Hikois from hell
It’s National Party policy to abolish the Maori seats but John Key says not on his watch.
Dropping Maori seats would mean ‘hikois from hell’
Abolishing the Maori seats would rip the country apart and attract “hikois from hell”, John Key said.
Speaking to the Herald last week before the release of Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics, the Prime Minister said that while it remained National Party policy to abolish the seats, even if he had enough numbers to do so, he would abolish them only with the agreement of Maori.
“It would divide the nation,” he told the Herald’s Hot Seat series . “Despite the fact that a lot of people say they don’t like it and they were there for a particular reason, actually it would be an incredibly divisive thing to do to New Zealand and New Zealanders.”
“Do you really want to rip a country apart? I’ll tell you what would happen – hikois from hell.”
Whether you were on the Maori roll or the general roll everyone got two votes.
While abolishing the seats has been long-standing policy for National, Act and United Future policy, the Maori Party’s confidence and supply agreement with National saw it parked as an active issue. But even if the Maori Party were not in the next Parliament, Mr Key has in effect protected them.
Political party 1law4all isn’t happy. On Facebook they posted
But I agree with John Key.
Having a Maori electoral roll as well as a general electoral roll is not, in itself, racist. It is merely arbitrary. Everyone gets two votes, regardless of which roll they’re on.
What’s racist about the Maori roll is that only Maori get to choose whether to be on it or to be on the general roll. If we opened up the Maori roll to non-Maori, there’d be no racism.
And no problem. Because we have to divide the country up into electorates somehow. (Or do we?!) Dividing the country up geographically is arbitrary. We might just as well divide the country up according to the age of the voters. It would be instructive to do so. Who would win the 20-year-old’s seat? Who would win the 60-year-old’s seat? Now we’re talking ageism, instead of racism!
But isn’t our current system geographicalist? I’d love to be enrolled in the Ohariu electorate so that I could vote for someone other than Peter Dunne. But I can’t. I’m stuck with Mana. (It’s like school zoning, I’m against it.)
Key’s more important point is that abolishing the Maori seats today would lead to “hikois from hell”. That’s a euphemism for blood on the streets. Do we really want to trade a harmless anachronism for violent civil unrest?
Retaining the Maori seats is the small price we pay for keeping a lid on the simmering resentment of some Maori towards the descendants of the colonials whom they believe inflicted a holocaust on their ancestors leaving them disadvantaged to this day.
Retaining the Maori seats is a good social insurance policy. Much like retaining the dole. The dole costs [from memory, I might come back and edit this figure] $18,000 per year per beneficiary. Incarceration costs [again, this figure is from memory] $90,000 per year per inmate. If we abolished the dole, there’d be a crime wave tsunami as an army of unemployed, suddenly bereft of income, found thieving (and worse) ways to make ends meet. Kiwis, beneficiary and non-beneficiary alike, would suffer. So let’s not abolish the dole, mmmkay?
Let’s be clear. The productive and colour blind are being held to ransom. In paying the dole and retaining the Maori seats, we are complicit in perpetuating unjust systems of social welfare and racist democracy. But what choices do we have?
Remember, too, that people’s welfare is a consideration that must temper considerations of justice. Okay, now I look forward to my co-bloggers dumping on me from a great height. See the comments section below.
Elections come and go, yet the urgency for Libertarian reforms remain.
Libertarianism’s last bastion against the unrule of the godless
The terms ‘libertarian’ and ‘libertarianism’ mean different things to different people. In a broad sense, a libertarian is anyone who favours more freedom and less government. In a narrower sense, libertarianism is minarchism.
Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts.
The libertarianism on which I cut my teeth is libertarianism in the latter sense. It’s the libertarianism that was espoused by the now deregistered Libertarianz Party and is promoted by Objectivists such as Lindsay Perigo. In what follows, I’ll use the term ‘libertarianism’ in the minarchist sense.
Sadly, in today’s Western world we are very far from a minarchist libertopia. The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. Our government departments ever increase in both size and number. Our surfeit of statism won’t be gone any time soon, let alone gone by lunchtime.
In a libertarian state, all government departments—save for the military, police and courts—would be gone. There would be no public health system. There would be no state welfare. There would be no state schools. Even the roads would be privatised.
