Harm minimisation vs. harm elimination

Thursday 29 May 2014 Richard 3 Comments

It’s important to say what you mean and mean what you say.

If you don’t say what you mean and mean what you say, you will likely be misunderstood.

The trouble is, even if you do say what you mean and mean what you say, you will still likely be misunderstood!

Sad but true.

It all goes back to the Babel incident recorded in the Book of Genesis.

Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth. (NIV)

Later, much later … we have modern telecommunications technology. We have the Internet and language translators such as the Babelfish). Microsoft readies real-time language translator for Skype. Is anything we plan now possible for us?

No, it’s not. Our language is still confused! People can’t seem to speak clearly. Ambiguity is ubiquitous. Even if we do say what we mean and mean what we say … it takes two to tango. Communication is as much the listener’s responsibility as the speaker’s. People can’t seem to speak clearly, and they can’t seem to listen clearly either. They’ll hear you say what they thought you meant. Even before you said it.

Even if what you meant is what you said and what you said is what you meant, you will still likely be misunderstood!

Here’s a recent case study. It’s an edited snippet of a conversation I had on Facebook with a libertarian friend. (No prizes for guessing whom!)

Do you agree that a government should minimise the unjust harm the government actively inflicts on its own citizens? Yes or No?

No it must be absolutely eliminated…and it is *we the people* who do this…. not the government itself. *they dont make the rules. We do. They merely enforce the duties we delegate to them…. Government for the People… by the people.
Their Duty is to *uphold our rights*….. whether or not we Harm ourselves to a greater or lesser extent…. via ignorance or choice.
When you say Governments unjust harm should be ‘minimised’ rather than eliminated, you are saying that there is a tolerable level unjust harm that is allowable….

That’s not what I’m saying at all. Or is it?!

verb: minimise
reduce (something, especially something undesirable) to the smallest possible amount or degree.

To minimise harm is to reduce harm to the smallest possible amount or degree.

To eliminate harm is to reduce harm to zero.

To minimise harm or to eliminate harm completely? These come to the exact same thing if it turns out that the smallest possible amount of harm is zero! The question is, consistent with its ongoing role as a properly functioning proper government, what is the smallest possible amount of unjust harm the government can actively inflict on its own citizens? Is it, in fact, zero?

It’s not zero.

What is the proper function of a proper government? My friend says that government’s duty

is to *uphold our rights*

but what the hell does that even mean? Uphold? Wat.

According to my understanding of libertarianism, the government really has only two proper functions, viz., defence of the realm and administration of justice.

For defence of the realm, we have the Ministry of Defence … and (arguably) the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (but not Trade).

For administration of justice, we have the Ministry of Justice … and the subsidiary Ministry of Police and Ministry of Corrections (so-called).

The police are there to apprehend those who infringe our rights. The prison system is there to punish the perpetrators, according to principles of justice. To “uphold” our rights is merely to apprehend those who infringe our rights and bring them to justice … after the fact. Strictly speaking, according to my libertarian philosophy, the police have no business preventing crime. That’s what private security companies are for.

Now, let’s consider the government’s proper function of administering justice. Because of the very nature of earthly justice systems, it turns out that the smallest possible amount of unjust harm a government may inflict on its own citizens is greater than zero.

Sad but true.

In administering justice, earthly justice systems are prone to two basic kinds of error. Punishing the innocent and letting the guilty walk free. These two errors are not independent.

We could eliminate the first kind of error—punishing the innocent—by letting everyone walk free. But that would be a cop-out. It would not be administering justice at all.

We could eliminate the second kind of error—letting the guilty walk free—by locking everyone up. But that would be to unjustly harm the innocent en masse. It would not be administering justice at all.

In practice, our justice system is heavily weighted towards avoiding the second kind of error. As a result, very few innocent people are ever sent to prison. As a result, very many guilty people walk free.

Governments harm people. Even proper libertarian governments. Unfortunately, there is a tolerable level of unjust harm that is allowable. It’s just a harsh fact of life but one that we must accept.

Atheism, Bogus Science, Break on through to the other side, Cosmology, Economics, Evolutionism, Faith, Satan Laughing Spreads His Wings, Zombies

Atheist Priest$ lobby Government for Tax dollar$ to fund their Religious Pseudo-$cience

Sunday 25 May 2014 Tim Leave a comment

^^^^Talk about vindicating my Blog posts!
These Quacks in the above tube vid want more Tax loot to fund their own cushy existence on the basis of their own Bat shit crazy beliefs!

The say that is “a matter of numbers”…. and that though they suggest intelligent life may be ‘very rare’… they are ‘confident’ that the probability of Microbial life is “almost 100%”.

May I refer you to my blog posts >>>> Multiplying Absurdities Equals Certainty… The Math Magic of Modern Atheist Astrologers!

The Zombie God Of Atheist Evolution. Re: Math Magic and Ultimate Mythical Power…..Infinite Probability.

The myth making processes of Pseudo Science. The Epic Tale of the Simple cell. (Part 1)

Dingbat Atheist Pseudo-science. Instant Life… just add water!

