The Whig

*Gasps*

I don't know what to say.  I really don't.

Yeah, that'll do...

Dumb Press Releases

What a bizarre thing for the Libertarianz Party to come out with!

Firstly, why are they so bothered about a flag being flown on a bridge if it is a publicly owned bridge, but not if it's a privately owned bridge?  Or are they bothered about the flag itself?  I can't tell.  If they're bothered by the flag, it doesn't matter who flies it or where it is flown, it's still offensive.  If they're bothered by the bridge being publicly owned, why not make that the subject of the press release?  From what I can tell, they're offended by the flag itself, but the offence would magically disappear if the flag was flown from a private bridge.  What nonsense.  You can logically be against the flag and/or you can be against the publicly owned bridge, but you can't make one conditional on the other with any degree of credibility.

Secondly, as a libertarian, I support the Tino Rangatiratanga movement and its flag.  This should be a no-brainer for all libertarians.  Maori want the government out of their lives so that they can exercise self-determination.  I want the government out of my life so that I can exercise self-determination.  This is the second contradictory part of the press release:  Even though the law is oppressing my personal freedoms, and the personal freedoms of Maori, on a daily basis, Elliot Smith thinks that Maori fighting for their own freedom is wrong.  He'd rather that, as long as we have this oppressive government, we all suffer equally under it.  Which sounds suspiciously like collectivism, not libertarianism, if you ask me.

Individual Freedom and Choice="So Last Century"

From their SOTN speeches, it really couldn't be more clear cut.  National doesn't mind what you young people do, as long as it's something.  Labour wants to force you to stay in school until you're eighteen.

National will let you keep your freedom.  Labour will take it away.  And what's Hugo Clark's response?  Well, apparently it's the 21st Century now and we should get with the programme.  Freedom and choice?  Out.  Compulsion and nanny state?  Definitely the new black.

Forcing people into education, especially the Bantu Education of the New Zealand school system, is just wrong.  Much of the latter part of secondary school is a waste of time unless you intend to do further study.  And as proud as I am of my degree, tertiary education is not for everyone.  Unfortunately, when your government is made up of teachers and university lecturers, they have no comprehension of intelligence and social value being found outside of their ivory towers.  Busybodies that they are.

And for Clark to continue to rail against the Mother of All Budgets delivered seventeen years ago and blame it for current violent crime rates, WTF?!  She's had eight years to reverse the MOAB and has changed nothing.  And why has she not reversed it?  Because the MOAB is the foundation of our current low unemployment and economic prosperity.  Commentators who cite it as a low point in New Zealand political history are right, because, 1984 aside, the economy was never in worse shape in 1991.  The MOAB turned it around.  Reverse it, and we go right back there.  That's not something Labour would ever contemplate.  Hypocrites.

No, what has caused the rise in violent crime is the decline into third-rate bureaucracy of our excreable police force, which we should abolish immediately.  Of course, this is not going to happen, but it amuses me that now, almost a full decade after ACT brought Zero Tolerance into public discourse, crazy lefties like Manukau Mayor Len Brown are begging for a carbon copy of the policy to be implemented.  (This makes me question how useful ACT actually is/was.  Maybe ACT should start advocating the opposite of what it wants as a form of political reverse psychology?)  Reforming the police would be an excellent start.  But this government has been, inexplicably, defending our shoddy police force for its entire tenure.  I fail to see why, other than that they have become so arrogant and out of touch, that Lulu's plaintive question seems barely worth responding to.

Good Riddance

Am I the only person who doesn't give a flying toss about a dead tagger?

We should be giving Bruce William Emery a medal and a freaking parade, not a jail sentence.

Squeeze My Lemon

Bollocks.

When is New Zealand going to grow up?  It seems like we are still a nation of wowsers and busybodies.

Help the NZ Economy: Don't (Always) Buy Kiwi-Made

Every time I see Oliver Driver doing those horribly geeky Buy NZ Made ads with the horribly annoying SJD song in the background I fume.  They're spending my money peddling bullshit, counterproductive economics.  That's right, our government is actively spending money asking us to do something that makes our economy suffer!

The standard argument is that, when you buy a NZ product over an overseas one, instead of the money and profit sailing offshore, never to be seen again, it stays here and makes our economy stronger.  Which seems like a really good argument, until you actually start thinking about it.  Imagine, for example, if you limited your economic trade to members of your own family.  Try that for a while and see how much your family's economy grows.  I'll wager it will struggle.  Just a tad.

What people forget when you buy stuff, is that you are getting something in return.  Anything you pay out has to be looked at by comparison to the value of what you get back.  And there's where Oliver Driver and the Green Party twats who commissioned him start to come apart.

