protest banner, which reads, “Enough Treaty Treachery – Treatygate – The Conning of a Country”.

The rigged panel of Griever Maori and Appeaser Pakeha charged by the National-Maori alliance with misrepresenting your desire for a Treatyfied constitution.

Ansell is right. The country is being conned.

There are no Treaty principles. There is no Treaty partnership. At least, not in the original Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

The third article of the Treaty guaranteed to all Māori the same rights as all other British subjects. This meant one law for all.

constitutional-advisory-panel-in-on-the

But there is at least one member of the Constitutional Advisory Panel who (last time I checked) doesn’t understand what “one law for all” means. She says

One-law-for-all is emotive nonsense. We have all sorts of varied laws for different categories of the population, age being the best example. Will Act, under Brash, get rid of the legal age for drinking, voting and obtaining a driver’s licence?

A libertarian friend tries to correct her woolly thinking. He says

You’re not comparing like with like. The drinking age is not a violation of one law for all. It applies equally to everyone. If there were an exemption for Maori, that would violate one law for all.

and goes on to ask

Is your article intended as an apologia for preferential treatment for Maori?

Perhaps it was intended as a job application?

A few brief words on why ageism is acceptable (in the cases to which Deborah Coddington refers) and racism is not. Law is all about discrimination. Morality is all about discrimination. We treat a man who has been found guilty of murder differently from a man who has been charged with murder and acquitted. We discriminate between the two cases. As we should. Legally (and morally), the difference between a Guilty verdict and a Not Guilty verdict is relevant to how people should be treated. In the case of age vs. race, a person’s age is morally relevant (they are deemed to be too young to give informed consent) to how they should be treated. A person’s skin colour is not.

It beggars belief that Coddington was once the Deputy Leader of the Libertarianz Party.

[Cross-posted to SOLO.]

ACT, Christian Libertarianism, Easy Listening, Freedom, Justice, Libertarianz, Local Government, Nanny State, Regulation, Slashing Bureaucracy, Socialism, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, Vote Wikiriwhi!

Liberty Conference: Dick Quax and the Great Leap Backwards. Agenda 21.

6 Comments

This is part 2 of my coverage on the Liberty Conference. Crowne Hotel, Auckland City. 6-10-12.
Part one: Liberty Conference Here:

Important Note:
This article is ‘the truth’ as seen though my lens. Ie The words used are sometimes virbatim… sometimes my colourful interpretation.


Kiwi Legend and super city councillor Dick Quax speaking at the Liberty Conference Auckland 6-10-12.
Dick jumped in last minute to fill in for Whale Oil Blogger Cameron Slater whom could not make it due to the death of his mother. We at ‘Eternal Vigilance’ express our condolences to you Cameron and regret that you could not be there.
Dick Quax did a spectacular job filling in at short notice… Thank’s Dick!

It has been 2 weeks since the ‘Liberty Conference’ was held in Auckland, and I have been too knackered to write this second half of my review… I can delay no longer.

In this second section I would like to review what was discussed in respect to local body Politics, esp the contributions made by Kiwi Legend and Supercity councilor Dick Quax, and retired city planning engineer and developer David Willmott.
This is a topic of interest to me, having been involved in pubic debates on Local body issues, making submissions on bills, and having stood in many elections for Hamilton City Council, both for Mayor and Council, as a representative of the Libertarianz party and as an Independent.

The Liberty Conference opened discussion on how Liberty lovers ought to concern themselves with Local Body Politics.


Stephen Berry.

Conference Organiser Stephen Berry spoke about his experiences and various stratagems standing for Mayor of Auckland city. Though he confessed that despite his best efforts to Bombing out big time at the polls, and being bitterly disappointed, none the less he is convinced Local Body politics is something that Liberty lovers ought to be involved with both for it’s own sake, and as a platform to increase public profile to boost efforts in National level politics.