But persuading most people—who are thoroughly inculcated in statism by the very state education system that libertarians seek to dismantle—that we should roll back the state is difficult. How can libertarians possibly justify getting rid of government-run hospitals? How can libertarians possibly justify ending state education? And how can we even envisage life without state highways? Muh roads!
How can we justify paring back the state to the barest minarchist minimum?
Actually, it’s the wrong question. The right question to ask is this. How can we justify even the barest minarchist minimum? How can we justify having any state at all?
There are plenty of problems with libertarianism. Underlying philosophical problems. I called attention to a couple of them here, here and here. And I’m about to present another problem. It’s a compelling argument for anarchism and against minarchism. (I’m not going to go into all the reasons why I think anarchism, rather than minarchism, looks set to win the day. For that, I suggest readers follow the arguments of anarchist thinkers such as Stephan Kinsella. See, e.g., his paper What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist.)
Here’s the problem. Libertarians think that taxation is theft, and that all giving, including the giving of money to the government, should be voluntary. Libertarians (of the minarchist/Randian variety) think that the (only) legitimate functions of government are providing defence and police forces and a judiciary, and that these functions should be funded voluntarily by the citizenry. But what if the citizenry don’t want to fund a minarchist state voluntarily? What then?
Here’s an excerpt from L.P.D.: Libertarian Police Department to illustrate the problem.
“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.
“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”
It didn’t seem like they did.
“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”
Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care …
Elsewhere I presented the case for compulsory taxation. In the comments section to that post, a battle erupted between Damian Grant, a libertarian in the loose “More Freedom, Less Government” sense, and Mark Hubbard, a devout minarchist. Damian didn’t manage to better my case for compulsory taxation, but Mark didn’t score any points either. The whole thing was left hanging.
When Christian libertarians confront statists, statists just love to throw the Good Book at them! There are two Bible passages commonly mentioned.
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been confronted with Jesus’s injunction to render unto Caesar. But this objection is easily demolished. To render is to give back. Jesus tells us to give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give back to God what is God’s. But what do we have that is Caesar’s? What have the Romans ever done for us?
Elsewhere, of course, the Bible tells us that all things belong to God. So the objection is easily dealt with.
Seemingly more difficult to deal with is the second objection, viz., Romans 13.
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (NIV)
This objection is taken so seriously by Christian libertarians that the Facebook group of the same name deals with this passage (and only this passage) specifically in its “About” section.
A very common question new members have is, “What do you think about Romans 13?” One member has shared a Facebook doc with links to the various discussions we have had:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/290101931017604/doc/491608790866916/Here are two additional essays on Romans 13:
http://libertarianchristians.com/2008/11/28/new-testament-theology-2/
http://libertarianchristians.com/2013/04/02/theology-doesnt-begin-and-end-with-romans-13/
But, far from dooming minarchist libertarianism, Romans 13 is its salvation! For, without this crucial passage, there is nothing in the Bible or anywhere else to stop the slide into anarchism.
I’ve been looking for a Biblical justification of libertarianism ever since I heard this speech. Now I think I’ve found it. In the last place I ever thought to look.
Romans 13 is libertarianism’s last bastion against the unrule of the godless.
Prohibition is violence
IMO this is what ALCP should be arguing:
Prohibition is violence
Help end the violence
Vote ALCP
Eternal Vigilance electorate candidate endorsement #2. Alistair Gregory for Wellington Central.
Alistair Gregory is a rising star in the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party. He’s our candidate for the high-profile Wellington Central electorate and #4 on the party list. He’s also the ALCP’s Wellington Regional Manager and President of the ALCP’s Wellington branch. (I’m the Vice President. Ali’s the main man!)
Vote Alistair Gregory in Wellington Central
Legalise Cannabis in WELLINGTON CENTRAL!
Hello, I’m Alistair Gregory, your ALCP candidate for the best little capital in the world.
I’m a 23 year old chef, born and bred Wellingtonian, and convinced that we have to stop making criminals of people having a joint.
Using natural cannabis for medical, recreational, industrial and spiritual purposes should be a standard human right.
Cannabis, also named marijuana, has been used for centuries around the world. It is not and never has been a ‘demon weed’.
