To do evil is to act against God’s will.
If we live in a deterministic universe then everything that happens is God’s will.
If everything that happens is God’s will then there is no evil.
We do evil.
Therefore we do act against God’s will and we do not not live in a deterministic universe.
A Socially conscientious face book friend asked me …. “just curious, what is your view on schooling? do you think it is something that should be the states responsibility to provide or the parents responsibility to provide/find an appropriate organization to provide it for them? just curious as to what you thought :)”
As this is a very important topic, I think it is appropriate to post my response here for discussion.
It is a brief overview of my position as a Kiwi Libertarian who has had a guts full of the absolute BS that goes for education in this country…
My reply…
This is a subject of the highest importance.
The reality is that when you clearly define what are the proper duties of Government, things like Education and Health fall outside the proper domain of political coercion and governmental responsibility.
In fact it is very dangerous to grant politicians power and control over such things.
Before the advent of ‘State education’ schooling was fast growing as a successful private institution, and when the Socialists wanted to nationalize schooling, enlightened minds rightly recoiled at this knowing the State would inevitably use the education system to indoctrinate the population with it’s own political agenda… and this is exactly what has happened. eg All the false propaganda about European colonization of New Zealand, and the treaty as being a partnership etc.
Another example is all the ‘Green / climate change propaganda’ creating a generation of sheeple whom will allow the government to tyrannize over their lives and the economy under the guise of ‘Caring for dolphins, etc’.
Intellectual Giant. The Self-educated Individualist/ Libertarian Herbert Spencer.
He warned of the inevitable evils which would follow in the wake of the State Nationalisation of education… and time has absolutely vindicated his prophesies!
His ‘The Man vs the State’ is a must read.
The ‘Indoctrination system’ has created generations of Sheeple who today think it’s the states job to ‘mother’/ nanny everyone and that all life’s problems have political solutions… and thus ought to be regulated.
There is a constant bleating about ‘too much liberty… not enough State control’.
Plus because the state monopoly virtually eliminates the virtues of ‘Free-market’ forces/ competition the system tends to stagnate, whereas the dymanics of free-market competition always seeks to improve the value it supplies to its consumers so as to increase its market share.
Thus the free-market in Education would produce the highest value for the lowest cost.
Conversely it was recently calculated that our State system sucks $9 out of every $10 into it’s bureaucracy with only $1 going on to actually educating our kids.
Thus there is potential for huge cost savings to the NZ public whom are still under the delusion that education is ‘free’ in this country when in fact they pay exorbitant amounts via taxation.
Furthermore there is an entrenched ‘Soviet’ unionized mentality within the Collectivized Teaching fraternity who seek to aviod the ‘horrors’ of Free market quality controls, and instead maintain themselves as a state bureaucracy…. resisting reform.
The prevailing political ideology of teachers in this country are die hard advocates of totalitarian control of everything.
Then you have the Ministry of Education playing God, deciding what will be taught to you kids,… what values are taught robbing parents to their rights to choose what they believe is in the best interest of the children.
The whole business stinks to high heaven, yet the sheeple have been so successfully indoctrinated to believe that ‘our system is wonderful, and that privatization will mean poor kids will miss out’ that the very notion of removing the state from education is absolutely unconscionable.
The Proper duty of government is strictly limited to upholding the Natural rights and liberties of the individual, not implementing socialist agendas… not social engineering.
Yet because this limited sphere of operation severely restricts political power, and maximizes self responsibility, the power tripping politicians will always attempt to overstep the bounds of legitimate political intervention, using emotive excuses to justify their usurpations, and the sheeple who don’t like self responsibility will vote for politicians who offer to ‘mummy’ them… and tax others to pay for things which they themselves ought to pay.
Socialism is one great big tit sucking scam where people are under the delusion that they are getting something for nothing.
The reality is Socialism is chronically ‘top heavy’, shuns progressive innovation and is bankrupt!
Yet how are enlightened self educated folk like myself supposed to get the truth across to the masses in the face of the multi Billion dollar multi headed hydra of State Indoctrination and media… whom constantly preach that freedom is bad and state power is good?
We are said to be radicals whom ought to be simply ignored.
The Beast reigns!
Tim Wikiriwhi
Libertarian.
More Contemplations here: Why Mandatory State Education?
Read how State Education has ‘Lobotomised’ the so-called Free Press Here:
Read how State indoctrination has bred a lust for Socialist Nannism and disregard for personal liberty and self responciblity Here:
Blaming you, that’s what. It’s your fault!