Steve’s experiences and emotions, and ultimate faith that any future association of liberty lovers ought to involve themselves in local body politics reflect my personal experiences in Hamilton. I too have suffered miserable results at the polls, yet still believe Rate payers are in dire need of Candidates offering real alternatives to the Big spending tyrannical, Socialist/ United Nations Agenda 21 ideology driven Busy bodies whom have dominated the Local Body politics of our Nation.

Steve did not mention one of the chief reasons why guys like us bomb at the polls is that despite our best efforts we are up against a horrendously un-level playing field in Local body democracy due to the Moral bankruptcy of 90% of the Media whom… unless you are a TV personality or sportsperson… purposely shut you out of Election time discussions, thus utterly failing in their duty to inform voters of alternative arguments, possibilities, and directions to the Status quo.

I discuss this failure of the Media here:
and here:

Yet still the Liberty Conference was convened to rethink our methods, and form a strategy to break through the Media black out and win elections.
More on this in the conclusion.


Dave Willmott.

There were two ‘insider’ speeches delivered at the Conference.
One by Ex City engineer and developer David Willmott.
He stood as a candidate for the Super-city in 2010.
The other was a spectacular Speech from Super city Councilor and Kiwi Champion Runner, Dick Quax.

Both talked on a similar thread but from different experiences and insights.
Both spoke well.

Now I am someone whom has always been scathing of the voting mentality that elects ‘Celebrity candidates’, and so I was pleasantly surprised and very impressed with Dick’s insider view into the mindset of the Super city Council and Mayor Len Brown.
There is certainly more to Dick Quax than Athletics.

Dick decried the Platitude of Len Brown’s “The world’s most livable city”… saying Auckland was fast becoming too expensive to live in!
That Kiwi dream…Home ownership…is dropping at an alarming rate.
What more the planning would increase the evils of inner city life… less room outside for kids to play and exercise… thus more obesity, less nature…more ‘industrial disease’, etc.

David pointed out that ½ a years income bought you a 1/5 acre section in the 1970s.

Both speeches were scathing about the rising costs of building a home. Both speakers blamed the High cost of sections squarely on the shoulders of city councils whom refuse to permit the expansion of the city… by severe restrictions on the development of land on the boundaries.

Dick Quax explained that in consequence of the swamp of bureaucracy, there is currently a gross shortage of New homes being build, thus the high demand for housing in Auckland drives Real-estate prices through the roof!
He explained Len Browns vision was to even further exacerbate this problem.

See Aucklands projected population growth here:

Dick called Len Brown’s Unitary plan “The Great Leap backwards”, pointing out that though Auckland already had a population density 3 times greater than Perth, that it was the intent of the Leftist’s to further exacerbate this.
He said that Len Brown’s council are consumed with an Ideological vision of everyone living in High rise apartments built alongside a train tack!
I kept waiting to hear the words ‘Agenda 21’ … and was surprised they never came.
Dick’s experiences, and concerns exactly parallel what I have seen going on in Hamilton City… the Leftist Social engineering hell bent on implementing this Diabolical United Nations Agenda… against the dreams and aspirations of New Zealanders. Of course the primary method of establishing this Leftist Utopia is by propagating
Terror of Freedom… Preaching Global catastrophe, and Greed… the selfishness of owning your own ¼ acre… and driving your own car!
Totalitarianism to the rescue!

Dick talked about Len Brown’s determination to re-establish a ‘monocentric’ city via draconian means.
This parallels with Hamilton City councils fixation with the CBD…. wasting millions of Rate payer dollars on ‘Facelifts’ and also via heavy restrictions on business which threatens to drain customer Patronage away from the established/ olde town square.
Their Diabolical plan included ‘Variation 21’… an attempt to resist the natural development of a Polycentric city, buy refusing to grant consent to the construction Malls and development outside the CBD… Blatant protectionism of the ‘Old Boys’ Money interests, and attempting to force the public to patronise the City council Metered Parking, and parking buildings, etc.
Thankfully Hamilton City was Defeated by Tainui, and They developed ‘The Base’… New Zealand’s biggest Mall out North West in Pukete.
Yet still developers face constant resistance from a Belligerent Hamilton City Council.