Jamaica, Holland, Uruguay, Portugal, USA and many other countries are introducing relaxed cannabis controls. New Zealanders are repeatedly calling for the same choice.
Sensible reform is legalisation, with regulated supply and use, for adults. ALCP is the only party that will stop making our people criminals.
Alcohol prohibition was a failure. Cannabis prohibition is a failure.
Enrol to vote. Vote for civil rights. Vote ALCP.
I’ll also mention that Ali is a medicinal user, and a friend. He needs cannabis, I don’t. As a recreational cannabis user, I’m prepared to live like it’s legal and live through the occasional supply drought. But I’m not prepared to do nothing while my friends suffer because the law denies them the best medicine. That’s why I’m out supporting Ali on the campaign trail.
Voters in the Wellington Central electorate, I urge you to give your electorate vote to Alistair Gregory and your party vote to the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party!
Spineless Betrayal and Evil Prevail. Voting Idiots, Cowards, and Traitors.
It’s Election season … The Zombies are hungry.
It’s election time…. time to abandon your heroes and cower like scared children tugging on the smock of your Mother Superiors.
Fucking Idealists make you sick?
Those arrogant little nobodies who think they can change things!
Why do those no-hopers bother to stand?
So what if they represent what I really believe…Nobody will will eva vote for them!
It’s election time… Hate the arseholes in power? Lets vote in the other arseholes who shafted us last time!…. that’s the only choice we have.
It’s election time… time to forget about your hopes and dreams for a better society…. lets take the safer course and re-elect our Jailers!
Politics is all about ‘strategy’…. ‘Compromise’…..
666 666 666.
There is nothing worse for an Idealist Activist than to watch people who profess to support certain Ideals and values abandon them at election time, and make excuses as to why they are going to treacherously betray the Brave individuals who have heroically and at great personal cost put themselves forward to give Kiwis *Real choices* at election time…. and then have the audacity to say these heroes have no chance of being elected!
Who’s fault is that?
These people have put themselves in the Ring…. *it is up to the voters *who believe in the cause* to do their bit!!!
To fulfill their Moral Duty… and vote according to their consciences!
*BUT NO!!!!!!!! THESE DIZZY LAME LUKE WARM %^&*ERS turn tail like cowards and vote for freaks that *Dont support their values*
TALK ABOUT WASTED VOTES!!
A Vote that is not according to your own conscience is a wasted vote!
To vote for a party out of Malice and hate… cheering at the promise of heavy handed persecutions of others is about as evil as it gets… and sadly Many people vote according to their wicked hearts!
Any Bullshit about ‘voting strategically’ is a lowlife and cowardly betrayal… of Fools whom are playing straight into the hands of the Powers that be.
*It is this lunacy*… of the voting idiots which guarantees the Arseholes of the establishment stay in power… either Arsehole Team A or Arsehole team B.
Well you stupid sheeple have no one but yourselves to blame for the misery which continues to flow downhill.
When the Jackboots kick in your Door… just remember your ‘Strategic votes!’.
Satan Laughing spreads his wings.
Some people may think I’m being Rude… The truth is I am disgusted at the lack of moral backbone of many of my peers.
Then there are those Brave few whom are bravely carrying the Banners of freedom and reform to the Front!
I salute you!
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Libertarian Independent.
Eternal Vigilance electorate candidate endorsement #1. Grant Keinzley for Taranaki-King Country.
Please read the DISCLAIMER first.
Okay, so that was full of nothing. 🙂
The reason I’m endorsing Grant Keinzley for Taranaki-King Country is because he co-authored (with Tim Kibblewhite) a Review of New Zealand’s Drug Policy. It’s an Internet Party draft policy document. And it’s good.
Here are the document’s seven policy proposals.
Oh, wait … looks like someone pressed the history eraser button. 🙁 Subsection 4.2 and all of section 5 (containing the policy proposals) seem to have mysteriously disappeared! What were they?