I’m fast coming around to the view that the Socialist Salvation Army expresses like this.
our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.
This is the doctrine of original sin. It was Adam (and Eve) who committed the orginal sin, but you have inherited that sin. You were born bad. Free will is commonly believed to be a precondition of moral agency and moral responsibility, but it’s not. Just as well, since we don’t have free will!
Contrary to popular opinion, moral responsibility is not consequent upon our actions (whether freely chosen or otherwise). Moral responsibility is not gotten through acts of commission or omission. In fact, it’s a matter of give and take. You are morally responsible if you are justly held accountable by other people (including God) or if you rightly take responsibility yourself for your own (or other people’s) actions.
The view I have just expressed is not a popular one. It gets intransigent atheists, in particular, in a real lather. Here‘s Ayn Rand.
The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.
A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.
The doctrine of original sin squares the existence of morality with the non-existence of free will.
The doctrine of original sin is Biblically sound, whereas the doctrine of free will is not (notwithstanding that it’s a very popular theodicy).
Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (NIV)
“It’s mine too! Even though I live in a socialist Bananna State 13000 miles away from the US!
I can claim this because the 2nd embodies a universal truth.
And my claim does not rest upon the recognition of the Beehive.
It rests upon my inalienable rights which are mine even if the tyrants in wellington refuse to endorse them.”
Place me like a seal over your heart,
like a seal on your arm;
for love is as strong as death,
its jealousy unyielding as the grave.
It burns like blazing fire,
like a mighty flame.
Many waters cannot quench love;
rivers cannot sweep it away.
If one were to give
all the wealth of one’s house for love,
it would be utterly scorned. (NIV)
To compromise between right and wrong is to choose wrong.
To compromise between just and unjust is to choose injustice.
I was speaking with a professional mediator/arbitrator tonight and he threw this supposedly wise saying into the conversation.
It takes two to tango.
The meaning of the saying is that whenever there is a dispute both parties are at least partly at fault. The saying is false. It is possible for one party to be entirely in the right but he has ruled out this possibility beforehand.
Where to find people who will judge righteously?
Since August 2011, Peter Dunne has banned 30 synthetic cannabinoids by issuing Temporary Class Drug Notices. These are published in the New Zealand Gazette, “the official newspaper of the Government of New Zealand.” Here’s an example.
Pursuant to section 4C of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, I give notice that the following substances are classified as temporary class drugs:
CB-13
1-naphthalen-1-yl-(4-pentyloxynaphthalen-1-yl)methanone
MAM-2201
(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)(4-methyl-1-naphthalenyl)-methanone
AKB48
N-(1-adamantyl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
XLR11
(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone
This notice will take effect on 13 July 2012 and will expire on 13 July 2013, unless cancelled or renewed as specified in section 4E of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Dated at Wellington this 2nd day of July 2012.
HON PETER DUNNE, Associate Minister of Health.
The legislation enabling the issuance of Temporary Class Drug Notices was the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act (No 2) 2011, which became law on 9 August 2011. Let’s take a closer look at what it says.
4C Temporary class drug notice
(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, specify any substance, preparation, mixture, or article as a temporary class drug.
(2) The Minister must not give notice under subsection (1) if the substance, preparation, mixture, or article is a Class A controlled drug, a Class B controlled drug, a Class C controlled drug, a precursor substance, or a restricted substance (as defined in section 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005).
(3) The Minister must not give notice under subsection (1) unless he or she is satisfied that the substance, preparation, mixture, or article that is to be specified in the notice poses, or may pose, a risk of harm to individuals, or to society.
(4) A notice under subsection (1) may describe the substance, preparation, mixture, or article by any 1 or more of the following:
(a) its chemical name, or 1 of its chemical names:
(b) its product name:
(c) a description of the substance, preparation, mixture, or article, in the form that the Minister considers appropriate for the purposes of the notice.
(5) A notice under subsection (1) must state the date on which the notice comes into force.
(6) The date specified under subsection (5) must not be earlier than 7 days after the date of the publication of the notice in the Gazette.
4D Effect of temporary class drug notice
(1) Except as provided in this section, a temporary class drug is to be treated, while the temporary class drug notice remains in force, in the same way as if the drug were a controlled drug that is specified or described in Part 1 of Schedule 3.
(2) A temporary class drug specified or described in a temporary class drug notice is not to be added to any schedule of this Act while the notice is in force.