Say you want to buy a big-arse television.  You can buy a NZ-made tv for $2500 or you can buy a Japanese one for $2000.  Let's say Noel Leeming's margin on both is $500 (I am pulling these figures out of my arse, but it's only an example).  The luddite economist would say that if you buy the Jap one you are sending $1500 straight offshore, whereas if you buy the NZ one, the full $2500 stays here.  This is true, but it's not the whole truth.  The reality is (and this is what people forget) it cost the NZ economy two grand to make the tv set!  The net gain to the NZ economy is still only $500.  Whereas the Japanese TV set didn't cost the NZ economy anything to make.  It cost the Japanese economy $1500.  When you buy a Japanese TV set, the country is importing a fully formed electronic device at no cost to itself other than what you pay.  The net gain to the NZ economy is the $500 profit margin, plus the $500 that you saved from purchasing the cheaper product.

This is a crude model that many economists would regard as a gross simplification, but the bottom line is that if you buy the Japanese set, you a) encourage cheaper, more efficient usage of resources in Japan; b) discourage dearer, less efficient usage of resources here in New Zealand; and c) you'll have half a grand more to spend on things that New Zealand does a lot more efficiently than Japan, such as dairy products and Sauvignon Blanc.  (yum!)

So stop being a mere robot like our friend Oliver: DON'T BUY NEW ZEALAND MADE!  Buy the cheapest, best quality product available, wherever it's made.  All economic growth is driven by an increase in productivity, and if we subsidise NZ goods, whether through government or through our own choices, we're hampering New Zealand's growth by encouraging inefficiency in our own backyard.

Says It All Really

Thanks Michelle Malkin!  Hopefully our NZ politicians take heed too.

Ron Paul and Those Newsletters

Reason Magazine tries to clear up some of the confusion:

"Financial records from 1985 and 2001 show that Rockwell, Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, was a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. The company was dissolved in 2001. During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic. To this day Rockwell remains a friend and advisor to Paul..."

It's the old story of libertarians trying to pander to fellow fringe groups for support, I'm afraid.  Silly boys.

Mike Moore Calls for a Constitution

Excellent.  Great to have such a high profile figure make the case for a Constitution.  However, Mike Moore is still operating under the idea that a constitution should be written by a committee and then presented whole to the electorate.  To my mind, this is unnecessary and too much work.  It risks the problems that Australia have had with becoming a republic, and the EU has had in deciding on their own constitution - ie. it will be too detailed and end up being rejected by a proportion of the electorate, after which everybody is back at square one.

The other problem with Moore's proposed method is that it assumes to be motivated by the current government and parliament, whereas comments on my earlier post suggest this not to be necessary either.  And as John Armstrong says, there's hardly much enthusiasm for it in the current parliament.

It may be possible then, having raised sufficient funds, for a private organisation to hold a referendum on what I call a skeleton Constitution, which could then be upheld by New Zealand's Supreme Court (should the Court be agreeable) and then imposed on the current institutions of State.  This gets around the question of whether Parliament has the ability to bind itself.

I've adapted my previous post slightly so that my proposed skeleton Constitution would read as follows:

1.  We, the People of New Zealand, incorporating all of its islands and territories, declare this document by mandate of majority popular vote to be the Constitution of New Zealand to act as Supreme Law of New Zealand.  No past, present or future Act or resolution of Parliament, individuals or any assembled body, shall bind, alter or revoke this Constitution, except as specified herein.

2.  Clauses of this Constitution may only be added, amended or revoked by resolution of a fairly held Referendum of all New Zealand citizens over the age of eighteen in which more than twice as many of the votes cast are in favour of the resolution as are opposed.

3.  A Resolution to add to, amend or revoke clauses of this Constitution shall only be brought to Referendum by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New Zealand upon presentation of:

a) a motion passed by the New Zealand House of Representatives, or;
b) a petition of no less than 50,000 New Zealand citizens over the age of eighteen.

upon which the Chief Justice must hold a Referendum within six months of, and no sooner than one month from, the date of presentation.

4.  The Chief Justice may alter the presented wording of any proposed Resolution to reflect the intent of the original motion or petition with greater clarity, or to prevent ambiguity within the Constitution should the Resolution be successful, but shall not otherwise alter the original wording of the resolution or alter its intent in any way.

5.  Final interpretation of the clauses of this Constitution shall be ruled upon by the Supreme Court of New Zealand.  In cases where this Constitution's intent is unclear, priority shall be given to New Zealand Law existing prior to the establishment of this Constitution.

The John Minto Lawn Squat!

Considering John Minto doesn't seem to believe in the usefulness of property rights, I thought it might be a good educational experience for him if he shared his Ethel Street residence in Kingsland with a few friends!

While we're there, we could ask him to renounce violence as a tool for effecting social change as well.  He's been a bit reluctant to do that so far, don't you think?

