The Libertarianz Party have put out a Press release which proposes the formation of a moderated Libertarian Party under the leadership of Peter Cresswell.
Now I like Peter. He’s a very smart man, and has many great leadership qualities yet I have serious reservations about his ability to lead the New Party.
The press release mentions the fact that the new parties policies would have to be toned down into more palatable bite sized portions…more readily digestible for the Timid masses.
I say that’s not good enough!
The problem I have is that it was the dominance of Objectivism which ruined the Libertarianz Party… esp its staunch Anti-religion and Cold/Selfish Egoism.
I say what is needed most is a separation of the Objectivist Church and the Party.
Thus The rhetoric of the Party needs to be modified in general terms to state facts without crossing the line of separation between righteous expositions and un-libertarian personal bents.
Eg When talking about Islamic Terrorism, It is important to frame commentary in such a way that condemns the atrocities without collictivising all Muslims or the Islamic religion as an enemy of freedom.
When discussing issues like abortion, or the teaching of creationism in schools…these subjects must be handled with tact… not tirades about how irrational Religion is…
Is Peter Creswell the Right Man for the Job?
I’m not so sure. Can an Objectivist Zealot change his spots?
Richard McGrath is a far more moderate personality.
IMO the Randoid PC could be the worst possible choice… I will be attending the Conference on Saturday, and will be listening carefully to What PC has to say…
I Hope he supprises me!
This will take as great a personal transformation for PC as is necessary for this New Libertarian Party to shrugg off the Ugliness which spoiled the true Glory of the old Libertrarianz Party.
The New Party must show Kiwi’s They have a Heart.
Having said this I dont even hold out much hope for my own participation!
Will a more moderate Party have room for such an uncouth scoundrell as I?
Will they welcome someone who is already critical of the direction they are taking?
I dont know.
This Blog post may be unpopular yet is written to raise this vital issue for discussion.
The New Party must start off on the right footing.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.
Imagine that one night, an alien prankster secretly implants electrodes into the brains of an entire country – let’s say Britain. The next day, everyone in Britain discovers that pictures of salmon suddenly give them jolts of painful psychic distress. Every time they see a picture of a salmon, or they hear about someone photographing a salmon, or they even contemplate taking such a picture themselves, they get a feeling of wrongness that ruins their entire day.
I think most decent people would be willing to go to some trouble to avoid taking pictures of salmon if British people politely asked this favor of them. If someone deliberately took lots of salmon photos and waved them in the Brits’ faces, I think it would be fair to say [he] isn’t a nice person. And if the British government banned salmon photography, and refused to allow salmon pictures into the country, well, maybe not everyone would agree but I think most people would at least be able to understand and sympathize with the reasons for such a law.
So why don’t most people extend the same sympathy they would give Brits who don’t like pictures of salmon, to Muslims who don’t like pictures of Mohammed?
“…On reasoning and emotions: Libertarians have the most “masculine” style, liberals the most “feminine.” We used Simon Baron-Cohen’s measures of “empathizing” (on which women tend to score higher) and “systemizing”, which refers to “the drive to analyze the variables in a system, and to derive the underlying rules that govern the behavior of the system.” Men tend to score higher on this variable. Libertarians score the lowest of the three groups on empathizing, and highest of the three groups on systemizing. (Note that we did this and all other analyses for males and females separately.) On this and other measures, libertarians consistently come out as the most cerebral, most rational, and least emotional. On a very crude problem solving measure related to IQ, they score the highest. Libertarians, more than liberals or conservatives, have the capacity to reason their way to their ideology…”
Haha I don’t put too much weight on these sorts of ‘Findings’.
I certainly don’t believe Woman empathise more than Men, or that Libertarians Empathise less than socialists. I think this conclusion shows a failure to appreciate the Christian Libertarian belief that Liberty and self reliance tends to greater prosperity for everyone, and thus less poverty, and a greater voluntary spirit of community, and benevolence…. all things which socialism destroys. Thus Liberty fosters a more Christian spirit. Yet of course the Objectivists have done their best to destroy this understanding of Freedom and empathy, and instead promoted Selfishness… thus again they have done their best to undermine the Libertarian cause…
As for the IQ Part… well I don’t put much weight on thoses things either as there have been plenty of high IQ Morons!