Read about HCC’s Variation 21 Here:

Read about my proposed solutions as Libertarianz party Mayoral Candidate Here:

In Hamilton Len Brown’s Rail based Hive, has been mirrored in Hamilton city councilor Dave Mcpherson who recently abandoned the Transport portfolio after a decade of attempting to establish City Rail in Hamilton (In particular a rail link between Auckland and Hamiltion).
That it was an economic absurdity that would have driven up an already staggering City debt was of no concern to Big Dave!
Like all Lefties Dave shows complete disregard for how his policies affect Taxpayers and Rate payers. I stood up many times and told Hamiltonians that The grand schemes and promises of McPherson and would be Mayor Julie Hardacre would come to naught.
I pointed out that these sorts of policies had already bankrupted Hamilton city and put us in financial crisis.
When my predictions came true no journalist from the Waikato times has bothered to interview me to discover how was able to predict the current crisis, or to report My honesty at election time, or the dishonesty of the New Mayor.

Read about Hamiltons debt crisis here:

Read about my attempts to save Hamilton ratepayers from Bankruptcy Here:

Dick Quax exposed the same disregard for Ratepayers was patently obvious in the Super-city. In his words…” How reckless the council is with other peoples money”.
Rates increases for Aucklanders are planned at 2.5 times the rate of inflation, That rates would increase by 56% over the period covered by the plan ($2000 dolar Rates bill will become $3600), and still Len Browne would be borrowing a Billion dollars a Year!
Future ratepayers will be left with a megga debt so that 0.25c in every ratepayer dollar will go on interest servicing the legacy of Len’s Lefties.
And to establish this ‘Schemeo Grande ’ Len Browne is busy accruing Megga powers so that that no appeals can be lodged against Council edicts.

Cheak out the Gatuitous Salaries of the Auckland City exec Here!

Now David Willmott was provoked to wrath in respect to what he saw as Ideological tyranny and foolishness… as opposed to Pragmatic solutions.
And I 100% agree that the Socialist ideology is to blame for this cancer which is effecting virtually every city in western civilization to one degree or another.
It is the UN Driven Agenda 21in action.
I disagree with Dave’s conclusion that this situation proves that All ideologies are to be forsaken in favour of Raw Pragmatism (Ironically that view is a very flawed ideology in itself!) My solution is to overcome the corrupt totalitarianism of the left with a more just ideology which Restores the rights and liberties of the ratepayers, Removes all the bogus regulations which artificially drive the cost of land through the roof and make the construction of new homes unaffordable, and knock the city council off it’s heavenly perch back down to earth… as the janitors of the city… that’s all.

My biggest regret of the conference was that Dick left before I was able to introduce myself, and congratulate him for his awsome insights!
I would have loved to have sat down with a Beer and had a yarn with him.


Peter Cresswell.

Peter Cresswell put forward the proposal the Liberty lovers contest Local body elections under the Banner ‘Affordable Auckland’… ‘Affordable Hamilton’, etc say that this would have great appeal to the hard pressed Ratepayers, and would be difficult for opposition to oppose.

Others stood up and said it would be difficult for a National level campaign to capitalize off Local body activism using that brand, and that any local body activism ought to share the same branding as the National level campaigns.

Others were wondering how ‘the five policies’ (see part 1) of Tax relief, legalizing cannabis and euthanasia, Ending Waitangi racism, and Balancing the budget could be applied to Local body politics.
Obviously some of these would not really fit.
Would Candidates be able to express their personal opinion on broader issues?


Daniel Peterson

Daniel Peterson stood up and made the point that local body politics does get involve in private matters like drinking, and this has been my experience in Hamilton as well, in respect to such things as Opposing Casinos, and The heavy handed prostitution bi law, attempting to stop Boobs on bikes, etc.
I have always spoken out against the City Council playing Moral dictators… like the Taliban.

Just how any New Liberty Party would deal with these issues is yet to be worked out.
That there is a dire need to Reform local body politics and fight the diabolical Lefty Agenda 21 tyranny …there can be little dispute.