Lucky that I saved a previous edit of the document. 🙂
5.1 Implement a Rehabilitative Approach towards Drug Addiction
The Internet Party will focus on viewing drug addiction as a health issue and not a criminal issue. The Internet Party will support legislation that reflects this. Part of this approach will be the implementation of drug courts to deal with possession issues.5.2 Decriminalise the Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes
The Internet Party will propose legislation to decriminalise the possession, cultivation and personal use of prescribed small amounts of natural cannabis for medicinal uses. Large-scale (to be determined) cultivation, possession and sale of natural cannabis will remain illegal. Details of the new law will be drafted following research into global best practice and the study of successful models in Europe and the US.5.3 Set up an Office for Medicinal Cannabis
Following decriminalisation, an office for medicinal cannabis will be set up along the lines of that operating in the Netherlands, with the objective of controlling and maintaining high standards for the supply and use of natural cannabis for therapeutic purposes.5.4 Fund Research and Clinical Trials
New Zealand research into the efficacy and safety of medicinal cannabis and cannabis-based therapeutic medicines will be funded with a view to speeding up the availability of proven remedies. Clinical trials to determine the benefits of medicinal cannabis and cannabis-based medicines will be funded, but only if the veracity of clinical trials undertaken overseas cannot be confirmed by New Zealand health authorities.5.5 Legalise Cannabis for Personal Use
The Internet Party understands that policy and change has to be implemented slowly due to political realities. However, it will be the official opinion of the Internet Party that, due to the evidence and research supported by the scientific community, cannabis should be decriminalised for personal use.5.6 Decriminalise Possession of Class A, B and C Drugs
The Internet Party will follow the compelling example set in Portugal and decriminalise the possession of other drugs to ensure that rehabilitation and treatment is offered to drug addicts as opposed to jail sentences.5.7 Remove the Presumption of Supply
Following the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Supreme Court of New Zealand the Internet Party will introduce legislation that is consistent with the Bill of Rights Act 1990 which ensures that there will be no presumption of supply without proven intent.
These are all sensible and modest proposals. I’m particularly impressed that
The Internet Party understands that policy and change has to be implemented slowly due to political realities.
New Zealand already tried rapid implementation of unreal drug law reform, viz., the interim period provisions of the Psychoactive Substances Act. Predictably enough, the PSA’s interim period provisions proved to be a load of abject FAIL. There was a public outcry and the PSA’s evil mastermind, Peter Dunne, pulled the plug on the whole shenanigans. But not until eleven novel, untested research chemicals had been approved for sale to the general public. They were on the shelves for nine months. Just long enough for us to find out if any of these substances cause birth defects in the children of mothers legally addicted to them. The National government is criminally insane.
As per my personal policy statement, one day I hope to see all drugs fully legalised. The sad fact of the matter is that this may never happen. But, if it does, it will occur through a series of tiny steps in the right direction. It will begin with cannabis legalisation.
4.2 Colorado Legalisation of Cannabis
In 2012 there was a referendum in the state of Colorado. This measure would amend Colorado’s constitution and allow state-wide legalisation of cannabis. A similar measure was also passed in Washington State, however, their legalisation was set at a later date and as such less information is available on the success or failure of the plan so Colorado’s model is more applicable for research purposes. The first legal cannabis stores opened in Colorado on January 1st 2014.
The law change has meant that adults over 21 years of age can possess and use cannabis for personal recreational use.
There was a fear that this law would lead to a spike in usage of cannabis. However, in a recent report John Hickenlooper, the Governor of Colorado, reported that “we don’t see a spike in adult use…we don’t think we see a spike in youth consumption.” He also remarked, ‘let’s face it, the War on Drugs was a disaster…it sent millions of kids to prison, gave them felonies – often times when they had no violent crimes.’
In addition to avoiding charges on those who were simply using cannabis for personal use, Colorado has reported that there are significant tax incentives to legalisation of cannabis. The state, which is of roughly comparable population and GDP to New Zealand, has reported that they have collected $25,307,067 in cannabis taxes since January 2014.
Full Colorado-style legalisation of cannabis is the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party’s policy. 🙂
It’s been all year since Colorado’s bud shops opened their doors. Almost all indicators from Colorado so far are good. But even implementing something along the lines of Colorado’s tightly regulated commercial cannabis market may be too much too soon for the sheeple of New Zealand. Colorado-style legalisation of cannabis would be a tiny step towards a future libertopia. But (I’m guessing) it’s still too big a step, according to the Internet Party’s policy advisors, and that’s why they’ve redacted the subsection above.
