Category Archives: Vote 2014

The Kim Dotcom Party


The fat German narcissist Kim Dotcom is to launch a new New Zealand political party on Monday.


On Twitter, Dotcom says

My new political party won’t be named Mega Party. We are the Internet Party. Here’s our logo for the first time.


I find it ironic that the initials of the new party are IP, given that Dotcom is fighting extradition to the US on internet piracy charges. (Perhaps that’s why he neglected to register the domain name Instead, the party’s soon to be unveiled website is to reside at

Like most of Dotcom’s all-too-frequent narcissistic antics (only yesterday, Dotcom gets jail apology was splashed all across the front of the Dominion Post), this latest one annoys me. Sure, he’s been treated very badly by the New Zealand government, and the US government unjustly wants his scalp, but that’s no excuse to lash out and create a new political party.

Without a doubt, Dotcom’s party will leach votes from other smaller parties with legitimate reasons to exist. I’m thinking in particular, of course, of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, but also of the Pirate Party which is already well established and likely has near identical policies to those of the new party. (We don’t know what the new party’s policies actually are yet, of course, but I expect one of them will be not extraditing Dotcom to the US.)

Here are my predictions for the party’s fortunes. They’ll peak about election time, possibly giving the Internet Party seats in Parliament, then plummet soon after Dotcom’s extradition to the US.

See graph below.


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

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.)

Random drug test!

Nobody expects a random drug test!

1. Which of the following drugs causes the least harm to users?

Methamphetamine (“P”)

2. Which of the following drugs causes the least harm to others?

Methamphetamine (“P”)

3. Which of the following does not involve a specific ROA?


So, how did you go? (I like to think that if I ever had to undergo a random drug test I’d get 100%.)


Trouble at mill.

Workers could be forced to reveal any prescription medicines they are using to their bosses.

ONE News has discovered that a Government MP wants to clamp down on drugs of any sort in the workplace, and the plan could lead to some being sacked.

Northland National MP and former police officer Mike Sabin has put forward a private member’s bill that allows random drug testing in all workplaces and for sniffer dogs to be brought in.

ONE News mentions that Sabin used to be a policeman. What they don’t mention is the fact that formerly Sabin was the founder and managing director of the Methcon Group, a company that supplied drug testing kits.

Now, I don’t know whether or not Sabin is still financially involved—either on or off paper—in the business of supplying drug testing kits. I’m just signalling that there’s a potential conflict of interest that an investigative journalist or investigative blogger might like to investigate. Just sayin’.

What I do know is that Sabin is a one-trick pony and a hypocrite who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near our National Drug Policy. (The Government is calling for submissions to update and help shape its National Drug Policy, Associate Minister of Health Todd McClay announced today.)

I tried to find a picture of Sabin during his Methcon days …

gallery-mar13-img1Mike Sabin of Methcon Group, all kitted up, assessing a workplace

… but I could find only the caption that once went with a picture of Sabin during his Methcon days.

A worker would have to declare any prescription medicine they are taking if it could be a safety problem.

“Nothing at all alters that fact that employers must act in a fair, just and reasonable manner in line with every other provision of the Employment Relations Act,” Mr Sabin said.

I declare that Sabin should resign as MP for Northland. I think his presence in Parliament is a safety problem. The legislative medicine he has so far prescribed, viz., the Psychoactive Substances Act, most certainly is.

I hope that Sabin’s employers (New Zealand’s citizens, residents and taxpayers) will act in a fair, just and reasonable manner next election and vote this poisonous prohibitionist out. Meanwhile, let’s hope his private member’s bill isn’t drawn.

Prohibition works


Cui bono.

Follow the money.

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (KJV)

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (KJV)

“Prohibition doesn’t work.” You’ve heard it before. I’ve said it before. (See here and here, e.g.) You’ve probably said it before, too. It’s any libertarian and/or drug law reformer’s mantra.

Prohibition doesn’t work. If it did, there wouldn’t be 400,000 New Zealanders who currently use cannabis, and people like Smith to supply. Prohibition has not reduced demand or illegal supply of cannabis. Only a sensible drug policy, such as that promoted by the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, can do that.