SETI_gets_a_signalA

What is even funnier about this is that I didn’t know that these supposed space Microbes could transmit Radio signals… etc which is the primary thing these SETI Kooks spend all day listen for!
Maybe they have ESP
I guess the joke is on American Tax slaves.

heavens_gate

This lobbying for money to fund Seti is the exact equivalent of the Cult of ‘Heavens Gate‘ asking Congress to fund their wacky UFO religion…. it only the fact that the SETI Cult of Atheist Materialism enjoys much greater popularity, and has devotees in high places that these Pseudo-scientists even dare to ask for $$$.
This sort of prejudice towards The religion of atheism is a flagrant violation of the principle of the separation of State and religion, and that it is tolerated is the chief reason why so many Sheeple have been duped into following the pied pipers to their doom.
Satan Laughing spreads his wings.

Quotation-Paul-Karl-Feyerabend-science-religious-separation-church-Meetville-Quotes-77468

With all this wacky speculation being touted as Rational Science, one wonders how Richard Dawkins can be so sure there are no Spaghetti monsters out there?
Evolution seams to make any fantastic being possible…. as long as its not Moral, all powerful, responsible for making mankind, and doesn’t demand worship.
🙂

984060_873815082643920_5525310106634087851_n
Oh really Ricky?
All this talk of ‘ET’ and a supposed ‘almost 100% certainty’… based upon the numbers of Stars in the sky proves otherwise!
It exposes the Naivety and dishonesty of Atheists (Like Rick Gervais) in regards to their insistence that their Atheist Faith is based upon a more sure foundation than Divine revelation.
In reality they deceive themselves by their absurd notions of what materialism and Naturalism are and how sold the so-called science which they claim underpins their beliefs.

10325553_818079401546406_537146816916155029_n

Oh Really Neil? May I suggest that the very opposite is *more often* true of science!
Ie more often than not what has been claimed to be scientific fact is eventually overturned and proven to be false.
These Atheist somehow delude themselves that *their* Science is Holy…. objective… and free of the Human condition… when in reality they wallow in Human Subjectivism, self deception, and ignorance.
Their Atheism is not based upon science… rather their science is based upon their atheism.
They are just too dumb….too blind…. too hateful of religion to realise it.

Tim Wikiriwhi
Read more…

Heretic! Defying the Establishment…Secular Excommunication for Free Thinking and Un-orthodox Scientific Research: PHD Welfareism

Atheism, Bogus Science, Consciousness, Cosmology, Easy Listening, Evolutionism, Faith, Heaven, Hell, Hope, Indoctrination, Keeping It Real, Liberate your Mind!, Love, Monism vs Dualism, Personal Identity, Philosophy of Mind, Psychology, Quandaries, Rationality, Revelation, Science, There is a God!, Zombies

Space Truckin: Dead for 45 minutes.

Sunday 25 May 2014 Tim 10 Comments

reaper

From >>>Here<<< A trucker in Ohio shocked hospital staff after coming back to life nearly an hour after he lost his pulse following a massive heart attack — but it’s what he claims to have seen during those tense moments that has him sure there’s an afterlife. Brian Miller, 41, was opening the lid of a container when he knew something felt wrong — he immediately called 911 and told the operator, “I’m a truck driver and I think I’m having a heart attack.” Sure enough, his main artery was completely blocked — causing what’s known as a “widow-maker” heart attack He was rushed to a local hospital where doctors managed to revive him and clear the blockage, but after regaining consciousness and feeling the pain dissipate, he developed ventricular fibrillation, when the heart starts quivering wildly and is unable to pump blood. “He had no heart rate, he had no blood pressure, he had no pulse,” said ICU nurse Emily Bishop. “I mean think about that.” Doctor’s performed “strong, hard, fast CPR” and shocked Miller four times to try to revive him, but had no luck. trrrkk

It was during that time that Miller said he slipped away into a celestial world, “The only thing I remember I started seeing the light, and started walking toward the light.”

He described walking down a flower-lined path into white light — until he came upon his step mother, who had died recently, “She was the most beautiful thing when I seen her, it was like the first day I met her, (she) looked so happy.”

Miller remembered, “She grabbed ahold of my arm and told me, ‘It’s not your time, you don’t need to be here, we’ve got to take you back you’ve got things to go and do.’”

After 45 minutes his pulse returned “out of nowhere,” Bishop said. ”His brain had no oxygen for 45 minutes, the fact that he’s up walking, talking, laughing, everything is amazing.”

Glad to be back amongst the living, Miller now says there is one thing he is sure of, “There is an afterlife and people need to believe in it, big time.”

********************

mag5

I read an article recently that suggested that as many as 20 million people had had Near Death Experiences, and that despite Materialist monists fervent denials, there has been accounts which have ‘independent’ corroboration, and also other interesting ‘anomalies’ such as blind people ‘Seeing things’… for which the term ‘Mindsight’ was coined.
These experiences suggest that consciousness, thought, memory, etc carry on after Zero brain activity…. which supports the Dualistic theory of Body and soul… thwarting Monism which insists all our personality and consciousness is generated by the brain.

I find the article is interesting because it articulates my own scepticism about Materialist scepticism for Spiritual realities.

The truckie story above is a classic example of *What really happens at death* … ALOT!…. which Materialists have to reduce down to illusion.

