Founding principles of the Conservative Party. Long form.
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.
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?
RIB Jeff Hanneman
Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman died early this morning of liver failure.
He will be remembered as guitarist and song writer for the greatest heavy metal band of all time.
He was 49. He is survived by his wife Kathy, his sister Kathy and his brothers Michael and Larry. And, of course, his fellow band members and a legion of fans.
Hanneman had been off the road since he contracted necrotizing fasciitis—thought to be from a spider bite—in early 2011. It’s not known what role the disease played in Hanneman’s liver failure.
Alonzo T Jones. Classic defence of Religious Liberty. National Sunday Law.
Alonzo T Jones.
It has always been the fate of minority faiths to defend their right to religious liberty from oppresion from Popular Orthodoxy and encroaching Legalistic mobocracy.
American Seventh Day adventist Alonzo T Jones delivered a classic defence of religious liberty in opposition to the establishment of a National Sunday Law in 1889.
“In 1889, A.T. Jones spoke before a United States Congressional subcommittee; the topic of discussion was the “Breckinridge Bill” which proposed the compulsion of Sunday observance in the Washington, D.C. environs. Jones’s testimony helped to defeat this bill, and Jones became known for his abilities in defense of and knowledge regarding freedom of religion. In 1892, he was again called to speak before the U.S. Congress regarding the Sunday closure of the Chicago World’s Fair, known as “The Columbia Exposition”.
Wikipedia.
Read about him Here:
‘Together New Zealand’ presents ‘TREATYGATE’. Hamilton. 16-5-13.
Founding principles of the Conservative Party. Short form.
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.
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.
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:
- To vote as directed by the electorate (against his own conscience)
- To abstain on the issue
- To go back to the electorate and negotiate with them. If there is an impasse then to offer his resignation.
- 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.
Sir Bob Jones. Prophet of Nihilism. Advocate of Jackboot Civilisation. Pillar of Savage Society.
In an article in today’s NZ Herald entitled ‘NZ – No 1 danger spot for tourists’ (here:)
Sir Bob Jones talks about how important tourism is to our economy, and after driveling on about several ‘hassles’ visitors face when they come here, he moves on to the terrible problem of foreign tourists being preyed upon and violently assaulted when they visit God’s own.
He sums up thus…
“Sooner or later a foreign journalist will research our tourist crimes history and write a sensational account, pointing out that on a pro-rata tourist numbers and/or population basis, New Zealand is statistically the most dangerous popular tourist destination in the world – which beyond question it is.
So, what to do about it? Here’s one suggestion: Why not legislate that crimes against tourists automatically yield double the maximum sentences. That should produce a sharp improvement in what is nothing less than a scandalous national embarrassment.”
End Quote.
Now I admit that I too am alarmed by the violence in our society and appalled by reports of Tourists being murdered, assaulted, robbed, etc.
Yet I question Bob’s rationale.
Why is it that Sir Bob does not appreciate a Citizens life is just as valuable as that of a foreign visitor?
If increased deterrence is needed, Would it not make better sense to double the punishment for all acts of violence rather than just those perpetrated against visitors?
This idea of Bob’s actually shows his Atheist *lack of morality* as on one hand he clearly puts *the monetary factor* … the negative impact on Tourist revenues…as the chief reason ‘violence against visitors is bad’, and secondly this exposes the reality that as an atheist the only solution to the problem of violence he can muster is the retributive solution.
Ie he has no real *moral solution* … a code of ethics powerful enough to convert the soul of a violent thug… instilling a much greater ‘respect for others’ and cuting off the real source of violence… ie a lack of strong inner convictions and personal ethics… such as those of the Christian faith which can and have often converted violent criminals into peaceful and productive citizens.
There have been countless stories of violent Gangsters etc being reformed by the power of Christian morality.
Yet as an Atheist Bob has publicly ridiculed and undermined those whom hold the Christian faith dear.
To Him…We are Fools!