Vote ALCP – End the War on Drugs™.

But I’ve never been entirely comfortable with the claim that Prohibition doesn’t work.

Prohibition doesn’t work. Now think for a moment about that. Prohibition doesn’t work… OK. So, what would it be like if Prohibition did work? What’s Prohibition supposed to achieve? What’s Prohibition for? Prohibition is supposed to stop people taking drugs. Now, ask yourself, why on earth would you want to do that? Is it any of your business if people are taking drugs? How are you going to stop them?

What’s Prohibition for? The official line is that prohibition is supposed to stop people taking drugs. Prohibition manifestly doesn’t do that! That’s why I’m sticking to the official line when I give election speeches. Prohibition doesn’t work!

But what is Prohibition really for? We can find the answer to that by asking what an adaptationist evolutionary biologist would ask when trying to determine the biological function of a phenotypic trait. What has Prohibition done in the past that best explains why we still have it?

Prohibition is for protecting vested interests. Prohibition works.

Prohibition’s time is up. It’s throw a spanner o’clock.

Vote Michael Appleby (ALCP) for Ikaroa-Rawhiti!


Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party candidates for next year’s General Election pictured (from left to right) Fred Macdonald (Otaki), Alistair Gregory (Rongotai), Richard Goode (Mana) and Michael Appleby (Wellington Central).

ALCP Leader Michael Appleby is also our candidate in the forthcoming Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election to be held on 29 June. Today Michael announced his candidacy and launched the ALCP campaign.

Labour slammed for terror campaign comment

David Shearer’s comment that the Labour Party will “terrorise our political opponents” during its Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election campaign is “reprehensible”, a candidate for the seat says.

In a press release announcing Labour’s candidate Meka Whaitiri’s official campaign launch, the Labour leader said: “Labour will campaign relentlessly to once again earn the trust of the people of Ikaroa-Rawhiti.

“We will organise, mobilise and terrorise our political opponents.”

The leader of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, Michael Appleby, who was at Parliament today to launch his by-election campaign, said Labour should apologise over the comment.

“Threatening terrorism against opponents is offensive and unacceptable in a democratic by-election and the comments are extremely insensitive to the Tuhoe settlement which occurred today at Parliament,” he said.

He said Shearer’s comments were “outrageous, offensive and unacceptable”.

“I do not want to be terrorised just for standing up for my political beliefs,” Appleby said.

Thanks, Michael, for standing up for Truth, Freedom and Justice! 🙂


Unionists 1, Lawyers 0


Labour List MP Charles Chauvel (pictured top right) has resigned from Parliament (effective 11 March). He’s going to a job at the United Nations where he’ll join his former boss, former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark (pictured bottom left).

The United Nations is a common penultimate destination for Labour’s troughed-out ex-MPs. (When they die, they go to the great trough in the sky.)

Former Labour List MP Carol Beaumont (pictured top left) is set to return to Parliament as Chauvel’s replacement. We’ll be up a trade unionist abortionist and down a gay lawyer. This minor opposition reshuffle is interesting (to me) for two reasons.

Firstly, Chauvel sponsored a Member’s bill, the Credit Reforms (Responsible Lending) Bill, which would have dealt to scum-of-the-earth usurers.

Ever since I became an MP, an issue that I have supported is the regulation of so called “loan sharks”. Loan sharks prey on the vulnerable with unscrupulous rates of interest and this includes many of our Pacific people. They are the scourge of our community and instead of lending a helping hand keep borrowers in poverty. It is common for payday lenders to charge interest at rates between “only” 8% and 15% per week, compounding well into four figures at a time when mainstream rates have declined.

Chauvel’s Credit Reforms (Responsible Lending) Bill was drawn from the ballot in 2009. In early 2010 Beaumont took over responsibility for Chauvel’s bill, which was subsequently defeated at its first reading in July 2010. So, a common interest there, and with Beaumont back in Parliament perhaps we’ll still see some action on loan sharks.