I actually have a Jewish friend who died in a Car crash… was dead for several hours… and revived.
She reported seeing Jesus (which was a surprise… being a Jew), and meeting her Gand Father who said Nanna will be ‘here soon’.
She reported all this to her parents, and within a few weeks… Nanna had passed away.
None of this is explicable via notions of ‘hallucinations of a dying brain… loss of oxygen, etc’… Monitors detect Zero brain activity, and when people temporarily black out from lack of Oxygen they experience confusion and or memory loss, not Lucidity of thought… not vivid memory… and their black outs are not *Life altering*…. *perspective Game changers*…. which is a very common result of Near death experiences.
Objectively speaking, these experiences ought not to be written off as delusion simply because they don’t fit well with the common assumptions of the Material paradigm.
The Free thinker will be open to consider greater possibilities…. even if the evidence demands a person to forsake their cherished assertions.

Tim Wikiriwhi.

Memories of Peter Dunne

Saturday 24 May 2014 Richard 2 Comments

Wednesday night last week I was at the Backbencher pub on Molesworth Street, across the road from Parliament Buildings, for the filming of the first episode of the 2014 season of Back Benches.

Back Benches is a political panel discussion show. Hosted by Wallace Chapman and Damien Grant, it airs on Prime TV 10:30 pm Wednesday evenings, having been filmed earlier in the evening. It’s a great show. (You can watch it here.)

Last week’s political panel featured Labour MP Trevor Mallard, National MP Mark Mitchell, Green MP Jan Logie … and Peter Dunne. Topics included cannabis law reform … and animal testing.

Animal testing has been a hot topic in New Zealand in the last couple of years because of the Psychoactive Substances Act. The Psychoactive Substances Act, which became law in July last year, made provision for the testing of new psychoactive substances on animals. Peter Dunne, the National government’s Associate Health Minister, was the bill’s main architect and front man.

Earlier this month, in a surprise (to some) move, Parliament enacted the Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill. The amendment, drafted by Peter Dunne himself, rules out the prospect of any testing of psychoactive substances on animals being incentivised by the government. This is very good news.

Section 12 replaced (Duty of advisory committee relating to use of animals when evaluating psychoactive products)
Replace section 12 with:
“12 Advisory committee not to have regard to results of trials involving animals
“(1) In performing the function set out in section 11(2)(a), the advisory committee must not have regard to the results of a trial that involves the use of an animal.
“(2) However, the advisory committee may have regard to the results of a trial undertaken overseas that involves the use of an animal if the advisory committee considers that the trial shows that the psychoactive product would pose more than a low risk of harm to individuals using the product.”

Wednesday night last week, Peter Dunne made the following remarks.

Can I just say two things.

I’m in favour of testing for medicinal purposes on low down the stratum [sic] sets of animals.

With regard to psychoactive substances I ruled dogs and that level out as long ago as November 2012. They were never, ever in the frame. The debate subsequently was about rodents and more latterly rabbits …

Well, that’s not how I remember it. I remember a headline from December 2012 which told a very different story.

Last year hundreds marched against animal testing. With their beagles. It’s not how they remember it, either.

Peter Dunne is a sick puppy.

Is still my opinion.

But how do we best square what Peter Dunne said last week with what he apparently said and thought back in December 2012?

Let’s canvas the possibilities.

1. The Sunday Star Times misreported.

2. Peter Dunne misspoke.

3. Peter Dunne is in denial about what he said.

4. Peter Dunne is trying to rewrite history.

Politicians lie. We know this because their lips move. Peter Dunne is a consummate politician. So I’m rooting for option (4). Otherwise, it’s hard to explain why Dunne is so specific about the date. “I ruled dogs out as long ago as November 2012.” Except that he didn’t.

Here’s what I think really happened. I think Peter Dunne lacks empathy. Otherwise, how to explain this? And he simply forgot to remember that normal people consider the gratuitous poisoning and killing of household pets to be morally unacceptable.

Addiction, Alcohol, ALCP, Alternative Medicines and Treatments, Beer, Break on through to the other side, Cannabis, Christian Libertarianism, Democracy, Easy Listening, Freedom, Hedonism, Hypocrites, Jihad on Drugs™, Justice, Keeping It Real, Liberate your Mind!, Libertarianz, Live Like It's Legal, Nanny State, Prohibition, Propaganda, Psychoactive Substances Act, Self reliance, Self-ownership, Slavery, Socialism, State Rape, Tax, Totalitarianism, Uncategorized, Zombies

Utilitarianism vs Libertarianism. Socialist pragmatism vs Libertarian Idealism

Friday 23 May 2014 Tim 20 Comments

quote-Aristotle-plato-is-dear-to-me-but-dearer-102583

It has been with great sadness that over the past year I have witnessed my fellow Libertarian Blogger Richard Goode change tack and sail off course, and now become an apologyst for Socialist Statism.

This has been evidenced by his entire behaviour in relation to the Psychoactive Substances Act, and particular with regards to Synthetic Cannabis.

To make my point I refer you to all his Blog posts on this subject in which he consistently demonstrates that he believes all the Negative hype about the dangers of Synthetics… which is in my view incredulous considering the history of Prohibition, and it’s reliance on Lies and phobia about drug use, as supposed vindication for the Governments perpetration of a highly oppressive war upon it’s own citizens.