I asked Steven berry to include me in the working group charged with coming up with solid proposals for consideration at the next conference 2-2-13.
I have not yet herd anything from Steve.
Anyone interested in these things ought to consider attending the 2-2-13 conference.

Read about some of my Local body exploits here:

Tim Wikiriwhi.

ACT, ALCP, Apartheid, Ayn Rand, Christian Libertarianism, Democracy, Freedom, Hope, Justice, Libertarianz, Live Like It's Legal, Prohibition, Propaganda, Revolution, Sheeple, Slashing Bureaucracy, Treaty of Waitangi, Uncategorized, Vote Wikiriwhi!

Liberty Conference. Auckland 2012.

27 Comments


Dakta Green recieved a standing ovation for his speech and activism for freedom and Justice in regards to ending cannabis Prohibition.
He spoke about his experiences as a political prisoner, and the fact that he faces yet another stint in Jail because of his refusal to be broken and ‘Living like it’s Legal’.

Last Saturday (6-10-12) I attended the Liberty Conference in Auckland, convened by the Libertarianz Party for the propose of considering the best possible ways of furthering the cause of Liberty in New Zealand, and in particular to formulate a new strategy for getting Freedom loving Advocates into Parliament.
The Libertarianz were facing up to the Sad reality that their Party had failed to attract anywhere near enough support to make it an effective political player.

My personal opinion is that the Libertarianz party did many things wrong… many mistakes hurt the parties chances of gaining a more popular base, yet The Party …morally speaking….also did many things right… which also had a detrimental effect upon it’s popularity.
Simply put it set about to slay too many sacred cows to be borne by the Superstitious sheeple.


Peter Cresswell.

Now Galloping to war with sabers bristling and slashing away was fun indeed, yet such a zealous onslaught spooked the cattle… Peter Cresswell said something to this effect in his speech… and he is right.
This zeal springing from a steadfast rejection of the idea that politics requires compromise… and the conviction that populist politics is the domain of unscrupulous power hungry scum… like Peter Dunne and John Key.

The Hard arse faction within the Libertarianz Party had spent 16 years fending off ‘the soft cocks’… and their desire to water down our message… and though they had prevailed in maintaining the principled integrity of the party (to the limited degree of perfection that it’s Objectivist handicap was capable)… none the less as PC described it… we were trying to eat an elephant in one gulp… The Malicious Press absolutely ostracized us from the public debate, and the fickle and brainwashed Sheeple whom had the misfortune of coming into contact with us… washed their hands of us as if we were an infectious disease. Not even our own families supported us!… yet as rugged individualists we soldiered on alone…being upheld only by the shear faith that we were right, and that we really were the Bearers of the Sacred flame of Liberty… of the Political Holy Grail from which all whom drink behold the secrets of Peace, Civilization, and prosperity!

We Libz still believe this!
We have not given up upon our dream!
Yet we need to rethink how we set about making our vision a reality.
Many suggestions were presented by the various speakers.
A common theme was that We freedom lovers need to stop backstabbing each other and work together as a ‘band of brothers’.
Another suggestion was that we modify how we go about our business… be positive, abandon personal jibes and malice… leave that for the socialist’s…. Lead by example, and master the lost art of persuasion.


The Mighty Lindsay Perigo

Now these suggestions sound great in theory, yet as the saying goes…you cant teach old dogs new tricks… and I seriously doubt you will be able to tame Rabid Hounds like Lindsay Perigo … whom relishes delivering such judgments as calling John Banks a “Leering Gargoyle!” … and “The Whore of Epsom”… to the Glee and hysteria of almost every Libertarian present (including myself!). Maybe some of the Non-libz found such comments to be in poor taste… Yet my point being that such disregard for pandering to the sensitivities of the wowzers is such a fundamental trait of many of us libz… we sincerely consider it a virtue!
And I wonder whether or not the whole idea of always being positive, and PC, and taking care not to offend… is anything more than weasely Used car salesmanship… and that such an approach is transparently slimy… untrustworthy, and in the end not a solution to the Libz woes at all!
Me thinks That Libertarians ought to be of good character, be tolerant, and well mannered, yet still be Dangerously capable and willing to deliver a well aimed bombardment of Invective when the moment calls for it. I believe this is good/ righteous/ honest politics!
Read Lindsey Perigo’s speech Here:

Peter Cresswell (PC) after diagnosing why the Libertarianz Party has failed, then went on to prescribe the remedies.
Firstly he suggested that instead of trying to eat the tyrannical socialist Elephant whole, that instead we set about consuming the beast… by slicing it up into portions… and devouring it one manageable bite at a time! (Genius!)
PC points out that such an approach does not involve any compromise at all, but in fact takes better cognizance of reality!
Eating the elephant is to be achieved via several different stratagems.
1. via transitional policies which spread the reforms over small steps, with the design of reducing the terror of the sheeple, minimizing the pain of transition, and hopefully gaining popular support as each step proves the reform works.
2. By reducing the Policy focus of the Party down to 5 policies that Polls already suggest have popular support.
This is a strategy which has worked for other minor parties, and the wisdom of it ought to be obvious!
I am very excited about this suggestion!
Personally I believe this to hold real potential for gaining at least 5% of the votes and getting Freedom lovers into parliament.
PC talked about separating the ‘Educational wing’ , from the ‘Party political wing’, by establishing an Independent ‘think tank’ to focus upon the cultural revolution.
Now I am happy about this if it translates into less encroachment of Objectivist dogma into the parties policies. I still have my reservations about what such a think tank would be like, yet I will leave criticism about this for another time.


Libz Legend Hooch Hellen, and her son Jay. Behind them is Muso Graham Clark, behind him Dakta Green, Behind Him ‘Eternal Vigilante’ Reed.

By the end of the conference several options for the future were on the table, and it was agreed to form a working group to busy themselves communicating with other parties and putting together a presentation of what options were possible, and the pro’s and con’s of each option, to be put to the vote when all interested parties convene again in the new year to make a resolution for the future.
The options were.
1. Dissolve the Libertarianz party and form a New Party with founding members from the dissolved libz, and Ex members of Act, and ex members of Aeotearoa decriminalize Cannabis party, and others. To do this would require the formulation of the ‘Five policies’ which would have an overlapping consensus between the various factions whom would unite as one.
2. Should the other parties prefer it… Maintain the Libertarianz party as a going concern, yet enter an agreement with the other parties (Like the ALPC) to form a coalition for a united challenge at elections. The terms and conditions, and the five policies would have to be agreed upon for this coalition to work, and the Libertarianz party may or may not re-brand itself, and modify its policies to the new strategy.
3. If no consensus of cooperation can be reached with Act, ALPC, True Liberals, etc then the Libertarianz party could continue to exist, yet implement the new strategy, and re-brand when a worthy Brand and logo can be agreed upon.
This requires the formulation of the five policies, and the creation of a Good brand and logo.

PC suggested for the five policies.
1. Tax reform…
2. Balance the budget
3. Legalize Cannabis
4. Legalize Euthanasia
5. End Waitangi Apartheid. One law for all. Get rid of the separate electoral rolls and racist seats, laws, and institutions.
He suggested these because they were both principled and already have popular support amongst the NZ people.

Now these are not written in stone, and vigorous debate and dialogue needs to take place… and options be prepared before the 2-2-13 conference.

Another benefit of picking the policies wisely is that there may be existing politicians and celebrities whom may wish to join us, and this would increase our chances of success.

There was heaps more than this said. The speeches were excellent.
Yet this will suffice for now.
Much discussion at the conference was in regard to Local body politics, including several fantastic speeches… one by NZ sporting Legend and Super city councilor Dick Quax.
Because I have much to report on this aspect of the conference, I will leave it for my next blog post! Say tuned folks!
Tim Wikiriwhi.
For More Pics go here:

PART 2 HERE:

ACT, ALCP, Ayn Rand, Constitution, Democracy, Freedom, Hope, Keep it Metal!, Libertarianz, Six Reasons to Kill, Voluntary Euthanasia

Jumping up and down and running about in circles

Leave a comment

There’s a common perception (well expressed by one of our regular contributors here and here, for example) that jumping up and down and running about in circles is all that libertarians (when they’re not asleep) ever do, especially at conferences. That the liberty lobby men are a lot like the wibbly wobbly men in Spike Milligan’s poem (which goes something like this).

