I ‘Liberated’ this from Young Americans for Liberty facebook page.
The Goode tax plan
Suppose that you have $100 in your pocket, and you want to buy an $80 widget. So you head off to the widget store. You plan to buy an $80 widget and return home with the widget and $20 change.
Suppose that on the way to the widget store, you are intercepted by one of the government’s mobile tax agents. The agent demands 20% of the money in your pocket at gunpoint. You arrive at the widget store with only $80. Enough to purchase the $80 widget. You return home with your new widget but no change.
Suppose, instead, that on the way to the widget store, inflation occurs. The government prints 25% more money to pay for its latest government spending spree. There is now a 25% increase in the money supply, but no corresponding increase in real wealth. As a result, prices rise across the board by 25%. The price of the $80 widget goes up to $100. You arrive at the widget store with $100, just enough to purchase the $100 widget. You return home with your new widget but no change.
From your point of view – that of a wealth producer and consumer – what is the real difference between these two scenarios? Financially speaking, none whatsoever. In either case, you get a widget and no change.
From the government’s point of view – that of a wealth plunderer and parasite – what is the real difference between these two scenarios? Financially speaking, none whatsoever. In the first case, the government gets your $20. In the second case, the government prints $25 that has the same spending power as $20 did pre-inflation.
But there is a difference, of course. It’s the difference between, on the one hand, a central bank and a printing press and, on the other hand, an entire government department with more offices, officers and orifices than you can shake a stick at.
The Goode tax plan is to get rid of the Inland Revenue Department altogether.
The Goode tax plan is for the government to raise revenue by printing it.*
I’m no economist. Perhaps there’s something seriously amiss with my tax plan. Perhaps I overlooked to consider the adverse consequences of my tax plan on savers and those on fixed incomes. Or something. Feel free to educate me in the comments. But my tax plan is based on a premise that I expect no one to deny, viz., that inflation is a tax.
(*Of course. I put forward my tax plan only as a transitional measure. I don’t actually think the government should be in the business of taking money or printing it. Taxation should be phased out. I’m a libertarian, duh.)
NZ Marriage Equality Debate (MP Louisa Wall v Colin Craig) Att: Dr Matt Flannagan.
Christian Philosopher and Blogger Matthew Flannagan.
I am not Homophobic yet I must say my skin crawled watching the Affirmitive ‘Liberals’ in action .
University is truly a heinous place… full of lefty-ness!
I shudder to think these people will one day be in Parliament as Labour/ Green MPs.
The Opposition clearly won the debate… but…
I do have a few issues with what Dr Matthew Flannagan said.
1. You played the paranoia card… raising the specter that the bill may be used to compel people/ ministers/ churches to perform or make their facilities available for Gay Weddings against their will, even though you know The NZ Human Rights Commission has issued a statement which refutes this possibility.
The Affirmative team clearly stated the bill could not be used in such a way.
I say that an amendment could easily be added to clarify this point.
If this was done it would nullify this portion of your argument.
2. Though it was a clever argument to show that the proposed bill was ‘anti-equality’ in itself, you rely upon ‘populist opinion’ which riles against incest, and Polygamy to carry your point.
That is a very flimsy arguement!
The reality is if we separate your personal religious beliefs, and those of your two team mates whom share the same religion as you… and definition of marriage, then the principle of equality still holds good as an argument not only in favor of the bill, but also in favour of legalizing Incestuous and Polygamous marriages… which incidentally both have historical and cultural histories.
That the bill only seeks to legalise Gay Marriage, and not the others is not a valid reason to reject it, *and you know this*… and I argue that this understanding is why you are so desperate to insist the Law upholds *your narrow religious definitions* of marriage (and what constitutes a Family), because if these are overturned by the Gays, then you realise this opens the door for further challenge to legalize polygamy, etc.
The reality is any reform bill which introduces more justice/equality before the Law is worth supporting even if it does not go the whole hog. (eg a bill to legalise Pot still ought to be supported even if it leaves Ecstasy Illegal)
In relation to this, I think your teams argument regarding Civil unions was clever too… only because civil unions do ‘seem’ to cover the same legal/ contractual aspects as marriage and appears to negate the claims by gays that they have less legal rights.