While he calls himself a Libertarian, He has in reality swallowed the Socialist lie that Harm Minimisation is a legitimate function of Government and has attempted to formulate an argument for this >>>Here<<<, yet it is a tragic testimony to his having put the Cart before the horse. While Libertarianism has many pragmatic advantages over Socialist tyranny, Libertarianism is firstly an Individualist Ideology.... a philosophy which embodies clear principles of Law and Justice which protects the sovereignty of Individuals from tyrannical Government, and the pragmatic advantages for society... to the degree that there are any... are merely the By-product which flows from these principles. The Free society is a far more Humane and enlightened civilisation than socialism, and the type of Self reliant- self responsible, and charitable citizenry it fosters, and the peaceful Social interaction which spontaneously generates in a coexistence free of political coercion and advantage... are all extremely preferable ... pragmatically speaking.... yet to mistake these benefits as being the vindication for it's principles is utterly false. The Vindication for Libertarianism is in it's *Justice* for Individuals, and it's defence of the Individual's self-ownership, and it's Principled limits to political power... whether the will of a Monarch, or 'The mandate of the Majority'...the will of the largest Mob. Ie Libertarianism protects Individuals, minorities, and even Majorities, from Social arbitrary Law. That is what vindicates Libertarianism... not its pragmatic social advantages, and certainly not any idea of 'Harm minimisation' for the individual. Libertarians ought to have social concern for others, yet that is an utterly foreign principle to Libertarian ideology... It is in fact a definitive *Socialist* political lever, and pseudo-justification for Political intervention...and it is here where my friend has gone so far astray... Libertarianism embodies voluntary community action. Believe me when I say that I sympathise which how he was lured down this road... It was because the Anti-Prohibitionist movement (in particular Cannabis Law reformers) whom were never Libertarians began to argue for an end to prohibition... not on the basis of Individual rights, but on the basis that Cannabis was safer than alcohol. This was the socialist 'Harm minimisation' Doctrine... which sought to win over the socialist parliament by convincing a big enough mob that by allowing legal cannabis, they would be helping to reduce the Evils of Alcoholism which have been exacerbated by its monopolistic Legal Status. These arguments are thoroughly aimed at a socialist pragmatic mentality which prevails both within New Zealand's parliament, and in our society as a whole. It is a Utilitarian mentality which has abandoned all ideological principles of justice in pursuit of 'The Greatest Happiness'. Under this philosophy the Government can do whatever it pleases with individuals as long as it can convince a majority, that it's actions are conducive to the collective well being of society as a whole. Thus Individuals have become the property 'of society'. Society may overstep a persons individual liberty and self-responsibility either under the pretence of protecting the Hapless individual from himself, or the pretence of minimizing 'problems' that individual choices can have upon Society at large... esp Financial strains upon 'social services' which are run by the government and funded collectively via taxation. Druggies are deemed to be an inexcusable burden upon the system. pink judge

It is under these pretences that modern Socialist judges have no compunction against Jailing peaceful old Pot smokers whom refuse to submit to the Political will of Nanny state.
*Jail is deemed to be for their own good, and the Good of society as a whole*

They believe the ruinous effects upon an individuals life of incarceration are in fact preferable to ‘allowing him’ to continue in his drug use, and that society is safer while drugs are actively being suppressed by the Police.
*Freedom is dangerous* *Nanna Knows Best* *Etc*.

Now it is not the place here and now for me to argue why this whole socialist perspective is utter tyrannical, or why Libertarianism denies it is the proper duties of government to provide social services like public health care.
It ought to be enough to point out how utterly at variance with Libertarianism, this whole approach to ending Cannabis prohibition is.

I shall proceed to explain how my Brother Blogger took his wrong turn and has now wandered so far off track that he has crossed the line and is no longer worthy of the Name *Libertarian*.
My explanation is not written to vilify, but to show how easily this deviation occurred.

Not only do I sympathise with my fellow blogger, but hope that after contemplating what I have written that he will correct his course back over to the Libertarian side.

Many years ago many Kiwi Libertarians, including myself, as members of the Late Great yet struggling Libertarianz party, were supportive of a proposal written by Richard Goode for having a Transitional policy for Drug Law reform, which was accepted because it provided a rational pathway of least resistance to ending the war on drugs.

Our previous policy of simply legalising all drugs was too much for the voting public to swallow and had absolutely no hope of ever being adopted in totality, and so the new proposal presented to the voting public and parliament, was that the War be de-escalated starting with de-criminalising the softer drugs first, and then as fears were alleviated by having legal highs, that support could then be gained for further reforms, with ultimate end being an absolute end to the war on drugs.

elephant_one_bite

We would devour the Prohibition elephant one bite at a time… leaving the boniest portions till last.
And what defined ‘soft drugs’ was their perceived ‘safer than alcohol’ status.

The virtue of this policy was that it was idealistic, yet also realistic as means to our ultimate end because it was far more popular with the People… there was already support for Cannabis Law reform and our definition of cannabis as a ‘softer drug than alcohol’ was met with great enthusiasm from the Socialist faction of Cannabis Law reform movement whom are by far the greatest majority in the movement.