Do I have any volunteers?  Remember, it's not John's lawn, it's the people's lawn!  We should commandeer it for the greater good!

Ron Paul Lays the Smackdown

The P-Dawg answers his detractors.  Aspiring politicians take note:  This is a textbook how-to when encountering political slurs.  Go Ron!

Part One:

Part Two:

Who Can Liberals Support Now?

The US Presidential election has so far been a disaster for liberalism (that's real liberalism as opposed to what Americans erroneously call "liberal").

Ron Paul has clearly failed.  His 8% is not going to give him the momentum he needs.  He didn't even beat Giuliani, who had given up on New Hampshire.  The National Revew has slurred him as a racist, despite there being nothing inherently racist about any of the quotes they used.  Objectivists have jumped all over this, defeatist traitors to the cause that they are.

I think that Obama, with a Republican congress, would be acceptable.   But the Republicans are looking shaky for these elections.  They have twice as many marginal senate races as the Donks.

So who does that leave?  Hickabee, the Huckster, the Huckajesus, would be a global disaster.  Bush part III.  If I was American, I would vote for the corrupt Hildabeast over the Huckajesus.  That's how bad this tax-and-spend fundie bastard would be.

Romney has proved to be about as fake as Clinton is, and doesn't seem to have any real convictions of his own, so that leaves him out.

Really it comes down to McCain versus Giuliani.  McCain would be okay, but he's still a wet.  Giuliani?  He seems like the better option at first glance.  He is socially liberal, wants to get rid of Roe v Wade, but he has shown disturbing authoritarian tendencies.  Who would be best out of these two lame, wet RINOs?  I still haven't made up my mind.  What do you think?

Hillary=Lazarus=Goddamn Bitch!

How the hell did she do that?

One of the things (okay, the main thing) that pisses me off about the Clintons is that EVERYTHING they do is staged and faked.  Likewise with Tony Blair.  There's not a genuine, convicted bone in their bodies.  Hillary's little crying act obviously got the female vote back on side.  Likewise her interns doing a staged "go back to the kitchen" protest at one of her rallies.  Why can't American voters see through this shit?

This corrupt cow must not win.  It's looking a lot like a Donk President come November and if we have to pick and choose, it's definitely "bros before hos" as far as I am concerned.  Hillary is the Nixon of the Left.

New Hampshire Primary - Hillary Officially F*cked

Check out these polls.  Winning Iowa has been a huge boost to Obama.  He's leapt into the lead in New Hampshire, and if he wins that one, the Hill-dog is not coming back.

Great news for the Paulestinians as well:  He's polling third behind McCain and Romney, which is the bare minimum he needs to stay afloat.  That said, he should be doing better in America's most libertarian state.

US WRITERS STRIKE.

I have a friend who works at Universal Studios in Hollywood. It’s quite interesting chatting to someone who has an inside view of such a large and well known organization. Naturally the film writers strike is on many peoples minds at present. I am told that while initially there was a lot of in house support for the writers claims for higher wages through a wider range of residual payments, ie commissions on internet film sales etc, this is now starting to change. That because the writers strike is now threatening thousands of other film production related jobs, in house support for their cause is rapidly waning and even turning into despise. For example in one small accounting department seventy five people’s family's incomes are now at stake because the writers have chosen to keep on striking. Because of this strike there seems to be the  growing belief and even the hope that Universal will rid itself of unionised writers and actors completely.

Iowa Caucuses

Looks like Barack Obama and the Huckster have prevailed.

Hickabee's victory has not been in doubt for a couple of weeks now, but Obama's margin of victory - 7% at this point - is amazing, and historic.  It must be the first time anyone other than a white male has won a primary election in the US.

Clinton is only third by a small margin, but psychologically that's a big blow.  She is leading in polls nationwide, but this might derail her.  I would be surprised if she could regain momentum from here - the focus will be on Obama now and hopefully he will prevail by the time Super Tuesday comes along.

Ron Paul's showing is a huge disappointment.  He needed to come at least fourth, and 10% is not enough.  He will need to go for broke in New Hampshire in order to stay alive.  Really he needs third place there, and the odds are looking slim.  More's the pity - all the other candidates suck.  Especially Huckabee, who makes George W Bush look like Newt Gingrich by comparison.  God help us if this inbred moron is the nominee, although I doubt the Iowa result will necessarily be indicative of things to come in his case.

Frankly, the best result this November, failing the idyllic pipe dream that is Ron Paul, would be an historic Obama presidency, backed by a Republican congress to ensure he doesn't do anything too ridiculous.  If we are faced with a Huckabee vs Clinton battle come convention time, I'd urge intelligent Americans to pick the only sane option:  Move to Canada.