(3) Despite section 7(1), it is not an offence for a person, in relation to a temporary class drug, to do either or both of the following while the temporary class drug notice relating to that drug is in force:
(a) to possess for his or her own use less than 56 grams in total of any products (including cigarettes), or any drug forms (including flakes, tablets, or capsules), each containing some quantity of that temporary class drug:
(b) to use that temporary class drug.
(4) Possession by a person of 56 grams or more in total of any products (including cigarettes), or any drug forms (including flakes, tablets, or capsules), each containing some quantity of that temporary class drug is to be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as possession by that person of an amount, level, or quantity at and over which a controlled drug that is specified or described in Part 1 of Schedule 3 is presumed to be for supply.
(5) A substance that has a structure substantially similar to a temporary class drug is not to be treated as a controlled drug analogue by reason only of that similarity.
(6) While a temporary class drug notice is in force, the Minister must seek advice, as he or she considers appropriate, under section 5 or 5AA, or both, in relation to the temporary class drug and its appropriate classification, if any (including as a precursor substance, or as a restricted substance as defined in section 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005), under this Act.
(7) As soon as possible after the publication of a temporary class drug notice in the Gazette, and while a temporary class drug notice is in force, the Director-General of Health must ensure that the notice, and information about its effects, is available—
(a) on the Ministry of Health’s Internet site, in an electronic form that is publicly accessible; and
(b) in any other way that the Director-General considers appropriate in the circumstances.
(8) Despite the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989, a temporary class drug notice is not to be treated as a regulation for the purposes of the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989.
4E Duration of temporary class drug notice
(1) A temporary class drug notice expires at the earliest of—
(a) the close of the day that is 1 year after the date on which the notice came into force; or
(b) the date on which the substance, preparation, mixture, or article is—
(i) classified as a Class A controlled drug; or
(ii) classified as a Class B controlled drug; or
(iii) classified as a Class C controlled drug; or
(iv) added to Schedule 4 as a precursor substance; or
(v) classified as a restricted substance (as defined in section 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005); or
(c) its revocation by the Minister by notice in the Gazette.
(2) A temporary class drug notice may be renewed by the Minister—
(a) prior to the date of its expiry as calculated under subsection (1); and
(b) on 1 occasion only; and
(c) only for the purpose of allowing sufficient time for the Minister to obtain the advice that is to be sought under section 4D(6).
Did you pay special attention to the highlighted bits?
According to 4C(3), since August 2011 Peter Dunne has been satisfied 30 different times that a particular substance poses, or may pose, a risk of harm to individuals, or to society. Well, it’s nice to know that someone’s getting some satisfaction.
Now, according to 4D(6), “while a temporary class drug notice is in force, the Minister must seek advice, as he or she considers appropriate, under section 5 or 5AA, or both, in relation to the temporary class drug and its appropriate classification, if any (including as a precursor substance, or as a restricted substance as defined in section 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005), under this Act.” What advice did Peter Dunne consider it appropriate to seek, regarding the 30 substances he’s banned? He must have sought it. So what was it?
So far, Peter Dunne has renewed all his Temporary Class Drug Notices issued in 2011, prior to their expiry. Note that, according to 4E(2), this is only for the purpose of allowing sufficient time for the Minister to obtain the advice that is to be sought under section 4D(6). Peter Dunne must be seeking lots of advice. Otherwise, what’s taking him so long?
You know what I think? I don’t think Dunne’s been keeping his side of the deal at all. I’m going to ask him to find out.
Stop trusting in mere humans,
who have but a breath in their nostrils.
Why hold them in esteem? (NIV)
Never underestimate the power of Idiots in large numbers!
The NZ Herald ran a story today about Union activism, lobbying for the raising of the minimum wage… under the emotive term ‘Living Wage’.
It was with great relief that I read further that John Key rejected the notion.
It currently sits at $13.50.
Read about it here:
Unions seek to compel employers to raise their minimum wage to between $18.00 to $20.00 an hour, under the pretext that this rate will mean “families can realistically live”.
As I was reading about this in the Smoko room at work, I could not help but mutter how insane I thought this Idea is and that it would only serve to hurt New Zealand, esp those this wage was supposed to help.
I was promptly challenged, and so I began to explain why this was both a stupid Idea and why it would make things worse for everyone.
I explained that $18.00 dollars an hour may indeed be enough to get by on…today… under the present cost of living, yet the very introduction of this ‘artificial’ wage increase would immediately cause a jump in living expenses… and thus the raise would only serve to inflate costs, and $18.00 would then not buy the same amount of goods and services as it does today… before the compulsory rise.