Apparently plenty of Hi IQ folk believe the theory of Evolution!
So that proves IQ is no Guarantee of intelligence/ wisdom!
Yet I do Believe Socialists are stupid!
That is an empirical Fact!
Ha!
(I guess I stand convicted of Lack of Tact! Yet I dont believe Being PC shows empathy either… really it’s cloaked Malice)
Some surfers may wonder at the title of this blogpost.
Does it reflect malice on the part of the Author?
I would say it does! Some malice can be justified, and there are so many reasons to dislike the irrationality of the bulk of Objectivists… those whom emulate their Icon to the greatest degree.
I must take care not to collectivize all Objectivists into one lump, as this type of oversimplification is a great error to be avoided … way too mechanistic… and thankfully humans are not machines…and thus there are always exceptions which must be given the credit they deserve… Such Mechanistic irrationalism is endemic to Objectivism… most believing such Ideas that “All Muslims are Evil”… “All Christians hate Gays”… Etc, yet there is a moderate minority who avoid this error, and I give these Libertarians their due.
I am angry about the amount of effort the Objectivists put into undermining the Campaign of Ron Paul, whom was by Far the best hope for saving America from Economic ruin and for implementing Libertarian reforms across the board.
The source of this Irrational hatred has been hidden to a large degree and has left many people wondering why Objectivists hate Ron Paul..
Quote:
“It’s odd to me that so many Objectivists dislike Ron Paul. Of all the mainstream presidential candidates out there, his platform is by far the most consistent with Objectivist principles. The only points of major disagreement that I can think of between his politics and Rand’s and Peikoff’s politics are:
1. Abortion — he doesn’t see abortion as a right to be protected by the Federal government; although he does not stand for banning it outright (he takes the “leave it up to the states” stance), and
2. Foreign Policy — Rand and Peikoff take a much more hawkish stance.
However, (1) most states are not going to ban abortions, so I don’t see his stance on abortion changing much of anything, except that he will take away federal subsidies for abortion, which Objectivists would be for anyway, and (2) the truth is that we need to take a less agressive stance towards foreign policy, if for no other reason than that we simply can’t afford to be fighting all these wars accross the globe — we just don’t have the revenue to support it anymore; and I think that Rand would agree with Paul on his strategy, if not on his premises, with the possible exception of Iran.
So am I missing something, or does the Objectivists’ objection to Paul really just boil down to Iran?
If so, then I’m not that worried about Iran. If America leaves Iran alone, you can believe the Israelis will pick up the slack. And you can’t tell me that the American private security firms won’t help out the Israelis with weapons and man-power should all hell break loose; there’s too much to gain by Israel winning another war in the Middle East unhinged from American intrusion. “ End Quote.
Let me tell you Cornell what is Ron Paul’s anathema in the eyes of the Bulk of Objectivists…
He Breaks the First Commandment of Objectivism… “Thou shalt not love the Lord God in any way shape or form..”
This is the unpardonable sin in the eyes of Objectivism.
Objectivism is a Religion.
Atheism is it’s First principle.
And Objectivists willingly sacrifice the principles of Freedom for the sake of halting any Theistic champion of Liberty or justice taking the limelight… thus in spite of all their claims to reason.. they prove them selves to be irrational religious zealots/fanatics.
In their minds It is unthinkable for them to accept the Idea that a theist could be the champion of Liberty and justice.
To accept this they would have to abandon Objectivism because Objectivism is based upon Anti-theism… and it is this which attracted most of them to the faith.
Peter Creswell clearly indicates this *Here* when he says Ron Paul cant be a Libertarian because he’s a Creationist… who will not draw a line between his religion and the State.