So what is the Internet Party’s cannabis policy? They don’t have one. Yet. I’m told by a couple of party insiders that the Internet Party will release its cannabis policy this Sunday 24 August. I hope that policy proposal 5.5 will make the cut. And I’ll be interested to see if their upcoming policy will be to legalise cannabis for personal use (as per the section heading) or merely to decriminalise cannabis possession and cultivation (as per the section body). (It’s worth stating the not as obvious as it should be. Legalisation and decriminalisation are NOT the same thing. Decriminalisation just means less draconian penalties apply.)
Here‘s another reason to vote Keinzley.
His work in Asia included setting up a non-profit China Typhoon Rescue Organisation, helping communities clean up and rebuild after a disaster.
And another.
I never really liked politics.
Voters in the Taranaki-King Country electorate, please give your electorate vote to Grant Keinzley and your party vote to the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party!
Eternal Vigilance electorate candidate endorsements. DISCLAIMER.
New Zealand’s next general election is on 20 September. Previously, libertarian blogger Liberty Scott has published handy guides to the electorate candidates on offer. For all electorates—so quite substantial pieces of work and a much appreciated public service. Thanks, Scott, and good on you!
Libertyscott’s Electorate voting guide (2008)
New Zealand election 2011 electorate voting guide
Over the next few weeks leading up to 20 September, I propose something far less ambitious. A handful of individual candidate endorsements for single electorates.
My endorsements for the Hamilton West and Mana electorates will be the same as last time and the same as Liberty Scott’s. As far as these two electorates are concerned, I expect no dissent from my co-bloggers.
But I am expecting fierce dissent if and when I publish my endorsement for the Upper Harbour electorate!
So here’s the DISCLAIMER.
Eternal Vigilance electorate candidate endorsements are the unmoderated views of the bloggers who express them.
They do not necessarily reflect the views of other Eternal Vigilance bloggers, or of Eternal Vigilance, and do not necessarily align with Truth, Freedom and Justice.
Let’s get the ball rolling.
Eternal Vigilance endorses Grant Keinzely for Taranaki-King Country. 🙂
Raining V2s. Proportionality of force in military law. British Army Col Richard Kemp on civilian casualties in Operation Protective Edge.
^^^ A Must watch Video.
a few quotes…
“Hamas are fighting a propaganda war… sacrificing their own civilians… They are forcing Israel to attack…
…President Obama, David Cameron, Ban ki Moon have all said that Israel must do more to protect the Civilians of Gaza… what none of them have said *what* you do…*How* you can do that.
They dont have a clue.”
They are playing into Hamas’s hands…. They want them to pressure Israel.
They are validating Hamas’s use of Human shields, and they are encouraging them to use them and other extremists around the world…. because it works.
and these leaders know what they are doing… and it is a moral outrage..”
” The Israeli Defence Forces during this conflict have done more than any other army in the history of warfare to minimise the harm to innocent civilians on the battlefield”.
****************************
That video is an essential addition to my previous posts on the moral questions surrounding this conflict in Gaza, in particular >>> Insidious Evil . When ethics are used as a weapon against you.
One criticism I must make is that Israel uses conscription, yet as to the execution of their actions
there can be no question as to which side is fighting the moral fight, and who is murderously wicked.
There can be no comparison between the actions of the IDF and Hamas.
The IDF are engaged in a defensive war in which they are doing everything possible to minimise harm to innocent civilians and property, while Hamas is hell bent on maximising such terror and misery.
Everything Hamas does is a War Crime.
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Update 24-8-14
4-year-old Daniel Tragerman was killed yesterday while playing in his home in southern Israel. The cause: a mortar fired by Hamas terrorists stationed near a school in Gaza.
Hamas is guilty of a double crime by firing from amid Gazan children at Israeli children. Share Hamas’ true face.
Read more…
IDF Code of Ethics. Fighting a just fight.
The Diabolical tactics of Hamas: What the IDF is up against.
How does the Israeli Defence Force minimize civilian casualties?
RIP Matt Judd. Tributes to a Veteran of the War to Liberate Iraq.