Suppose you board a bus with a suicide bomber. At the appointed stop, the suicide bomber pulls the cord to detonate the belt of explosives around her waist, hidden under her jacket … and nothing happens. She lives to die another day. No one on the bus, including you, is any the wiser. There are no victims that day. But a crime has been committed. Attempted murder is a serious crime. A victimless crime, but a serious crime, nonetheless.
If you drive home blind drunk at 150 kph, with your children unseatbelted in the back and passenger seats, and you’re fortunate enough that there is no oncoming traffic on the several occasions when you veer into the other lane … and you and your children arrive home safely … it’s a victimless crime. But a crime has been committed. Driving while drunk is a crime. A victimless crime, but a crime, nonetheless.
There are obvious differences between the two cases. The suicide bomber intends to initiate lethal force against others, and the odds of success are relatively high. Whereas the drunk driver does not have murderous intent, and the odds of killing anyone are relatively low.
There are laws against attempted murder and laws against drunk driving. As there should be. But why?
Some libertarians get themselves into a tangle trying to justify a prohibition on drunk driving. At first glance, the non-initiation of force (NIOF) principle seems insufficient to justify a law against drunk driving. The drunk driver who arrives home safely does not, and does not intend to, initiate force against other road users. A common libertarian perspective is one where drunk driving is seen as a breach of contract between the road user and the road owner. In a libertarian utopia, roads are privately owned, and the road owner sets the terms of road use. When it’s in the commercial interests of road owners to offer safe passage to road users (as, almost invariably, it will be), sobriety will be a contractual obligation. Take this perspective, and you get the right answer … but for the wrong reason.
Drunk driving is wrong, not because it is a breach of contract (implicit in the case of our state-operated roads), but because it endangers the lives of others. It’s really quite simple. There ought to be a law against drunk driving because there ought to be a law against endangering the lives of others.
Please note carefully. In cases where it is other adults only whose lives are endangered, and those adults have consented to having their lives endangered, no laws should apply.
Roads are dangerous places. When I go for a drive, I’m endangering my own life and that of others, simply by being behind the wheel, sober or otherwise. But there ought to be no law against driving per se, even though such a law would dramatically lower the road toll. But why not?
It’s really quite simple. It’s a matter of degree. The question is, where to draw the line? And the answer is, at 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.
The above figure is arbitrary, and blood alcohol level is only a proxy for driver impairment, but this approach to endangerment is right in principle. Importantly, we can quantify the risk that a driver who has been drinking poses to other road users. We can multiply the chances of a fatal collision by the number of lives lost in the collision and come up with a number. And we can set a threshold. If the number is over the threshold, you’re too drunk to legally drive. If the number is below the threshold, it’s legal to risk getting behind the wheel.
We can apply the principle of an endangerment threshold to other issues, including the issue of parents endangering the lives of their children: allowing their children to climb trees, be vaccinated, be unvaccinated, ride bikes without helmets, travel to dangerous countries, sail, eat food cooked on an unlicensed Komodo Kamado or have their children live with them in Lyttelton houses in danger of being flattened by falling boulders.
In all cases, the same endangerment threshold should apply. Is the risk of staying with your children in your Lyttelton house more or less than driving them to safety after you’ve had one drink too many?
This post started out as a comment On Dr Goode’s blog post ‘Is Ron Paul a Libertarian’, yet as it focused on just one aspect of his post, and grew longer and longer by the minute, I decided to make it a post in its own right.
Richard was responding to a Not PC blog post criticising Ron Paul in which he lists a set of ‘Ron Paul positions’ which in Peter’s view are incompatible with Libertarianism. One of these was the fact that Ron Paul is opposed to abortion.
PC is expressing a commonly held view, and because many Christians oppose Abortion and want it recognized as murder, they tend to agree with PC that ‘to be a Libertarian means you must condone abortion’ and therefore conclude from this that ‘No Godly Christian can be a Libertarian’
Today I seek to destroy this false assumption. I have herd Abortion is the most common medical operation performed in New Zealand. A huge number of Woman have had abortions, and so this is a very difficult subject to discuss. It is a Subject many prefer to keep hidden in the shadows.
I am a Christian, and a Libertarian, and I am 100% anti-abortion.