Oh!
The wibbly wobbly men
They don’t get up till ten
They run about and give a shout
Then back to bed again!

It’s a perception that has – or, rather, had – some veracity. But, finally, after 15 years of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time, the Libz have finally woken up to the fact that they need to try a different approach. Which just goes to show that even the bat-shit crazy Objectivists who form the backbone of the party aren’t totally insane.

I could say, “I told you so,” because I already did after the Libz electoral defeat of 2008. (That no one took heed of my advice at the time is one reason I hopped waka and joined the equally electorally unsuccessful ALCP). But I won’t, because the liberty movement in New Zealand is a band of brothers, not a band of backstabbers. 🙂 Instead, with heartfelt relief I say, “Thank God for that!”

All being well, the Libertarianz Party will soon morph into a second beast. A beast with a new name and a new logo to replace the old, dead brand. A beast with as many new people as old people. And a beast pushing new populist <gasp> policies to advance the old utopian principles.

What are the new populist policies? They will number (up to) five, and could include

  1. Cannabis legalised
  2. The 4:20 tax plan
  3. A Christchurch Enterprise Zone
  4. Voluntary euthanasia decriminalised
  5. A balanced budget

Others have been suggested (see here, for example). When the idea was first mooted, “legalising” gay marriage was near the top of the list. That’s how populist these policies are meant to be. Please feel free to suggest your own populist (but principled) policy candidates for the “tight five” in the comments.

ACT, Atheism, Ayn Rand, Christian Libertarianism, Constitution, Cosmology, Evolutionism, Faith, Francis Schaeffer, Freedom, Justice, Materialism, Religious Toleration, Righteous Rants, Theism, There is a God!, Tool, Venting Spleen

God is the Font of Morality. Why Objectivists Hate Ron Paul. (updated)

3 Comments

Some surfers may wonder at the title of this blogpost.
Does it reflect malice on the part of the Author?
I would say it does! Some malice can be justified, and there are so many reasons to dislike the irrationality of the bulk of Objectivists… those whom emulate their Icon to the greatest degree.
I must take care not to collectivize all Objectivists into one lump, as this type of oversimplification is a great error to be avoided … way too mechanistic… and thankfully humans are not machines…and thus there are always exceptions which must be given the credit they deserve… Such Mechanistic irrationalism is endemic to Objectivism… most believing such Ideas that “All Muslims are Evil”… “All Christians hate Gays”… Etc, yet there is a moderate minority who avoid this error, and I give these Libertarians their due.

I am angry about the amount of effort the Objectivists put into undermining the Campaign of Ron Paul, whom was by Far the best hope for saving America from Economic ruin and for implementing Libertarian reforms across the board.
The source of this Irrational hatred has been hidden to a large degree and has left many people wondering why Objectivists hate Ron Paul..

Read what ‘Cornell’ has written on this subject on the Lindsay Perigo Objectivist Blog Solo….

Quote:
“It’s odd to me that so many Objectivists dislike Ron Paul. Of all the mainstream presidential candidates out there, his platform is by far the most consistent with Objectivist principles. The only points of major disagreement that I can think of between his politics and Rand’s and Peikoff’s politics are:
1. Abortion — he doesn’t see abortion as a right to be protected by the Federal government; although he does not stand for banning it outright (he takes the “leave it up to the states” stance), and
2. Foreign Policy — Rand and Peikoff take a much more hawkish stance.
However, (1) most states are not going to ban abortions, so I don’t see his stance on abortion changing much of anything, except that he will take away federal subsidies for abortion, which Objectivists would be for anyway, and (2) the truth is that we need to take a less agressive stance towards foreign policy, if for no other reason than that we simply can’t afford to be fighting all these wars accross the globe — we just don’t have the revenue to support it anymore; and I think that Rand would agree with Paul on his strategy, if not on his premises, with the possible exception of Iran.
So am I missing something, or does the Objectivists’ objection to Paul really just boil down to Iran?
If so, then I’m not that worried about Iran. If America leaves Iran alone, you can believe the Israelis will pick up the slack. And you can’t tell me that the American private security firms won’t help out the Israelis with weapons and man-power should all hell break loose; there’s too much to gain by Israel winning another war in the Middle East unhinged from American intrusion. “ End Quote.