Dare I suggest that it has been a growing irreverence for Christianity… the very sort of irreverence which Bob Jones himself specializes in propagating which has eroded the Christian values of our society resulting in greater lawlessness and violence!
Yet of course Sir Bob will never admit that the corrosive Atheist nihilism which he fosters could have any such negative effect upon the morals of our society and thus a requisite serious negative impact upon our economy!
He’s too busy pretending to be a pillar of the community!
The Father of Sociology, and Libertarian Giant… Herbert Spencer called Christianity “That most Potent of Moral Antiseptics” . The Man vs The State.
It is tragically funny how atheists like Bob love to brag that atheism is on the rise in NZ, yet get a twitchy eye when you point out that the Stats also prove that lawlessness, poverty, and vice are on the rise too!
Not to mention Suicide, Divorce, Abortion, Depression,Etc!
The fact is Bob may be a millionaire, none the less he is too pig headed to understand the Important social and massive economic benefits of those Christian ideals and values which he busies himself corroding and undermining.
Ref: Bob Jones NZ Herald… ‘Religion rejection worldwide phenomenon’ here:
Voltaire was well aware that the greatest evil of Atheism was that it entails the loss of objective Morality and Devalues human life.
He knew that the fear of the God of the Bible, and belief in Judgment day…. kept many sinners and criminals in check, not to mention inspiring acts of charity and humanity.
Bob Jones may say that he is no Nihilist, yet none the less by attacking God he has rendered any pretence to morality as merely cultural relativism, and sinners and Criminals grasp this. They know that if there is no God then they are not Duty bound to keep societies laws. In fact they will deem any laws or ethics to be mere human inventions… just a ruse to fool the gullible away from preying on the Wealthy, and weak. And that ‘nothing is truly wrong… unless they get caught!
Whether Bob admits it or not his Atheism opens up Pandora’s Box…and chaos and disorder ensues.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.
Hamilton.
Read what Thomas Jefferson had to say about this here:
P.S If Bob was to ever to visit ‘Eternal Vigilance’… $5 says he slams me for my spelling and poor grammar!
Concerning the notion of Liberty, and of moral Agency.
The plain and obvious meaning of the words Freedom and Liberty, in common speech, is The power, opportunity, or advantage, that any one has, to do as he pleases. Or in other words, his being free from hindrance or impediment in the way of doing, or conducting in any respect, as he wills. — And the contrary to Liberty, whatever name we call that by, is a person’s being hindered or unable to conduct as he will, or being necessitated to do otherwise.
If this which I have mentioned be the meaning of the word Liberty, in the ordinary use of language; as I trust that none that has ever learned to talk, and is unprejudiced, will deny; then it will follow, that in propriety of speech, neither Liberty, nor its contrary, can properly be ascribed to any being or thing, but that which has such a faculty, power or property, as is called will. For that which is possessed of no will, cannot have any power or opportunity of doing according to its will, nor be necessitated to act contrary to its will, nor be restrained from acting agreeably to it. And therefore to talk of Liberty, or the contrary, as belonging to the very Will itself, is not to speak good sense; if we judge of sense, and nonsense, by the original and proper signification of words.— For the Will itself is not an Agent that has a will: the power of choosing, itself, has not a power of choosing. That which has the power of volition is the man, or the soul, and not the power of volition itself. And he that has the Liberty of doing according to his will, is the Agent who is possessed of the Will; and not the Will which he is possessed of. We say with propriety, that a bird let loose has power and liberty to fly; but not that the bird’s power of flying has a power and Liberty of flying. To be free is the property of an Agent, who is possessed of powers and faculties, as much as to be cunning, valiant, bountiful, or zealous. But these qualities are the properties of persons; and not the properties of properties.