Politically speaking Abortion is one of the most difficult of subjects to deal with.
I think its murder… yet still don’t see how it can be banned, without compromising/destroying some of the most vital principles that underpin a Libertarian government, esp the principle that woman own their own bodies, and that Government is formed by consent…a compact between people of different race, culture, and religion.
As a Christian, I don’t believe a utopian Human government is even possible.
Sinful men in power must be given as little power as possible…thus I certainly do not believe moral salvation is possible via human Legislation. Thus I don’t expect the government to be the solution to all mankind’s woes. Thus I don’t expect the Law to solve the abortion problem. Furthermore if abortion remains legal, there is nothing stopping Christians from publicly expressing their Moral outrage at the practice, and via converting souls to Christ, They convert them to the belief that an unborn child has the God ordained right to life…thus I am saying Christianity (and other anti-abortionists) can still work to convince the population to voluntarily abandon this wicked practice. Christianity operates properly via Liberty…via preaching Godly values…not by lobbying for the political oppression of unbelievers.
In such a society that allows Abortion, Homosexuality, drugs, etc a Christian can still function fully as a Christian. Just because society practices these things, does not violate his rights or liberty, doe not mean he must sanction them, etc. He can deal with these sorts of things as he encounters them… by practicing his faith and following his convictions.
In a society that allows abortion (Like the Status quo) Men can avoid having their children aborted by guarding their seed. Taking care not to impregnate girls whom don’t share the belief that a child’s life is sacred, and first asking for a life long commitment from a girl before impregnating them. This would not Guarantee the marriage, but such a process is at least the honorable course to take, because it shows honest diligence in such a weighty thing as deciding to bring Children into the world.
Sacrificing children to the God Molech.
And Even if Abortion is tolerated in a free society, getting rid of Socialism… and their anti-Christian/ Pro-abortion Nanny State would still be a great improvement on the status quo because the Tax payer would no longer be forced to fund this mass murder against their will. Thus this would then mean those who oppose abortion can exercise their right to completely separate themselves from this practice.
That the government extorts taxes from us by force, and then uses the money to pay for mass extermination of unwanted children is absolutely an intolerable situation.
I would love to put an end to the practice of Abortion. By daily propagating Christian Libertarian values I am working towards that Ideal. I really struggle to believe a social compact between Atheists and theists is possible which includes making abortion illegal. I think The Christian argument against abortion is true, yet inadmissible because it crosses the line between church and state. The social compact being framed in secular terms which are acceptable to all reasonable individuals. (Secular truth is not ‘atheist truth’, but truth that stands by its own merit… (eg Both theists and atheists accept Euclidian geometry…for self evident reasons). I think Christians who go to the Law to solve society’s ills are acting in a very unchristian way. I think Christians who actually think the government can be so constructed as to deliver perfect justice… are deluded…and expect far too much from such an all too human institution.
Finally let me note the fact that Moral virtue springs voluntarily from the Heart… not the Law. Woman are not displaying any virtue by carrying children full term simply because the Law prohibits abortion. Conversely Woman display great virtue when they choose to carry their children full term, when the easy and legal option would be to have an abortion. They are practicing their Humane values as to the sanctity of human life.
In a society that allows abortion, Woman with strong Christian values ought to be revered and courted for marriage far above Godless/ unscrupulous woman… because of their values. Thus in a free society which allows abortion… Godly woman ought to have every advantage over the infidels…and prosper.
A libertarian society is not Utopian. It cannot halt all evils. It cannot foster an angelic society. It is a Compact… a peace treaty between disparate groups and individuals. The compact lays down a minimum of terms by which these disparate groups can coexist in peace… if not harmony. Thus the government is not the font of all justice. It is strictly limited to the agreed terms of the peace treaty, and so many practices will be legal which some members of the society will find abhorrent. Eg Cigarette smoking. To many people Cigarette companies and shops which sell cigarettes are Death dealing murderers… Yet Smoking cigarettes cannot be justly banned according to Libertarian principles. So too with abortion… yet this does not mean that all Libertarians must indorse Abortion, or must submit to it as helpless victims. They can work to reduce it and even completely eradicated it without recourse to political force…via preaching. This is exactly how the Christian Missionaries effectively halted Cannibalism here in the early 1800s. They proved Christian values can overthrow ungodly wickedness. That’s Christianity in action.