Ie it is a self defeating gesture.
It would cause the cost of living to rise for everyone, esp in regards to things like Bread, Bakery food, Petrol, etc… things which Kiwis buy from other Kiwis, rather than from overseas. Conversely it will hand a greater competitive advantage to imported Goods comparative to New Zealand produce. Imports will still be effected, yet not to the same degree as Kiwi made… and this disadvantage puts New Zealand business under greater strain.
Some businesses simply will not remain viable because the wage rise makes their products too expensive, and some will simply shut down their operations, others will move offshore to countries where they can get less expensive labour, and others will bring in Automation, because they can justify the expense in light of the New Wage laws.
In all these scenarios It will be bad news for the lower wage earners.
All these Evils will have resulted because of ridiculous Social engineering
The Unions and complicit Social democrats will have successfully cost workers their jobs proving that this type of Economic stupidity will surely hurt the very people this socialist compulsion was supposed to help!
It keeps getting worse because Unemployment will jump and so will numbers on the unemployment benefit (ramping up the costs to taxpayers)… and what is even worse is that because the costs of living have been artificially forced upwards… the buying power of welfare benefits will have shrunk too!
Then we will nodoubt hear Union cries to raise welfare benefits to ‘living proportions’, throwing even greater burdens on the workers… ie the taxpayers!
Some may say that $18-20/hour might encourage some people off welfare, yet where would these jobs come from?
You have in reality made it much harder to employ them!
And all this misery is a typical result of Government Regulation and interference in the market place and economy of the country!
The Socialist Unionists will not blink from blaming all this extra pain and chaos upon the greed of the capitalists!
That’s how this Malevolent virus of the mind maintains itself in it’s hosts.
Socialism maintains a Class warfare, always blaming the greed of the other side.
The truth is we don’t have a capitalist system, which is ‘Laissez Faire’… ‘Hands off’ Free market economics.
We have a Socialist regulated/ hands on economy!
So quit with the Rubbish that ‘Capitalism doesn’t work’.
It’s Socialism which is failing, and driving our country into debt and destitution!
I have much better solution than compulsory wage rises.
It would indeed help the lower wage earners.
Interested?
I suggest we get rid of income Tax upon the first $10- 15 000 dollars (per annum) earned by everyone!
This would give the poor a real increase in wages without adding costs to employers!
This would mean the costs of production would not increase, and the cost of living would not be artificially increased, nor would thousands be forced onto the Dole!
We don’t have to imagine why the socialist Unionists and Politicians have not put this suggestion on the table!
They want more taxes, not less! ( Think about how heavily unionized all the State employees are in Health , education, etc, etc)
I don’t have space here to talk about the fact that in reality reducing Tax rates can result in greater tax revenues for the government due to growth in the economy.
Nor will I go into the fact that if politicians agreed to lower taxes to win votes, they would probably borrow money at a faster rate rather than cut government spending. which is another shyster evil which ought to be illegal.
Nor will I go into the explanation that in the real world it is the Law of supply and demand which sets wage rates, not Dictators.
(I have written about this Here:)Nor will I present arguments for abolishing minimum wage laws altogether… though there is a very strong case for doing just that.
I must leave these subjects for a later date.
I t is enough for me to say that only the most ridiculously naive morons think economics can be ‘doctored’ so as to improve living standards by passing such farcical laws.
Tim Wikiriwhi
P.S
For Some time I have also been meaning to write a blog post upon what is going on in respect to the Highest wage/ salary earners… the CEOs etc… the Largess, and how this too is an aberration…an evil which is having very serious detrimental effects upon our society, yet it will have to wait.
It is enough to say that this largess actually encourages socialists to pass absurd yet draconian laws… just like this one…the living wage… believing they can wrestle money away from the Top wage earners and hand it to the lowest ones… and that no ill effects will result.
They are complete Morons.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.
Update: 7-10-13
Another delusion is the calculated cost of implementing this ‘Living wage policy’ as it fails to take into account the disgruntled workers who have taken the trouble to up-skill themselves yet find themselves earning little more than the those people with virtually no skills at all!
Human nature dictates that these workers will strike and demand higher wages too.
and thus there will be multiple unforeseen and un-calculated costs which will have ruinous consequences…. esp for taxpayers, rents,and ratepayers… and the Costs of essentials