Let me tell you Cornell what is Ron Paul’s anathema in the eyes of the Bulk of Objectivists…
He Breaks the First Commandment of Objectivism… “Thou shalt not love the Lord God in any way shape or form..”
This is the unpardonable sin in the eyes of Objectivism.
Objectivism is a Religion.
Atheism is it’s First principle.
And Objectivists willingly sacrifice the principles of Freedom for the sake of halting any Theistic champion of Liberty or justice taking the limelight… thus in spite of all their claims to reason.. they prove them selves to be irrational religious zealots/fanatics.
In their minds It is unthinkable for them to accept the Idea that a theist could be the champion of Liberty and justice.
To accept this they would have to abandon Objectivism because Objectivism is based upon Anti-theism… and it is this which attracted most of them to the faith.

Peter Creswell clearly indicates this *Here* when he says Ron Paul cant be a Libertarian because he’s a Creationist… who will not draw a line between his religion and the State.
Comming from a Randoid this is shear hypocracy… and not true, ie Ron Paul maintains a separation between his Religion and the state, and the fact that He is a Creationist whom rejects the theory of evolution does not render him irrational at all!
PC speaks from his own Bigoted Anti-reason superstition.

Thus The Title of my Blogpost and the Meme explains everything… why Objectivists helped the Powers of Evil in undermining the Greatest champion of Liberty in America today.

Many Libertarian minded Kiwi will be gathering next Saturday to discuss the formation of a New Libertarian orintated Party to gather together the remnants of the Act Party, The Libertarianz, and others like the legalize cannabis party into an Electoral fighting force. It will not be an easy thing to achieve, esp if Objectivists hope to contaminate the constitution with their personal religion, and to put out Anti-theistic blogs and press releases in the name of the New organization. The only hope this New Paty has is that it establishes a true separation between personal beliefs and the constitution, and operates via a libertarian spirit of toleration… for mutual benefit.
I have my own view about how such a party ought to be constituted and I hope to produce a blogpost in this subject before Next Saturday.

ACT, Apartheid, Constitution, Democracy, Justice, Libertarianz, Mana Party, National Party, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Totalitarianism, Treaty of Waitangi, Tyranny

End Waitangi Apartheid! Reject Racist Constitution! Sign Petition!

3 Comments

Muriel Newman has a valuable petition running designed to thwart the Ambitions of the Racists whom have hijacked the Discussion Regarding a New Constitution for New Zealand.

The Objectives of the petition:
We, New Zealanders, having founded our society in the equality of comradeship, and living here at home in the land we have made, utterly oppose any laws which establish or promote racial distinction or division.

There shall be one law for all:

The Declaration…

We refuse to accept any reference to the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles in any constitutional document.
We require that such references be removed from all existing legislation.
We require that race-based Parliamentary seats be abolished.
We require that race-based representation on local bodies be abolished.
We require that the Waitangi Tribunal, which has outlived any usefulness it may have had, be abolished.
And we pledge ourselves to oppose and resist all those of whatever rank or degree who, whether by force or the devious processes of the law, attempt to impose the fetters of racial inequality on the free citizens of New Zealand.

Please Sign this petition Here!

Please join John Ansells TreatyGate here:

Please Like the Treatygate Facebook page Here.

Please Like the Constitutional review Facbook page here.

Please join the One NZ Foundation Here:

The Great Waitangi Swindle…