The many great evils that would manifest themselves should Abortion be banned is also a heinous prospect. The rise of horrific illegal alleyway abortionism. The tortured existence of unwanted children living with desperate and malicious parents… etc etc. All Children go to Heaven when they die… All aborted children are saved… and even if Abortion is Legal, the Murderers shall not escape justice! All People whom murder their children shall stand before the judgment seat of the Almighty.
For those whom have had abortions there is but one way to escape the wrath of God… That is to call upon the name of Christ. He died to pay the penalty of sin for all whom reach out for Gods grace and mercy.
Many woman whom have had abortions carry a heavy burden of guilt. It is to you that I share this message… You can have the forgiveness of God… if you will but call upon Christ… and you will meet your child again when you go to Heaven!… Because that is where they are… right now.
End Note: I am still working on this issue in my mind…
The Jurisdiction of a libertarian Government is limited. It does not extend over all time, places and people. A NZ Libertarian Government could not protect the rights of people, or convict Criminals for crimes which occur outside the country… and in a sense this is a similar circumstance to the situation of the rights of the unborn child. If a criminal injures a pregnant woman and the child dies, this is a very serious offence, yet they are usually prosecuted for the injury and loss to the woman… not for murder. I don’t like this, yet struggle to find a solution. ?
Tim Wikiriwhi
Update: 15-3-16.
The following video puts a very important question to Pro-abortionist, many of them choosing to avoid answering it because somewhere in their consciences they realise the argument that ‘A fetus is not a person’ absolutely falls apart… and that killing a Baby a day before they are to be born is no different to killing them the day after they are born.
It is a great argument Anti-abortionists have and it makes a very good case that if not at the beginning of pregnancy… that *at some point*… the Law should protect *the rights of the unborn child* from being murdered by their mother… and that an overwhelming majority of people could be convinced that such Laws would be just. (Just to Recap my position… I do believe abortion is murder… yet this post has been all about whether or not it can be banned in a free society without violating the essential principles upon which it hangs).
This argument (below) will still work to end abortion… even when there are no laws to ban it…. by convicting individual consciousness that it is wrong.
And so Anti-abortion folk are not absolutely defeated even when abortion is legal.
They still have the power of reason to convert others to their way of thinking.
Update: 10-2-18
My Blog on this subject I wrote several years ago… Abortion poses a serious dilemma for Libertarianism, and I tended to lean towards preserving a womans sovereignty over her Body… yet this position has been almost too heavy to bear in the light of how legal abortion has turned this into virtual genocidal levels of murder… its an industry… and woman have become so callous about it.
In the dilemma between the Right of the baby to Life, and the womans sovereignty over her body… I believe the Legal weight should be in favour of the innocent children… esp given Woman can prevent themselves from having un-wanted pregnancies by other moral means.
rejects the Jeffersonian principle of a “wall of separation” between religion and government;
is anti-immigration (“to the right of most Republicans” says Vodka Pundit Steve Green);
is anti-abortion (Paul describes “the rights of unborn people” [sic] as “the greatest moral issue of our time,” and “abortion on demand” as “the ultimate State tyranny”);
“plays footsie” with racists and kooks;
is a hypocritical supporter of pork-barrel earmarks for his own congressional district;
is opposed to free-trade agreements (like NAFTA); and
is appallingly “blame-America-first” on foreign policy.
Let’s take these one by one. (The only way to exit is going piece by piece.)
(1) Libertarians insist on the separation of church and state. If Ron Paul rejects the separation of church and state, he is not a libertarian. But what does separation of church and state entail? It comes down to freedom of religion (and freedom from religion, if you’re that way inclined). Ron Paul is not opposed to the separation of church and state. He’s opposed to the War on Religion.
(2) Libertarianism is a view on how a government should treat its citizens. Its own citizens. Libertarians can be anti-immigration.
(3) Libertarianism holds that men are endowed
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
Ron Paul believes that fetuses are Men, too. Thus, it is the role of government to secure one’s right to life both after and before birth. Abortion is not a moral issue. It is a metaphysical issue. Libertarians can be anti-abortion.