I have no doubt that Richard ‘liberated’ his definition for ‘soft drugs’ for the Libertarianz party transitional drug policy directly from the Socialists.

Richard’s policy was genius, as it unified Idealism with pragmatical realism, and popularity.
He ought to be proud of it.

Unfortunately though, in the years that have since past, and with the de-registration of the Libertarianz party, and Richard joining and now representing the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, which is still predominantly a Socialist Party, He has obviously lost his Libertarian bearings.

He has forgotten that The Libertarians supported his transitional policy because of it’s progression of Justice… not because it’s starting point of legalising softer drugs was in any way supposes Libertarians endorse the socialist idea that Governments ought to concern themselves with ‘harm reduction’.

It is only in the light of these sorts of consideration that as Libertarian I had anything good to say about the Psychoactive substances act.

To the degree that it did allow a special dispensation to some products to be legally available, and also allowed a convoluted means (in theory) for other products to eventually make it to Market… having run the ‘regulation gauntlet’, it was supposed to be an improvement on the ‘Ban everything as they appear’ prohibition-ism which was the prevailing ‘socialist wisdom’ at the beginning of the rise of synthetic dugs which are now being manufactured to bypass existing prohibitions.

The thing was that Richard had now utterly lost all sight of what Libertarianism is about, and swallowed the socialist ‘Harm minimisation’ pill that he actually condemned the PSA for being too Libertarian!
*He was thoroughly in the Socialist Camp that it is the governments duty to decide what Citizens are allowed to ingest*

He was outraged that Peter Dunne was not acting Nanny Statist enough… because in his mind it was committing a crime by allowing dangerous and untested Synthetic Cannabis to be legally sold!

He relentlessly fanned the fires of Anti-Synthetic Cannabis hysteria… much to the joy of many of his Pro-cannabis Socialist mates, and condemned the Legal highs industry as evil profiteers at the expense of Hapless sheeple.

He told them to voluntarily remove their products, and castigated them for not heeding him… saying that a backlash was growing which would result in their products being banned.
I said that I didn’t think that would happen, yet I was wrong on that count… and I am sure he experienced euphoria when…. being an election year… and with all the Media sensationalism surrounding the Anti-legal high lobby that via the ensuing shysterism/ party politicking of the powers that be.. that the Libertarian portions of the Act got blotted out, and the means by which products could be deemed safe and thereby legalised… was virtually shut.

(Read my post on this >>>Here<<<) This was a leap backwards in the struggle to End Drug prohibition as it re-invigorated Prohibitionism. The world was watching and prohibitionists everywhere celebrated. Having Legal highs in New Zealand... they say... proved to be a failure. discoredia-the-evil-dead-drugs-raves-and-othe-L-MthvyL

Richard and his friend Blogger Mark Hubbard now dwell on the Dark side.
They ignore studies which suggest synthetic cannabis is relatively safe, and instead invoke terror by calling it ‘Legal Heroin’ ‘like P’…. etc… as if Libertarians support the War on Heroin and Meth!

Mark blames the Government for all the supposed troubles experienced by Legal high users… as if they have no personal responsibility.

*BOGUS!*

I have no problem with Libertarians believing certain drugs to be dangerous… even if they are getting their information from patently Dubious sources.
Of course there can be dangers involved in taking drugs.
Alcohol is dangerous… yet to say their Dangerous nature justifies Prohibitions is patently Un-libertarian and socialist!
The philosophical war they have declared is a Socialist Jihad against Individual Rights and Liberties!

call nanana

Richard’s last blog post attempts to be an argument for the government socialist interventions
He by passes the fundamental Libertarian principles which clearly define and articulate the legitimate function of government as being strictly limited to defending Rights and Liberties of individuals, and instead substitutes that with his bogus Pragmatist doctrine of ‘Harm minimisation’ which is pure Utilitarian Socialism … not Libertarianism.
To say that he is going ‘Back to basics’ could not be further from the truth

He attempts to smoke you readers by saying harm minimisation is a legitimate concern of Government with the bogus rationalisation that preventing ‘itself’ from putting people in Jail… which is harmful … as being a form of ‘Harm minimisation’ when in reality the principles involved are no such thing!
He has stitched up a sophistry which is in complete contradiction to Libertarian limited government.

The Legal and just principles against unjust imprisonment are keeping constitutional restraints forbidding the State from stepping outside it’s legitimate and just functions and encroaching upon our legitimate liberties, and violating our Rights which it has been instituted to protect!

This is black and white… lines not to crossed…. spheres of liberty, personal ethics, the pursuit of happiness, and self-responsibility… not to be encroached upon… not even for ‘harm minimisation’.

There are Powers never to be usurped… and they are not contingent upon whether or not Nanny State’s dictates are harmful or beneficial to either society or Individuals themselves.

It could very well be that some Laws could prevent idiots from harming themselves… yet to the Libertarian… that is no justification for passing oppressive laws…. which treat everyone like idiots… and gives the State paternalistic powers.
Harm minimisation is an endorsement of social interventions, not Libertarian self- ownership and responsibility.

Libertarians say that to allow the Government to legislate to protect people from themselves is to people the world with Fools.