Yet again I see through this as nothing more than a ruse to protect your religious restrictions upon the definition of marriage.
If we are to accept the line of reasoning of the opposition then of course any future activism for legal recognition by the polygamists, etc could also be directed down the same path … Legal polygamous civil unions.
Is all this merely semantics?
Is that all that is at stake here?
Are the Gays being ‘gay’ about this?
Ought they to be satisfied with ‘Civil Unions?
Ought we to put much weight on international conventions and rulings… UN declarations etc????
I think not!
If this issue was merely semantic there would be no opposition to the bill!
This Opposition is a struggle by a particular religious sector of the community… conservative Christians… to maintain a religious law.
That some gays may oppose the bill may indeed logically remove the legitimacy of calling opposition to the bill ‘homophobic’, yet this does little more than that.
This ‘convenience’ in reality cannot negate the truth that Homophobia and religious bigotry does indeed have a lot to do with opposition to the Bill.
I say the Opposition won because they were more sophisticated debaters and managed to deflect the focus away from their personal religious definition of marriage and family…. Yet pure Religious bias it remains.
And it is upon this basis that I… though I am a Christian, cast my vote *for the Bill*, and am happy for the term ‘Marriage’ to be legally broadened.
Why?
Because how the State defines the legal contract of marriage to include homosexuals, does not in any way affect my personal religious belief about ‘marriage.’
Allowing Gay people to legally call themselves ‘married’ does not impinge upon my rights in any way, nor does it mean I must teach my kids that Gays are ‘really married’ in the eyes of God.
I see no valid reason why the Bill ought to be opposed.
Passing the Bill will improve equality before the Law *by removing a religious prejudice.*
This is about principles! And principles Matter! Even of the Opposition thinks it’s trivial.
I despise any Law which imposes the religious values of others upon me, and so to avoid hypocrisy I must defend the Liberty of others to live free of religious values they reject… even if those values are dear to me. By protecting the Liberty of others from State oppression and favouritism, I am protecting my own religious liberty, and defending my values from being devalued and corrupted via compusion.
Real Christianity is not about forcing others to conform.
The 4:20 tax plan
Every man and his dog has a tax plan.
Here’s mine.
1. A $20,000 tax-free income threshold
2. A flat rate of 20% on all personal income over $20,000.
3. A flat rate of 20% on all corporate income.
4. GST to be phased out and replaced with an excise tax of 20% on alcohol, tobacco and cannabis.
I call it the 4:20 tax plan. With a name like that, how could it not get the wasted vote?!
Liberty Conference. Auckland 2012.
Dakta Green recieved a standing ovation for his speech and activism for freedom and Justice in regards to ending cannabis Prohibition.
He spoke about his experiences as a political prisoner, and the fact that he faces yet another stint in Jail because of his refusal to be broken and ‘Living like it’s Legal’.
Last Saturday (6-10-12) I attended the Liberty Conference in Auckland, convened by the Libertarianz Party for the propose of considering the best possible ways of furthering the cause of Liberty in New Zealand, and in particular to formulate a new strategy for getting Freedom loving Advocates into Parliament.
The Libertarianz were facing up to the Sad reality that their Party had failed to attract anywhere near enough support to make it an effective political player.
My personal opinion is that the Libertarianz party did many things wrong… many mistakes hurt the parties chances of gaining a more popular base, yet The Party …morally speaking….also did many things right… which also had a detrimental effect upon it’s popularity.
Simply put it set about to slay too many sacred cows to be borne by the Superstitious sheeple.
Peter Cresswell.
Now Galloping to war with sabers bristling and slashing away was fun indeed, yet such a zealous onslaught spooked the cattle… Peter Cresswell said something to this effect in his speech… and he is right.
This zeal springing from a steadfast rejection of the idea that politics requires compromise… and the conviction that populist politics is the domain of unscrupulous power hungry scum… like Peter Dunne and John Key.