(4) So Ron Paul “plays footsie” with racists, 9/11 Truthers and Objectivists. What of it? Libertarians insist on the right to freedom of association. Ron Paul exercises that right.
(5) Pork barrel politics is anathema to libertarianism. Or is it? Ron Paul’s argument for pork barrel projects in his own district is that, “if they take it, we should ask for it back.” Seems reasonable to me.
(6) Ron Paul says, “I’m for free trade.” Ron Paul is opposed to NAFTA. He says, “This is regulated, managed trade for the benefit of special interests. That is why I oppose it.”
(7) Foreigners in foreign places tend to resent American government intervention in their lives, in much the same way that U.S. libertarians resent American government intervention in their lives. It is not unlibertarian to point this out. Blowback? If it’s America’s fault then blame America.
Of seven purported reasons why Ron Paul is not a libertarian, none is any good.
Politics, Art and Faith from a Kiwi in the Heart of Texas
… and Fox News foxes.
Back in the day, Blair Mulholland was NZ’s best pro-freedom blogger. Not only that, of course, but Mulholland Drive used to feature pictures of Naomi Watts and Laura Harring from the David Lynch movie of the same name.
But the real reason I like Blair’s blog is political not pictorial. It’s that his views almost always align with my own. In other words, he’s almost always right. Take, for example, his views on Peter Dunne.
I am not remotely jealous of Mr Dunne … I would rather spend three years in parliament, achieve sweeping reform, then lose, than do nothing but warm a seat for nearly thirty years. Give me a career like David Garrett’s any day over Dunne’s. He has no principles or morals, and I have plenty of both. I win, he loses.
Actually, Ohariu and New Zealand lose more. Dunne represents everything that is wrong with the current state of New Zealand politics. No risk-taking, no innovation, no principles, no love of freedom. Just a desire for more control and a pompous, sneering contempt for the average New Zealander.
“If you do not find me reclining beneath the Plane trees.
Look for me in the Garden of Contemplation.”
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Summer camping is a time I plant my arse in a cozy Beach chair and meditate.
I write my thoughts into a journal. I like to speak from Introspection, and personal experience.
Here is one from this last mission….
I sneak off into the bush and hug trees…but does it still count if nobody sees you?
You don’t have to wear a Greenpeace Tee-shirt or Camp out in City squares to be an Environmentalist.
So much of the Environmental extremism of today is merely a fashion statement…more of a social club than anything else.
People want to Look Green. They think this gives them the higher moral Plateau, from which to pour down their Communist vomit upon Freedom, consumerism, and industry.
I reach this conclusion because of the disconnect many people have between their ‘profession of concern’ from their ‘actions of disregard’.
Socialist Greens are in the habit of pointing out motes in eyes of others rather than focusing upon the beams in their own.
The fact that we now have a generation of youth whom have been thoroughly indoctrinated via a bombardment of Green Propaganda and yet they still leave their Beer bottles and chip packets behind them like a trail of dung.
They sure do like to consume their share of Booze and junk food!
Is this simply the rebelliousness of youth?
Does the incessant bombardment of Greenism actually counter-productive and provoke a negative response?
Whatever is going on inside their heads it obvious that theory and practice are separate things.
Now my Wife Joy, my son Roman, and I have just got back from camping in the Coromandal. We do a lot of Camping in the summer, and we employ one very simple Libertarian scruple …
*Always leave the place in a better condition that when we arrived*
This is a Voluntary virtue, which we impose upon ourselves, and we Police ourselves.
We don’t need a sign to tell us ‘Don’t litter’.
We don’t need the threat of DOC staff hiding in the bushes to motivate us to Camp in an environmentally friendly manor.
Why? Because we have assimilated this ethic into to our self-esteme… and take pride in not only keeping our waste in control, but also in picking up rubbish (esp broken glass) that we find lying about, so that when we depart…the site is cleaner, safer… and we can have self-respect.
This is how Humans ought to function… not via oppressive tyranny, but by Ethical Self- Government.
This is an example of Libertarianism in action.
Laws are written for the sake of Cretans and Barbarians.
Truly civilized people don’t function on such a base knuckle scrapping level.
Libertarianism is founded upon the fact that Ethics in action spring from the Heart…the Soul…not the threat of punishment.