Read my Blog post on this >>>Here<<< Richard... the Philosopher... no doubt assumes the Libertarian principle of having an arbitrary demarcation for being of Age of 'Adult consent and culpability' (in regards to being allowed to purchase alcohol without Parental permission) as being a form of 'Regulation' and 'Supply control'... which is again Bullshit. By that way of thinking All Laws are 'Regulations'... and that therefore the only 'Free market' can exist is under Anarchy. That R18 Principle of Law is necessary in regards to Legal parental rights and responsibilities, and custodianship , yet a young person ought to be able to apply for Adult Status earlier. Libertarianism is not Anarchy. It recognises a limited legitimate sphere for Government, yet these do not include 'Licensing products'... like alcohol, FDA approval, or Taxes, or 'Harm minimisation' etc. The only 'License' Libertarians would support is an R18 age restriction on the purchase and sale of liquor, etc with those whom violate this condition being criminally liable and negate their right to sell. If parents allow their own kids to enjoy alcohol, Pot, etc at a younger age, that is their own business. If Parents want to try alternative treatments on their sick infant children such as Cannabis... they have that fundamental right. I brew some booze yet I also buy Alcohol, and pay taxes on it. It does not mean I support the Status quo.... yet I still believe it is better... more Libertarian than outright prohibition. The same with proposals to 'Educate', 'Tax', and 'Regulate' Cannabis. Again I dont say that is the Libertarian Objective, yet it is better than current Prohibition. Richard and Mark have utterly abandoned Libertarianism and become Socialist Statist Prohibitionists. You have abandoned principles of Justice in favour of Socialist Utilitarian Pragmatism. To recover yourselves and to restore yourselves into the Libertarian fold is simple, and it does not require you to drop your opinion about the Safety of Synthetic Cannabis, or mean you must cease arguing that you think Real cannabis is safer. All it requires you to do is to stop arguing that 'Harm minimisation' is a legitimate concern of governments, and desist from supporting any prohibitions on drugs. If on the other hand you think the War on P, on H, and on Synthetics is justifiable, and legitimate, will them please desist from calling yourselves Libertarians. small gold guy_0

It has only been a few weeks since Synthetic cannabis was taken off the shelves, and yet My InLaws reported seeing a bunch of people sniffing glue in the Park.
So much for Harm reduction!

Tim Wikiriwhi.
Christian Libertarian.

Freedom, Jihad on Drugs™, Prohibition, Psychoactive Substances Act, Regulation

Back to basics

Friday 23 May 2014 Richard 9 Comments

This meme has been doing the rounds of drug law reform social networks. Regular readers may have seen it once or twice already.

In this post I want to consider the message that this meme is sending to young people. And what this meme means for drug law reformers in general and for libertarians in particular.

Drugs can ruin your life

For sure. Drugs can, and do, harm people. Drug harms can be measured. See, for example, the Nutt scale. And drug harms can be prevented.

so if I catch you with them I’m sending you to jail and ruining your life.

One way to prevent drug harms is to prevent people from taking drugs. One way to prevent people from taking drugs is to send them to jail. But being sent to jail ruins your life.

The harms caused by criminalising drug use can also be measured and it turns out that the cure is worse than the disease. Prohibition doesn’t work. The War on Drugs™ is an expensive, epic failure. The harms caused by criminalising drugs outweigh and/or add to and exacerbate the harms caused by the drugs themselves.

So say the majority of drug law reformers. In the interests of harm minimisation, we must abandon the failed policy of prohibition and try a new approach to preventing drug harms. The three pillars of harm minimisation are demand reduction, supply control and problem limitation. So we must educate (to reduce demand), regulate (to control supply) and treat (to limit problems).

But wait! Who’s being forced to pay for all this harm minimisation? Asks the libertarian. Since when was harm minimisation a proper role of government? The proper role of government is to uphold our rights, not to save us from ourselves.

Drugs can ruin your life

The stock libertarian response is, if you’re worried that drugs can ruin your life, don’t take them. In other words, so what?

so if I catch you with them I’m sending you to jail and ruining your life.

It’s the bottom bit of the message that ought to make libertarians sit up and take notice. The proper role of government is to uphold our rights, not to save us from ourselves, and certainly not to violate our rights by sending us to jail! Governments can and do catch people with drugs, send them to jail and ruin their lives. Governments harm people by doing that. Governments shouldn’t harm people. So it turns out that harm minimisation is a proper role of government, after all.

I briefly looked at the types of harms governments should try to minimise in a previous post.

The overarching goal of the [New Zealand government’s National Drug] Policy, to prevent and reduce the harms that are linked to drug use, is a noble one. However, we must distinguish between three main kinds of drug-related harms

1. Harms which individuals inflict upon themselves, or inflict upon others with their consent
2. Harms which individuals inflict upon others without their consent
3. Harms which governments inflict upon their citizens

Libertarianz says that the government should not seek to save people from themselves, and most certainly should not harm its own citizens. The government should seek to bring to justice those who commit thefts, assaults, rapes and murders, whether such criminal acts are drug-fuelled or not.

It’s by focussing on this third category that I believe we can, as libertarians, make a contribution to National Drug Policy while maintaining our philosophical integrity.

