Category Archives: Conservative Party

ALCP, Christian Libertarianism, Conservative Party, Jihad on Drugs™, NORML

Founding principles of the Conservative Party. Long form.

4 Comments

SCCZEN_A_wtfcolin_600x230

In a previous post I made a case that Colin Craig’s Conservative Party (CCCP) fails as a conservative party. Binding citizens initiated referenda and a liberal electorate? It’s a FAIL.

In this post, I critique the principles of the CCCP from a libertarian perspective. I’ll be brief.

Check out the Conservative Party’s founding principles. Here they are, in short form and long form (below).

The Conservative Party has the following beliefs:

A belief in loyalty to a sovereign and united New Zealand, the supremacy of democratic parliamentary institutions and the rule of law;

A belief in the institutions of Parliament and the right of citizens to direct government by the democratic process including binding citizens initiated referenda;

A belief in the division of government responsibilities between central and local government;

A belief in the equality of all New Zealanders and that all citizens, regardless of race, gender or religion, have equal rights and privileges;

A belief that the state must ensure the safety of citizens, and seek justice for victims of crime. Offenders should be punished for their offending and, where possible, rehabilitated and required to make good the losses they have caused;

A belief in a balance between fiscal accountability, pragmatic social policy and individual rights and responsibilities;

A belief in a decent society that values life, individual privacy, the freedom of the individual (including freedom of speech, conscience, worship and assembly), the right to defend one’s self and property, the importance of family and the role of civil society;

A belief that the best guarantors of the prosperity and well-being of the people of New Zealand are:

(1) A climate in which individual initiative is rewarded and excellence is pursued;
(2) The freedom of individual New Zealanders to pursue their enlightened and legitimate self-interest within a competitive economy;
(3) The freedom of individual New Zealanders to enjoy the fruits of their labour to the greatest possible extent; and
(4) The right to own property;

A belief that it is the responsibility of individuals to provide for themselves, their families and their dependents, while recognizing that government must respond to those who require assistance and compassion;

A belief that the natural environment and resources of New Zealand should be used responsibly ensuring that future generations inherit an environment that is clean and safe;

A belief that New Zealand should act responsibly among the nations of the world;

A belief that good government should be responsible, accountable and limited, attentive to the people it represents, and whose representatives at all times conduct themselves in an ethical manner, displaying integrity, honesty and concern for the best interest of all;

A belief that all New Zealanders should have reasonable access to quality health care and education regardless of their ability to pay.

I’ve emphasised some points in bold.

e3cbfe71-2d55-4961-9dc8-918e19c6b8ba

It’s a libertarian non-negotiable (and a no-brainer) that the War on Drugs™ must end. My libertarian critique is from the point of view of a drug user. It’s no secret that I’m a drug law reform activist. I’m a member of the ALCP and NORML. And I like to smoke pot. Occasionally.

So, to begin with, there is no such thing as “a balance between … pragmatic social policy and individual rights and responsibilities.” This is either meaningless nonsense or a sad excuse to violate individual rights in the name of “pragmatic social policy”. Here’s an example of the CCCP’s pragmatic social policy.

More controls on alcohol, gambling and drugs

That’s under the heading “Social, Law and Order”. But I just noticed, under the heading “Health”

Natural health products remain widely available with no undue restrictions

What about natural health products that are also drugs, such as cannabis?! I guess I should ask Colin.

Next, the CCCP professes belief “in a decent society that values … the freedom of the individual (including freedom of speech, conscience, worship and assembly).” What about cognitive liberty? Whose mind is it, Colin? Whose business is it if I choose to tweak my endocannabinoid system in the privacy of my own home?

Jesus Christ was not the only one to give us two new commandments. Timothy Leary also gave us two new commandments (“for the molecular age”), viz.

Thou shalt not alter the consciousness of thy fellow men.

Thou shalt not prevent thy fellow man from changing his or her own consciousness.

Christian libertarians follow both Christ and (on this issue) Leary!

Lastly, I have a couple more questions for Colin. Is it in my “enlightened and legitimate self-interest” to smoke pot? And, who are you to say?

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.

Censorship, Conservative Party, Freedom, Islam, Tyranny

Behead those who ridicule Colin Craig!

5 Comments

behead_those_who_ridicule_colin_craig

Let’s be clear (in case any of Colin’s supporters are reading this). I am NOT calling for the beheading of those who ridicule Colin Craig. This is satire.

Earlier this week, however, Colin Craig was threatening to sue those who ridicule Colin Craig. Suing is so much more civilised than beheading, but both belong on the same slippery slope. Threats to sue those who ridicule Colin Craig and threats to behead all those who insult the Prophet both have a chilling effect on free speech.

Freedom of speech is the bedrock of our democracy. Any attempt to stifle free speech, whether by threats of beheading or threats of legal action, must be nipped in the bud early. It is a relief to read that Colin Craig abandons defamation suit. But he should never have threatened The Civilian in the first place. That he did shows contempt for the most basic of our Western values.

25000

Meanwhile, 25,000 Muslims March in England Calling for Laws to Silence Critics of Islam.

Up to 25,000 British Pakistani men, women and children from across the UK gathered in Aston Park to call on the British government to introduce legislation that bars people from insulting Islam under the garb of the freedom of speech.

The participants, who also travelled from several parts of European cities, were led in a mile-long march by Hazrat Peer Alauddin Siddiqui. This is the fourth consecutive gathering for the biggest Melaad-un-Nabi of British Pakistanis in Britain but this year it was dedicated to “protect the honor and legacy of Hazrat Muhammad”.

“To say Islamic terrorists represent the Muslim religion,” says this meme, “is like saying the Ku Klux Klan represents the Christian religion.” But this misses the point. Islamic terrorists are NOT a minority of Muslims. There’s at least 25,000 living in the UK and openly seeking to subvert freedom of speech under the guise of a ban on insulting their evil politico-religious ideology!

Restrictions on Islamic immigration must be put in place now before it is too late. It’s a numbers game.

mo29

Censorship, Conservative Party, Gay, Genesis

Colin Craig: “Big gay rainbows”

5 Comments

6876205

“Williamson likes to talk about big gay rainbows, but it would help if he understood what the rainbow actually means. After Noah’s flood, God painted a giant rainbow across the sky, which was a message that he would never again flood the world, unless we made him very angry. And we have.”

– Colin Craig, Leader of the Conservative Party of New Zealand

 

Related links:

Maurice Williamson looking pretty stupid after floods

Chapman Tripp legal notice – 23 April 2013

Streisand effect

Humorectomy

Genesis 9:8-17