An enlightened society is a society with few Laws, but peopled with individuals of strong personal ethics.
A barbarous society has many Laws emanation from a Draconian State, and is peopled with mindless Zombies.
Libertarianism is about growing the former. Socialism is about manufacturing the latter.
Hence when there is no one from the government watching over their shoulders, Socialist youths revert to Barbarism. They have been raised to need Nanny.
As a Christian, that little Libertarian Scruple ‘Leave the place in a better condition than when you arrived’… is a simple, yet beautiful rule that ought to be applied to one’s entire life.
Simplistically speaking there are two sorts of Human beings in the world.
Life affirmers vs The Degenerates.
Independent Self-governors vs The Domesticated beasts.
We ought to voluntarily Live as an Agent of virtue, rather than as Agents of decay.
Only a Savages thinks of Liberty as License.
The Enlightened Man considers liberty the domain for practicing his personal discipline.
In a free society, It may be lawful to be a rude, selfish, arse hole whom reviles in depravity…and there will always be those whom choose to live this way… and I must confess to have done my share of that, yet I have grown up. I have learned by my many crimes and mistakes. I repent. I have learned the Redeeming truth, that A leopard can change its spots! You can re-invent yourself and become a better person. You can become the sort of person you wish to be….the reward for which is Self esteeme… and when you finally go to your grave you will * Leave the place in better condition than when you arrived* …and many will say “Oh how sad it is that Tim has Gone! We have lost a good man, we have lost our best helper, we have lost our strong example, our encourager, …etc”
Is not that a Legacy of a life well lived?
Will anyone think like that about us when we die?
I guess that depends on how successufully we embody the Ideal.
I guess the one virtue the Young have is time to get wise.
Riverglen camp. 6km down Tapu rd from the Coroglen Pub. Coromandal Peninsula.
Tentsites + Cabins.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.146780268689985.20142.100000740373954&type=3#!/pages/Riverglen-camp-Coromandel/105939656141976
“Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth : That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly .” (Mat6vs1-4)
Litter is yet another evidence of Mans Fallen Nature, and need of God.
Copying is not theft and copyright is not a property right.
Here are some other things which aren’t theft.
Rape
Murder
Adultery
Perjury
And here are some other rights which aren’t property rights.
The right to life
The right to liberty
The right to the pursuit of happiness
The right to a fair trial
Copying is not theft and copyright is not a property right. It baffles me that so many libertarians (Objectivists, especially) don’t seem to get this. Perhaps it’s because anarchists release viral videos like this one which confound two distinct claims, viz., copying isn’t theft and copying is fun.
Copying isn’t theft, but neither is rape. And rape isn’t fun. So perhaps copying isn’t good, clean fun, either, even though it’s not theft.
Here is another doozie for all you Controlfreaks out there who think Heavy measures ought to be taken to curb Alcohol consumption in NZ.
Read this NZ hearld article… ‘NZ rugby tourist’s fatal Bali cocktail’
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10770049
Note in particular that… Michael Denton, 29, died after consuming a drink believed to contain a distilled local alcohol called arak, which in 2009 killed dozens of people, including four foreigners.
And…
A month after Michael Denton died, a warning appeared on the Foreign Ministry’s safe-travel website warning that arak was often mixed with fruit juice. It said anyone trying it should ensure it came in a sealed bottle from a commercial distillery.
Authorities in Indonesia have blamed rogue producers in small factories that have started after crackdowns on alcohol imports.
**************************************
There you have it. All prohibition achieves is that it exposes innocent people to Dangerous products.
Tim Wikiriwhi.
For more on this subject See my Blog post : Prohibition is a Bad trip.
http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/2011/11/prohibition-is-a-bad-trip/
Don The Freedom Fighter. With his fall New Zealand lost its best hope of economic recovery, improved property rights, greater personal freedom, and racial equality before the Law.
I Salute You Don. You stepped forward in the time of your country’s need and did your best to bring economic sanity to the table and halt our spiral downward into the abyss. You opposed Waitangi Racism. You opposed The Green Scam of ETS. You sought to end the stranglehold of the RMA, and you even dared to question the popular bigotry and oppression of the war on drugs. You did not fail in my book. You are a hero. It was the one eye media and the Sheeple of New Zealand, and the Luke warm whimps in your midst whom failed you and themselves. Please dont regret your Idealism. Do not think you ought to have pandered to the Sheepish mentality. Be proud that you made your appeals to Reason and justice.