Comming from a Randoid this is shear hypocracy… and not true, ie Ron Paul maintains a separation between his Religion and the state, and the fact that He is a Creationist whom rejects the theory of evolution does not render him irrational at all!
PC speaks from his own Bigoted Anti-reason superstition.
Thus The Title of my Blogpost and the Meme explains everything… why Objectivists helped the Powers of Evil in undermining the Greatest champion of Liberty in America today.
Many Libertarian minded Kiwi will be gathering next Saturday to discuss the formation of a New Libertarian orintated Party to gather together the remnants of the Act Party, The Libertarianz, and others like the legalize cannabis party into an Electoral fighting force. It will not be an easy thing to achieve, esp if Objectivists hope to contaminate the constitution with their personal religion, and to put out Anti-theistic blogs and press releases in the name of the New organization. The only hope this New Paty has is that it establishes a true separation between personal beliefs and the constitution, and operates via a libertarian spirit of toleration… for mutual benefit.
I have my own view about how such a party ought to be constituted and I hope to produce a blogpost in this subject before Next Saturday.
This by Michael Hooton just appeared on the National Business Review website.
A new liberal bloc
Next weekend, the Libertarianz will hold their annual conference in Auckland.
The party has a record of electoral failure exceeding even where ACT is today, peaking at just 6000 votes in 1999.
In its defence, the party points out – with some justification – former National leader Don Brash, former Act MP Deborah Coddington and former United Future MP Marc Alexander can be seen as previous parliamentary torchbearers for its ideas.
This year, though, it is getting serious, calling its conference Towards a True Liberal Bloc in parliament. Its doors are open to anyone who believes there needs to be a new political party in parliament advocating small-government, liberal solutions to economic and social problems.
It believes next year’s local body elections will provide a proof-of-concept opportunity, claiming some rural and provincial New Zealanders are facing rates rises of up to 40%, largely because of parliament’s idiotic 2002 decision to grant local government general competence.
Libertarianz representation on councils and parliament would undoubtedly be good for New Zealand, but achieving it will require discipline which classical liberals and libertarians are programmed to resist.
Historically, like the far left, the movement has suffered from regular schisms.
While all libertarians agree that self-interest, individual rights and capitalism are the ethical, political and economic systems of objectivist philosophy, some insist the political wing must also insist, for example, on romantic realism in art.
Others believe broadly in classical liberalism but would be quite happy with, say, vouchers for all schools rather than wholesale abandonment of the state system.
There are potentially as many different opinions as there are libertarians over matters from tolerance toward Islamism or creationism being taught in schools to defence.
Without destroying the very nature of libertarianism, a way must be found to accommodate different views while achieving the degree of political discipline necessary to win the 100,000 votes to get into parliament.
The good news for everyone who would like to see the Libertarianz succeed is that all matters of political strategy appear to be on the table, including perhaps even the party’s name.
If they do get into parliament they will not see themselves so much as a coalition partner for Mr Key but a faction to give his government a kick up the bum.
The Green Party has lodged a complaint with the Police over the Government Communications Security Bureau’s illegal interception of Kim Dotcom’s communications, Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman said today.
Well done Green Party and Russel Norman.
… one more thing… everyone is labeling this Government action as “illegal” or “unlawful” – which is true but minimises the action. We need to change to calling it “criminal” because the government’s actions were criminal.
Muhammad sadik muhammad_sadik@live.com via angel.estarr.com
to me
Hellow
I am a Murder Agent, am from Kuwait i’ve no other job than to kill to survive…
you have been betrayed by some one very very close to you.he payed me to kill you.and i don’t know what you did to him and i don’t care to know..but the person wants you dead and right now your life is in your own hands now..you have just 7 days to live after that me and my men shall come for your life..
My men monitors all you movement in and out.
my men are well surrounding your house right now watching you and if you do anything stupid you shall receive a gun short from them.. but i can help you if you will pay me double of what he payed me………and i can also tell you who ordered us to kill you..but that will be after you have payed to save your life..your life is as stake now….