There are two things contrary to what is called Liberty in common speech. One is constraint; otherwise called force, compulsion, and coaction; which is a person’s being necessitated to do a thing contrary to his will. The other is restraint; which is, his being hindered, and not having power to do according to his will. But that which has no will, cannot be the subject of these things.— I need say the less on this bead, Mr. Locke having set the same thing forth, with so great clearness, in his Essay on the Human Understanding.
But one thing more I would observe concerning what is vulgarly called Liberty; namely, that power and opportunity for one to do and conduct as he will, or according to his choice, is all that is meant by it; without taking into the meaning of the word, any thing of the cause of that choice; or at all considering how the person came to have such a volition; whether it was caused by some external motive, or internal habitual bias; whether it was determined by some internal antecedent volition, or whether it happened without a cause; whether it was necessarily connected with something foregoing, or not connected. Let the person come by his choice any how, yet, if he is able, and there is nothing in the way to hinder his pursuing and executing his will, the man is perfectly free, according to, the primary and common notion of freedom.
– Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, 1754
Are you up for A Careful And Strict Inquiry Into The Modern Prevailing Notions Of That FREEDOM OF WILL Which Is Supposed To Be Essential To Moral Agency, Virtue And Vice, Reward And Punishment, Praise And Blame? Then feel free to come join us at the next meeting of the New Inklings. (Tuesday 30 April, 5:00 pm, Trax Bar and Cafe, Platform 1, Wellington Railway Station.)
Self Help. Hands on…Fighting the Demon Cancer (No1). Alkaloid Body Metabolism
Self Help. Hands on…Fighting the Demon Cancer (No2). Cannabis cures Cancers Here:
^^^^ CHECK OUT my No2 Blogpost on self help fighting cancer ^^^^^
When Orthodox medicine has no answers, then it’s time to get busy and see what alternative treatments are available.
This is the first blog post of many.
I hope that they can at least be informative…
I am also sure that with careful ‘due diligence’ that such methods need not be looked upon as ‘last resorts’ but can be wisely incorporated while orthodox treatments are also being utilized.
I present these Ideas for further study…
Every Parent/ patient must carefully consider the pro’s and cons of choosing to try… or ignore… alternatives like this.
Tim Wikiriwhi
What is also interesting to consider is that this actually has greater ramifications than curing Cancer.
It also means we all should be attempting to have an Alkaline metabolism so as to *prevent* Cancer as well.
************************************************
How to raise Alkaline in the Body…
Dec 31, 2010 | By Adam Cloe Adam Cloe has been published in various scientific journals. He is an M.D./Ph.D. student at the University of Chicago. He has a Bachelor of Arts in biochemistry from Boston University, where he won an award for excellence in undergraduate science writing.
The balance of acidic and alkaline substances in your body is important for the function of the proteins and cells in most of your body’s tissues. The balance of acids and bases is often described as the pH; the blood naturally has a pH of around 7.4, which means that there are slightly more alkaline substances than acidic substances in the blood. If your blood becomes too acidic, it puts stress on the body, which can affect your health. There are a number of different ways to increase the alkalinity of your body.
Step 1
Avoid acid-producing foods. Many of the foods in the typical Western diet generate acid in the body, which will neutralize some of the naturally occurring alkaline chemicals in your blood. Acid-producing foods include most meats and dairy products, alcohol, beans and legumes, white pasta and other grains, such as oats, rice, wheat and corn, the Wolfe Clinic explains. According to the acid/alkaline balance theory of diet, reducing your intake of these foods will help raise the amount of alkaline chemicals in your body.
Step 2
Increase your intake of alkaline-producing foods. In addition to reducing the amount of acidic foods you eat, the acid/alkaline balance theory of diet recommends that people eat foods that cause the body to produce alkaline chemicals. Most fruits and vegetables, including citrus fruits, are broken down into alkaline substances upon digestion. Eggs, cottage cheese, fermented tofu, most seeds and many spices also have an alkalizing effect on the body.