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Don The Stoner. This image appeared after Don Brash bravely declared he believed Cannabis ought to be decriminalised. Truly a Legendary appeal for Liberty and Justice.
The Devil offered Christ all the Kingdoms of the world if he would but bow down before him.
A low vote count can be very devastating to a person or party standing for election.
No doubt many Act party members are moping about, licking their wounds.
There can be many reasons why election defeats occur and those involved in such situations discuss ways to improve their chances of election next time, yet there is a very evil temptation that must be avoided at all cost.
The thing to beware is the notion that principles must be sacrificed for the sake of popularity… Compromise is the road to hell.
Many Power hungry Politicians are Poll driven sluts!.
Humanity is in peril. The stormy world of politics needs an immovible lighthouse to shine its light in the darkness
The Libertarianz Party will Stoically endure all. They have faced election defeats for a decade and a half, yet have always resisted the temptation to soften their bid for freedom and justice. I have stood for Parliament and council both as a Libertarianz Party Candidate and as an Independent, yet have never changed a single policy. My principles are not for sale. Having no lust for power for its own sake. I see no point in striving to win election if the price must be to forsake and betray my values. Yet it is amazing how many parties and individuals do just that. If you read the National party constitution you would think they were the Libertarianz or Act party, yet in reality they are today virtually identical to the Labour party. Via compromise after compromise….step by step they deserted their original/ foundational ideals and now represent the very opposite convictions. For the sake of Political power they sold out. Thus my message to Don Brash and the Act Party is Don’t blame your principles as being ‘the problem’! Don’t fall into the trap that you must ‘water down’ and compromise your Ideals…for popularities sake! No! You must be resolved. You must improve how you get your message across to the public… but stand rock solid… immovable upon the principles which define you and distinguish you from the National Party…lest ye become light blue. Here is a short list of things you cannot compromise upon without selling your soul to Satan.
1. Be resolute in regards to the RMA. Liberty and Property rights are an essential for a prosperous and just Nation.
2. Be resolute in opposition to the ETS. It is a giant socialist scam attempting to cripple industry and growth, and control of the Means of production.
3. Push for the decriminalization of Cannabis. This is an extremely important Law and order issue. The gains that such a reform would make to our society is Monumental.
4. Stand firm upon Ending Waitangi Apartheid. Racial Equality before the Law is a fundamental of Justice. The Waitangi Gravy train is a heinous disease that ensnares Maori in Racism and socialist dependence and corrupts race relations.
Thus Act must spend the next three years working to gain back support. I suggest you push harder…not softer upon these righteous policies… or Quit….and leave the field clear for the Libertarianz Party. Those are the only two moral options you have.
I may have only recieved 101 votes yet I wont be changing my principles.
St Paul said “I have fought the Good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith…”
Christian note: Of all people, Christians ought to be aware of the evils of selling out the principles of justice for Popular support. We are warned about the evil of compromise many times in the scriptures. For example “Broard is the way that leadeth to Damnation, and many there be thereon; Narrow is the way that leadeth to life and few there be that find it”, and again “Let God be true and every man a Liar”, and again What profit a man should he gain the whole world but loose his own soul?, and again “Ye cannot serve both God and Mammon”. The Utilitarian Principle of the greatest Happiness is actually an Anti-Christian Atheist Doctrine designed to opposes Christian Values and Idealism.
Of course this does not mean a Christian cannot make compromises on non-essential questions and be accommodating with the desires of others, as long as this does not compromise essential principles. As far as values go Integrity to truth and justice ought to be much higher up your hierarchy than the lust for power (Integrity to truth and justice ought to occupy the very highest tier and be a defining characteristic of your being!). Do not deceive yourself that you may Compromise yourself to gain power, and that when it is within your grasp that you will then wield it with resolute integrity. Remember ‘Power tends to Corrupt’, thus if you are prepared to make compromises to gain power, undoubtedly you will be prepared to make more to keep it. Tim Wikiriwhi.