Harm minimisation is a proper role of government, but only the minimisation of certain harms and not others. Minimising the harms we inflict upon ourselves is not the legitimate business of the state. Minimising the harms the state inflicts on its own citizens is very much the legitimate business of the state. Governments ought to be forced to take the Hippocratic Oath! Above all, do no harm.

Last year, the New Zealand government did what seemed to be a very libertarian thing. It stood back and let us get on with the business of harming ourselves by smoking untested, unsafe, novel synthetic cannabinoids. This month, the New Zealand government apparently reverted to its authoritarian ways and banned the sale and use of all synthetic cannabinoids until further notice.

All is not as it seems. By allowing us to harm ourselves, the government was inflicting harm on us!

How so? What I just said is bound to sound paradoxical, or even duplicitous, unless you stand back and get the bigger picture. In my previous post, syndicated from Life Behind The IRon Drape, Mark Hubbard stands back and gets the bigger picture.

This is what the 119 that I declared a philosophical war upon, have done. They legalised a line of hardcore addictive drugs in the league of P or heroin, nothing similar to the non-toxic, non-addictive, medicinal cannabis that many other countries are sensibly legalising, and then by keeping cannabis criminalised they successfully addicted possibly thousands of mainly young Kiwis to the equivalent of heroin, because by taking the legal heroin they would not face the force of the law, or lose their jobs, unlike smoking cannabis for which they would be convicted in the government war on drugs. So government policy addicted them to heroin, and I’ll keep making this point …

Context is important. He who would trade safely implemented and lasting drug law reform for some temporary liberty, deserves neither. Sometimes, a little freedom is a dangerous thing.

I’m given to understand that this revised meme is what most of my fellow drug law reform activists are fighting for. Well, being sent to rehab is better than being sent to jail, isn’t it? I suppose so.

Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Libertopia any more.

Footnote.

The police officer in the picture is Anthony DiPonzio of the Rochester Police Department in New York. DiPonzios is both a perpetrator and a victim in the War on Drugs™. In 2009

DiPonzio, 23, was shot in the back of the head on a city street after questioning a few people about alleged drug activity on Saturday, Jan. 31. Tyquan Rivera, 14, of 65 Dayton St., Rochester, turned himself in to Rochester police Tuesday, Feb. 3. He will be tried as a juvenile and could face up to 10 years in prison if convicted.

“We are pleased to share that officer DiPonzio continues to make significant progress in recovering from his serious wound. He is speaking this morning, and we are very pleased with his notably improving condition, which is far ahead of where we expected him to be at this point.”

“He has made such significant progress that – based on his current condition – we anticipate he will be able to transfer from Rochester General Hospital to Unity Health System’s Brain Injury Rehabilitation Unit early next week.”

Freedom, Immigration, Justice

Immigration is dependent on ownership

Wednesday 21 May 2014 reed 15 Comments

If an island is owned by one person then just immigration to that island is dependent on the will of the owner.

If a group of islands is owned by one person then just immigration to those islands is dependent on the will of the owner.

If a group of islands is owned by a group of people then just immigration to those islands is dependent on the will of the owners.

New Zealand is a group of islands owned by a group of people – Just immigration to New Zealand is dependent on the will of the owners.

Immigration is dependent on ownership.
Freedom is only relevant if it is the owners’ will (or duty).

Let’s see where this goes…

Mark II, National Party, Peter Dunne, Psychoactive Substances Act

Legal Heroin Ban: PSA and the Evil of Politics.

Wednesday 21 May 2014 Richard 4 Comments

It’s a great relief to me that at least one of my libertarian friends gets it.

This compelling piece on the diabolical Psychoactive Substances Act by atheist blogger and fellow freedom fighter Mark Hubbard is so good, I’m syndicating it.

Be sure to check out more of Mark’s blog. I wish I had more time to read his posts.

Legal Heroin Ban: PSA and the Evil of Politics.

I wish I had more time to write this post.

Search this blog for the Psychoactive Substances Bill, animal welfare, or animal testing, and you’ll see around the time that 119 of New Zealand’s 120 members of Parliament were enacting infamy, their egos driving them for a world first, I was warning them of the inhumanity they were about to force on us. Although now that the results of legalising synthetic, toxic poison – on the heinous principle of animal testing for our human recreation- has been in place for less than a year, even I am left breathless at the devastation and misery that has been caused.

This is what the 119 that I declared a philosophical war upon, have done. They legalised a line of hardcore addictive drugs in the league of P or heroin, nothing similar to the non-toxic, non-addictive, medicinal cannabis that many other countries are sensibly legalising, and then by keeping cannabis criminalised they successfully addicted possibly thousands of mainly young Kiwis to the equivalent of heroin, because by taking the legal heroin they would not face the force of the law, or lose their jobs, unlike smoking cannabis for which they would be convicted in the government war on drugs. So government policy addicted them to heroin, and I’ll keep making this point, heroin, which is what I’m calling it from now on, because that’s what this drek is: these MP’s have been hiding behind the euphemisms legal high and synthetic cannabis for too long. They legalised a hardcore, psychosis forming, addictive drug while keeping the harmless option criminalised.