Step 3
Take potassium citrate and magnesium citrate supplements. These minerals can help maintain the balance of calcium, sodium, potassium and magnesium that are needed to help the body stay healthy and maintain its pH, AlkalizeForHealth.net explains. Because there is no standard dose of magnesium and potassium citrate, follow the dosing directions on the packaging of the supplement.
Step 4
Take sodium bicarbonate. Sodium bicarbonate is an alkaline substance which is normally produced by the body and can also be taken as a supplement in the form of baking soda. Baking soda can be obtained without a prescription and the dose you need will vary, depending on the condition for which you are taking baking soda. Drugs.com recommends that you follow a doctor’s instructions or follow the directions on the packaging if you take sodium bicarbonate supplements.
5) Foods You Must Not Eat Cut Down a bit of Your Stomach Fat By Avoiding These 5 Common Foods!
www.BeyondDiet.com/Lose-Weight
5 Foods you must not eat: Cut down a bit of stomach fat every day by never eating these 5 foods.
Trimdownclub.com
Free Meal Planner Hundreds of Fast & Tasty Recipes Learn w/ the Free Recipe Toolbar!
TotalRecipeSearch.com
1200 Calorie Diet Plan Get Easy & Low Calorie Meal Recipes & Much More! Free Recipe Toolbar
www.Recipehub.com
References
Wolfe Clinic: Acidic and Alkaline Foods
Drugs.com: Baking Soda
AlkalizeForHealth.net: Acid-Base Balance
Article reviewed by Sarah Phillips Last updated on: Dec 31, 2010
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/346345-how-to-raise-alkaline-in-the-body/#ixzz2RjZdlGsX
More from Tim…
6% Food grade Hydrogen peroxide as treatment for all cancers.
12/12 Patients (100% Remission) using Monoclonal Antibody Treatment of Rectal cancer.
Anti-parasitic drug Fenbendazole kills Cancer.
Fenbendazole De-wormer kills Cancer.
Cure for Cancer? EBC-46. Hidden by Big Pharma?
Suppressed science: Garlic proven to kill brain cancer cells without side effects: Natural News.
Hightimes. Biologist Explains How THC Kills Cancer Cells.
Self Help. Hands on…Fighting the Demon Cancer (No2). Cannabis cures Cancers
Self Help. Hands on…Fighting the Demon Cancer (No1). Alkaloid Body Metabolism
Heart Disease is the leading cause of Death: Brett Boettcher. X
Patriots! Boot out the Democrats, and the Republicans,…
The same thing ought to apply to all those who want to continue the war on drugs, have public health and education, ban guns, impose hate speech laws, , keep prostitution illegal, lock out Mexicans, etc, etc. The only True Americans are the Libertarians… The policies of Dems and Reps are all as bad and as un American as the Sharia Law.
They can make no claim to upholding the Constitution.
They are Hypocrites.
And of course many of the Islamic migrants living in Western democracies migrated to escape the tyranny of Sharia Law… from Afghanistan… from Egypt, etc.
They appreciate freedom, and are productive, tollerant and civilised members of our societies, peacefully practicing their own faith on equal terms with everyone else.
They do not wish to establish Sharia Law.
And it is bigotry to think that all Muslims are religious fanatics who desire to impose their faith on others by force, or to kill Christians…etc.
What is truely sickening are all the so-called Libertarians who wont vote Libertarian!
How sickning it is to watch them waste their votes by voting ‘Republican’… and then hear the excuse that the Libertarians have no hope of getting elected!
What is worse is that the actually elect * Right wing Socialist Republicans!*
(Facepalm)
I admit that Ron Paul was an exceptional Republican, yet what the Republican party did to stop him becomming their candidate for Presedent ought to be evidence enough that the Republican party is hell bent on maintaining the Status quo… it has no agenda of Libertarian reform.
In no way ought Libertarians to be suckered into supporting Rand Paul.
He should have quit the Party after what they did to his old man, yet he has chosen to stick around simply out of personal ambition rather than principle.