Secondly, three elections in a row Chauvel failed to unseat United Future MP Peter Dunne (pictured bottom right) in the Ōhariu electorate. Dunne gloated tweeted from Dubai airport

Ready to board Melb/Auck flight. After what’s been happening in NZ today certainly seems time to come home and join the fun.

Chauvel did succeed in reducing Dunne’s majority from 12,534 (in 2002) to 7,702 (in 2005) and 1006 (in 2008) but 1392 (in 2011) was a miss as good as a mile. I hope Labour puts up a strong candidate to contest the Ōhariu electorate in 2014. It’s way way wayyyy past time to flush the Dunney!

If a vote is wasted …

I’m never sure if my sense of humour is more of a liability than an asset.

In an ideal democracy, Parliamentary representation is proportional. Christian Choice recommends that the 5% threshold be lowered or abolished. Why? If a vote is wasted, God gets quite irate.

That was my “full” submission on behalf of the embryonic Christian libertarian political think-tank, Christian Choice, submitted 5 minutes before the 5 April midnight deadline for those wanting to present in person to the Commission. It would have been more appropriate as a “quick” 5-minute submission, but that did not give the option of an in-person presentation.

[Update: I video-recorded my oral submission on my Android phone, but I’m damned if I can figure out how to rotate and edit a .3gp file under Ubuntu and upload it to YouTube. For the time being, here’s a transcript of my oral submission.]

I’m making this submission on behalf of an embryonic Christian libertarian political think-tank called Christian Choice.

The first thing I’d like to say is…

I’ll introduce myself first, I’m Richard Goode. I’m a Christian. And a libertarian.

The first thing I’d like to say is, thank God we live in New Zealand, where, even if our votes are wasted, and our representatives ignore what we have to say, at least we get to vote, and at least our representatives do put the time aside to listen to what we have to say. So the second thing I’d like to say is, thank you for listening.

I’m going to talk about the wasted vote problem, and I hope you’ll take heed of Christian Choice’s recommendation to lower or abolish the 5% threshold.

I alluded to the Life of Brian in my “full” online submission. “If a vote is wasted, God gets quite irate.” I’d now like to allude briefly to the ministry of Jesus. He gave us two new commandments, the second of which is “Love thy neighbour as theyself.” He could have said love thy neighbour twice as much as thyself, or half as much as thyself … but he didn’t. The second commandment, I hope you can see, embodies a principle of egalitarianism but also a principle of proportionality.

I think an ideal Parliamentary democracy should embody the very same principles of egalitarianism and proportionality. This means, one man, one vote. And it also means that each is to count for one, and none for more than one. (Or each is to count for two, under our system, and none for more than two votes.) But our current voting system falls short of this ideal.

I was 20 years old when I voted for the first time, this was in 1984. I voted under the FPP (First Past the Post) system for the local New Zealand Party candidate. And despite gaining 12.2% of the vote, the New Zealand Party gained no seats. Now I’m not somebody, and I never have been someone, who’s a mainstream voter. I wasn’t back then and I figured, quite correctly, that it was a pointless waste of my time voting again, so I didn’t vote again until the first MMP election in 1996. (Although I did vote in the 1993 referendum to bring MMP in.) And I have voted since then.

In ’96 I voted for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party. Their vote was 1.66%, which fell short of the 5% threshold. The Christian Coalition’s party vote was 4.33%, which also fell short of the threshold. And I believe that both parties should have been represented in Parliament.

I’ve voted since, again for the ALCP but also for Libertarianz Party , but I still consider it a bit of a pointless waste of time. because none of those parties has come close to the 5% threshold. And the reason they haven’t come close to the 5% theshold is because of the 5% threshold.

I’d like to talk about Epsom as well in the last election. The so-called strategic voting that went on in Epsom is an example of a fundamental flaw in the current system. The 5% threshold meant that voters in Epsom had to vote for a candidate they did not support, necessarily in order to affect the national result. And I’m talking about libertarian-minded voters. They had to vote for John Banks or felt that they did to get Don Brash and others into Parliament on John Banks’s coat-tails, as it were.