I await your immediate response as i do not have time to waste.
The Crimes Act 1961 Section 408 Act to bind the Crown
This Act shall bind the Crown.
In theory the Crown is subject to the Crimes Act – being a Crown representative acting for the Crown can not excuse anyone from being prosecuted under the Crimes Act.
The Crimes Act 1961 Section 216B Prohibition on use of interception devices
(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (5), every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally intercepts any private communication by means of an interception device.
According to the law – whoever intercepted Kim Dotcom’s communications committed a crime. Whoever that was they should be prosecuted under the Crimes Act. It’s hard to imagine a greater breach of this section.
The Police have all the information they need to start a criminal investigation and should start investigating shortly… I feel another Tui Billboard coming on. The Police are probably asking themselves “How long can we avoid this and how long is the statute of limitations for illegal interception?”
ELDERLY Australians committing welfare fraud on a massive scale are behind the extraordinarily high number of $100 notes in circulation, a former senior Reserve Bank official says.
Yesterday the Herald revealed there are now 10 $100 notes in circulation for each Australian, far more than the more commonly seen $20 notes.
One popular explanation is that they are used for illegal transactions as part of the cash economy, something the former Reserve official, Peter Mair, rejects as a “furphy”.
In a letter to the Reserve Bank governor, Glenn Stevens, dated July 4, Mr Mair laid the blame squarely on elderly people wanting to get the pension and hiding their income in cash to ensure they qualified for the means-tested benefit.
“The bank is basically facilitating a tax avoidance scheme by issuing high denomination notes,” he told the Herald. “They are not needed for day-to-day transaction purposes, or even as reasonable stores of value.”
His best guess is the average pensioner couple could hold up to $50,000 in undeclared $50 and $100 notes to get access to the pension.
Mr Mair said that in 1996 when the green plastic $100 note replaced the grey paper note, the Martin Place headquarters of the Reserve received regular visits from retirees wanting to withdraw large quantities of the new notes. He said the commercial banks had sent them to the Reserve because they did not have enough $100 notes on hand.
Mr Mair said the return for an Australian close to getting the pension who held $10,000 in cash, rather than declaring it, was “enormous”.
“If putting it under the bed or in a cupboard means you qualify for the pensioner card, you get discounted council rates, discounted car registration, discounted phone rental – in percentage terms the return is enormous,” he said.
Mr Mair used comparisons of the holdings of large-denomination currency in Australia and New Zealand to back his argument. “In broad terms the average value of notes held by New Zealanders is about one third of the $2000 held by Australians – almost all of which by value is in the $50 and $100 denominations,” he wrote in his letter.
“An obvious explanation for the difference is means test-free age pensions in New Zealand.”
I’m not at all surprised to read this. Examples of the Law of Unintended Consequences appear in the news on a daily basis. Why? Because unjust laws create perverse incentives. It’s that simple. But not quite as simple as Mr Mair, who really has no freaking clue.
His letter to the governor proposes phasing out the $100 and $50 denominations.
“Cards and the internet have delivered a body blow to high-denomination bank notes. They are redundant,” he said. “There is no longer any point in issuing them except to facilitate tax dodging. The authorities would announce that from, say, June 2015 every $100 and $50 note could be redeemed but no new notes would be issued. After June 2017 every note could only be redeemed at an annual discount of 10 per cent. It would mean that after two years, each $100 note could only be redeemed for $80, and so on.”
The letter acknowledges the proposal would be contentious and says it should not be done “in any way precipitously”, but as payments become more electronic it will become inevitable.
“What would remain in circulation are coins and a modestly expanded issue of currency notes in the $10 and $20 denominations. There is every reason to expect that a national currency issue of this character would soon be adequate.”
How thick is Mr. Mair? How thick is a bundle of bank notes? $10,000 in cash in $100 notes is 100 notes. That’s half an inch. $10,000 in cash in $20 notes is 500 notes. That’s two inches more.