The Hard arse faction within the Libertarianz Party had spent 16 years fending off ‘the soft cocks’… and their desire to water down our message… and though they had prevailed in maintaining the principled integrity of the party (to the limited degree of perfection that it’s Objectivist handicap was capable)… none the less as PC described it… we were trying to eat an elephant in one gulp… The Malicious Press absolutely ostracized us from the public debate, and the fickle and brainwashed Sheeple whom had the misfortune of coming into contact with us… washed their hands of us as if we were an infectious disease. Not even our own families supported us!… yet as rugged individualists we soldiered on alone…being upheld only by the shear faith that we were right, and that we really were the Bearers of the Sacred flame of Liberty… of the Political Holy Grail from which all whom drink behold the secrets of Peace, Civilization, and prosperity!
We Libz still believe this!
We have not given up upon our dream!
Yet we need to rethink how we set about making our vision a reality.
Many suggestions were presented by the various speakers.
A common theme was that We freedom lovers need to stop backstabbing each other and work together as a ‘band of brothers’.
Another suggestion was that we modify how we go about our business… be positive, abandon personal jibes and malice… leave that for the socialist’s…. Lead by example, and master the lost art of persuasion.
The Mighty Lindsay Perigo
Now these suggestions sound great in theory, yet as the saying goes…you cant teach old dogs new tricks… and I seriously doubt you will be able to tame Rabid Hounds like Lindsay Perigo … whom relishes delivering such judgments as calling John Banks a “Leering Gargoyle!” … and “The Whore of Epsom”… to the Glee and hysteria of almost every Libertarian present (including myself!). Maybe some of the Non-libz found such comments to be in poor taste… Yet my point being that such disregard for pandering to the sensitivities of the wowzers is such a fundamental trait of many of us libz… we sincerely consider it a virtue!
And I wonder whether or not the whole idea of always being positive, and PC, and taking care not to offend… is anything more than weasely Used car salesmanship… and that such an approach is transparently slimy… untrustworthy, and in the end not a solution to the Libz woes at all!
Me thinks That Libertarians ought to be of good character, be tolerant, and well mannered, yet still be Dangerously capable and willing to deliver a well aimed bombardment of Invective when the moment calls for it. I believe this is good/ righteous/ honest politics!
Read Lindsey Perigo’s speech Here:
Peter Cresswell (PC) after diagnosing why the Libertarianz Party has failed, then went on to prescribe the remedies.
Firstly he suggested that instead of trying to eat the tyrannical socialist Elephant whole, that instead we set about consuming the beast… by slicing it up into portions… and devouring it one manageable bite at a time! (Genius!)
PC points out that such an approach does not involve any compromise at all, but in fact takes better cognizance of reality!
Eating the elephant is to be achieved via several different stratagems.
1. via transitional policies which spread the reforms over small steps, with the design of reducing the terror of the sheeple, minimizing the pain of transition, and hopefully gaining popular support as each step proves the reform works.
2. By reducing the Policy focus of the Party down to 5 policies that Polls already suggest have popular support.
This is a strategy which has worked for other minor parties, and the wisdom of it ought to be obvious!
I am very excited about this suggestion!
Personally I believe this to hold real potential for gaining at least 5% of the votes and getting Freedom lovers into parliament.
PC talked about separating the ‘Educational wing’ , from the ‘Party political wing’, by establishing an Independent ‘think tank’ to focus upon the cultural revolution.
Now I am happy about this if it translates into less encroachment of Objectivist dogma into the parties policies. I still have my reservations about what such a think tank would be like, yet I will leave criticism about this for another time.
Libz Legend Hooch Hellen, and her son Jay. Behind them is Muso Graham Clark, behind him Dakta Green, Behind Him ‘Eternal Vigilante’ Reed.
By the end of the conference several options for the future were on the table, and it was agreed to form a working group to busy themselves communicating with other parties and putting together a presentation of what options were possible, and the pro’s and con’s of each option, to be put to the vote when all interested parties convene again in the new year to make a resolution for the future.
The options were.