So they did manage to affect the national result, but … What good is it for someone to affect the national result, yet forfeit their soul?

You see, the existence of the 5% threshold provides perverse incentives to vote for parties who are not your first or second choice of party, and for candidates who are not even a third or fourth choice of candidate. I know of libertarian voters and members of ACT on Campus who voted “strategically” for John Banks in Epsom. And now those voters have to live with the fact that all they achieved, from their point of view, was to elect a single conservative MP to Parliament who actually has recently come out in opposition to the “Keep it 18” policy which ACT on Campus had previously championed. This is a perverse outcome.

I’ll quote a couple of libertarian acquaintances of mine. They’re not close friends and they’re not Christians but this is what they had to say, on the day. One of them said

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

but they voted for him. And another person said

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

Okay … now, when you’ve got people voting for John Banks, and that’s what they actually think of him, there’s something wrong with our electoral system. And I said to them at the time, I said, look, with friends of freedom like you guys, who needs enemies?

Christian Choice would like to see the threshold lowered or abolished to remove the incentives for such electoral perversion.

Now there is some concern that we need to keep a threshold, even if it is lowered. I think this concern is misplaced. There’s a worry that eliminating the 5% threshold will mean there are more parties in Parliament and make it more difficult to establish a stable Government. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Totalitarian regimes are often more stable than democratic ones but that doesn’t mean that they are a good thing. The purpose of having a democratic election system is not to ensure a stable Government. It is to provide representation for voters. And the most democratic way to do this is through proper proportional representation.

So we would like to see the threshold lowered, preferably abolished. There will still be a natural threshold. In a Parliament of 100 MPs it would be 1%. And in a Parliament of 120 MPs, it would be 0.83%.

I’ll close by once again alluding again to the Life of Brian. If you’re worried about loony parties like the People’s Front of Judea getting elected to Parliament—currently polling at 1%—don’t worry too much because before the election they will surely schism into the People’s Front of Judea and the Judean People’s front, and gain 0.5% each and no representation!

Thanks for listening.

I think my sense of humour was more of an asset than a liability on this occasion! My submission was well-received.

Those present and named were: Dr. Therese Arseneau, Jane Huria, Sir Hugh Williams, Robert Peden, John Spencer and Louise Vickerman.

MMP Review

In the 2011 Referendum on the Voting System, held in conjunction with the General Election on 26 November, the majority of voters chose to keep MMP as New Zealand’s voting system.

This triggered an independent review of MMP, conducted by the Electoral Commission, in which all of us can have our say on any changes we’d like to see made to the way MMP works.

TODAY (5 April) is the deadline for submissions for those wanting to present in person to the Commission. Submissions must be lodged with the Commission by midnight on 5 April.

You can make a quick submission. Or you can make a full submission. To make a quick submission, all you have to write is, e.g.,

I believe that to achieve better representation the MMP threshold should be lowered to 2.5%.

Let’s give freedom-friendly parties such as the ALCP and the Libz a better chance next time. And dissuade people from committing “the ends justify the means” atrocities such as “strategically voting” for John Banks to get Don Brash into Parliament.

In the words of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ

What you are about to do, do quickly (John 13:27)

Okay, so that was quoted totally out of context. Never mind. Just SUBMIT! DO IT NOW!

A man of the sheeple


Andrew Little, David Cunliffe, Shane Jones … all have been touted as future leaders of New Zealand’s Labour Party. But Helen Clark’s successor (Goff was just fillin’) is relative newcomer David Shearer.

Helen Clark resigned from Parliament in 2009 to take up a post with the United Nations. A by-election was held in the Mount Albert electorate. David Shearer quit his United Nations post to contest and win the Mount Albert by-election and became the new Member of Parliament for Mount Albert. It’s early days, but I’m picking that Shearer will succeed Clark as New Zealand’s next Labour Prime Minister, too, in three years’ time.

A question for the Labour caucus: Is Shearer the Best of You or is he The Pretender?