And then much worse. Because it’s election year, and Campbell Live has been exposing the ruined lives that have been addicted to legal heroin, Labour decided it would be a vote catcher to announce a policy of banning it. Not to be outdone, merely minutes before Labour announcing its ban yesterday, the instigator of legal heroin, Peter Dunne, whose son, remember, is the foremost legal representative to the legal heroin industry, in a knee-jerk political action announced his own ban of all 41 legal brands of heroin currently on sale, from two weeks hence.

Now, hands up those who understand addiction, who believe that these new government created addicts are going to miraculously stop taking their heroin fix in two weeks? Of course they’re not: they can’t. No what Dunne has done with the ill-thought out ban, as the solution to his incompetent, ill-thought out legislation, is deliver a brand new customer base to organised crime; the violent gangs whom will happily take up supply at some magnitude of the current price, meaning a burglary crime wave is also headed our way. (Perhaps young James Dunne better line up his legal aide application.)

Has there been a better example of the evil transacted by government in New Zealand in our recent history? Noting an important point made by one tweeter that opposition to the Psychoactive Substances Act, is still consistent with the belief I hold that prohibition does not work: it’s just that in this case government policy actually forced users to take the most harmful of drugs, by keeping harmless cannabis criminalised. As I write in too many of my posts; you can’t make this stuff up. Thousands of lives ruined chasing world first law-making – that is, one man’s ego – which is a disaster, and yet still, despite the evidence world-wide, including the states in the US seemingly experiencing no problems with cannabis legalisation, not a single MP in New Zealand talking of legalising non-toxic, non-addictive cannabis, to perhaps keep some of these new heroin addicts out of the clutches of the gangs while the ban is on. (Or forget the PSA, at the very least, to look at putting cannabis into hospitals to help manage the side-affects of cancer treatments, and many other of the medicinal uses cannabis has.)

I revise my former oft used epigraph by saying we’re something a lot worse than a kindy of a country.

There are some questions I will quickly recite to end, but first another principled point. This post is all about ethics, but the MSM and majority of the political blogs will cynically write this up as part of the political game: who announced the ban first, how will it affect election chances et al. Most, other than John Campbell – and good on you John – will forget the addicts. This blog is probably considered by most as a political blog, which is ironic, as I hate politics, and politicians who are taking us all at pace from the free, civilised society, to their brave new world of politick, which is a slave pit where the masses are kept chilled with legal heroin. Aldous Huxley got it right. Was Peter Dunne concerned with the addicts here? Hell no, his reply to Labour MP Iain Lees-Galloway on that party’s proposed bill:

@IainLG @caffeine_addict @manstaneditor and do you really think the government would have given you a victory on this?— Peter Dunne (@PeterDunneMP) April 27, 2014

There’s no victory here Peter, we’re all losers. If there is one bit of justice out of this it will be your disappearance after this year’s general election.

Questions for the 119 MPs:

Dunne has stated all current 41 heroins will be banned until they pass the test of ‘low or no risk’: however as the legal heroin industry pointed out last night in a tweet, there are still no guidelines set out by our inept law makers as to what constitutes low or no risk. So what is this criteria? And after that, show factually why the plant cannabis does not comply, because I’m willing to bet it does, and you won’t need to test a single animal for that, just look at cannabis use by humans over the last 6,000 years, with not one recorded death from toxicity.

I originally wrote on this Act when in bill form from the point of view of the cruel animal testing it proposed, which via a series of nationwide protests, Kiwis thankfully showed themselves to be implacably against, to the extent that to this stage no animals have been tortured for our recreation under the Psychoactive Substances Act. However in the last tweet from Mojo Mathers to myself, she stated that the expert advisory panel set up to look at the testing of this heroin was still stuck on – the barbarity – of using animals for reproductive testing, thus animal testing is still on the laboratory table.

I suspect there will now be huge pressure to use animal testing as a way to get one of these heroin brands back into the shops, and the economics of this has been changed. Formerly the cost of testing was prohibitive, however that cost is now tempered by the carrot of getting a single heroin to market, and so a legal monopoly.

Will every one of the infamous 119 MP’s who voted for this monstrosity, please put on record if you are going to allow a single animal to be harmed under the Psychoactive Substances Act. Don’t you worry responding Peter Dunne: I’ve realised via this you’re a vainglorious, ego driven man who couldn’t care less about an animal’s welfare (or a human’s as it has ended up.)

Signing off in my usual disgust.

James

What is your life?

Tuesday 20 May 2014 Richard 2 Comments

1 Corinthians, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Revelation

What is real?

Tuesday 20 May 2014 Richard Leave a comment

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. (NIV)

In what sense is the world “real”? What are we asking, when we ask that question?

Anna Salamon doesn’t know. I don’t know. Perhaps Jordan Peterson knows.

I’m going to talk to you today about a different way of looking at what real is.

It’s not easy to figure out what real is because we don’t really have infinite knowledge and so we’re always making some sets of presuppositions about what’s most real.

It really matters what you assume is most real because you base the decisions that you make, that run the entire course of your life, on those assumptions, whether you recognise it or not. And if you get the assumptions wrong, or even if you leave them incomplete, you’re going to pay a big price for it.

Eternal Vigilance