1. Dissolve the Libertarianz party and form a New Party with founding members from the dissolved libz, and Ex members of Act, and ex members of Aeotearoa decriminalize Cannabis party, and others. To do this would require the formulation of the ‘Five policies’ which would have an overlapping consensus between the various factions whom would unite as one.
2. Should the other parties prefer it… Maintain the Libertarianz party as a going concern, yet enter an agreement with the other parties (Like the ALPC) to form a coalition for a united challenge at elections. The terms and conditions, and the five policies would have to be agreed upon for this coalition to work, and the Libertarianz party may or may not re-brand itself, and modify its policies to the new strategy.
3. If no consensus of cooperation can be reached with Act, ALPC, True Liberals, etc then the Libertarianz party could continue to exist, yet implement the new strategy, and re-brand when a worthy Brand and logo can be agreed upon.
This requires the formulation of the five policies, and the creation of a Good brand and logo.
PC suggested for the five policies.
1. Tax reform…
2. Balance the budget
3. Legalize Cannabis
4. Legalize Euthanasia
5. End Waitangi Apartheid. One law for all. Get rid of the separate electoral rolls and racist seats, laws, and institutions.
He suggested these because they were both principled and already have popular support amongst the NZ people.
Now these are not written in stone, and vigorous debate and dialogue needs to take place… and options be prepared before the 2-2-13 conference.
Another benefit of picking the policies wisely is that there may be existing politicians and celebrities whom may wish to join us, and this would increase our chances of success.
There was heaps more than this said. The speeches were excellent.
Yet this will suffice for now.
Much discussion at the conference was in regard to Local body politics, including several fantastic speeches… one by NZ sporting Legend and Super city councilor Dick Quax.
Because I have much to report on this aspect of the conference, I will leave it for my next blog post! Say tuned folks!
Tim Wikiriwhi.
For More Pics go here:
PART 2 HERE:
Jumping up and down and running about in circles
There’s a common perception (well expressed by one of our regular contributors here and here, for example) that jumping up and down and running about in circles is all that libertarians (when they’re not asleep) ever do, especially at conferences. That the liberty lobby men are a lot like the wibbly wobbly men in Spike Milligan’s poem (which goes something like this).
Oh!
The wibbly wobbly men
They don’t get up till ten
They run about and give a shout
Then back to bed again!
It’s a perception that has – or, rather, had – some veracity. But, finally, after 15 years of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time, the Libz have finally woken up to the fact that they need to try a different approach. Which just goes to show that even the bat-shit crazy Objectivists who form the backbone of the party aren’t totally insane.
I could say, “I told you so,” because I already did after the Libz electoral defeat of 2008. (That no one took heed of my advice at the time is one reason I hopped waka and joined the equally electorally unsuccessful ALCP). But I won’t, because the liberty movement in New Zealand is a band of brothers, not a band of backstabbers. 🙂 Instead, with heartfelt relief I say, “Thank God for that!”
All being well, the Libertarianz Party will soon morph into a second beast. A beast with a new name and a new logo to replace the old, dead brand. A beast with as many new people as old people. And a beast pushing new populist <gasp> policies to advance the old utopian principles.
What are the new populist policies? They will number (up to) five, and could include
- Cannabis legalised
- The 4:20 tax plan
- A Christchurch Enterprise Zone
- Voluntary euthanasia decriminalised
- A balanced budget
Others have been suggested (see here, for example). When the idea was first mooted, “legalising” gay marriage was near the top of the list. That’s how populist these policies are meant to be. Please feel free to suggest your own populist (but principled) policy candidates for the “tight five” in the comments.
Everyone’s politics in a nutshell…
Every person’s politics is defined by what that person thinks justifies using force on others.
Eternal Vigilance… In Da House.
Communion. Christian Libertarians / Eternal Vigilance bloggers Reed, Richard, and Twikiriwhi. Liberty Conference. Crowne Hotel. Auckland. 6-10-12.
It was great to meet you Reed, and to catch up again with you Richard.
HAHAHA! Check out our Halo’s!
“…And there appeared on their heads Cloven tounges… as of Fire…”
(Acts2vs3) 🙂
Do not resuscitate
Shredded Humans
