Category Archives: Libertarianz

What can we do? Socialism’s Tungsten shell, and the refugee crisis

Kiwis pledging to open their homes to Refugees>>>Here<<< Please Help the Red Cross!>>>> Check this out <<<< *********************************************************************************** 2BEDD97800000578-3220746-Grief_Reacting_to_the_tragedy_social_media_users_have_created_mo-a-19_1441288665287

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3220746/God-little-angel-world-shows-grief-anger-death-tragic-Syrian-toddler-Aylan.html?ito=social-facebook

Today, I am ashamed to be a New Zealander…. thank’s for that John Key.
Not even the image of children washing up on beaches is enough to crack the Tungsten shell around some peoples hearts, and move them to ignore their selfish fears for the sake of innocent lives.

I admit that regarding the fact that New Zealand ought to open it’s doors to some portion of the flood of Syrian Refugees displaced by war, and atrocities our ‘great shepherd’ running this Socialist sheep station is in a tuff position.

Not only would opening our door run a high risk of allowing dangerous terrorists to creep in and reek monumental evils here… not only would a large influx of Muslims have dire consequences for the future of our democracy, a simplistic *socialist* view of economics is that we ourselves are already struggling to maintain 1st world standards of living… with mounting debts.
Are not our own growing numbers of poor and needy more than sufficient?
… after all ought not charity to begin at home?
Only a fool will not properly weigh these factors.

Still I say most of these problems above are generated by the Sheepish philosophies which underpin our crappy socialist islands.
Fear trumps reason.
Our rising debts, and levels of poverty may be squarely be laid at the feet of our Inept Political helmsmen of recent generations… whose medlings not only hobble our industries, heap up tax burdens, and reward sloth and political shystery, they also pander to a nasty and callous xenophobia which simply wants to ‘blame Great Satan America’ and change the TV channel when confronted with such horrific images.
Thus every one who has voted for this type of welfare state must bear some of the burden for John Keys decisions.

ddd
Photo Daily Mail

Not I! This blog post is written as the beginning of my personal effort to move our parliament into getting at least 10 000 of these Syrian Refugees over the great divide… and into our homes.

*Hang on Tim! Are you not being a hypocrite here?
How can you… as a Libertarian join the chorus for extending welfare to foreigners, when you have spent years condemning welfare for our own”?

It’s simple…. I’m not asking for more welfare-ism.
I’m asking to be allowed to extend a charitable hand… you see welfare is not charity… it’s anti-charity… it’s Heartless … Stone cold.
While shallow minds see welfare as helping the poor… they dont see that it first generates poverty.
Shallow minds believe welfare is humanitarian… yet it allows them to sear their consciences to the desperate outside our gates.

*Hang on Tim* I’ve read Ayn Rand… Libertarians actually think selfishness is a virtue!
What have you to say to that!

Only that Ayn Rand is not a Libertarian but a stain on our good name, and has done more to undermine our movement than any socialist argument ever could.
Regrettably she has attracted the worst types of haters and narcissists into this honorable movement, and caused our name to stink.

Libertarianism is in reality the last vanguard for true charity against the corrosive actions of Nanny State, which atrophies the Spirit of charity and self reliance.

It has become commonplace in Western socialist democracies like ours to pass laws against voluntary charities helping, housing, and feeding the homeless.

How many more Children have drowned while I sit in my comfortable chair typing this?

*Hang on Tim* lets say we allow you… and those whom think like you to transport some of these Syrians here, and let them live in your house…. what about the strain of our hospitals… what sort of conditions will they endure under your roof?
And of course if you put them to work cooking and cleaning… they must get minimum wages and conditions!

*I say* just look at those challenges you present, and how every one of them is a *socialist anti-charity construct*… obstacles getting in the way of compassionate people willing to make sacrifices for the sake of their fellow man.

These are daunting objections… like a row of neighbors preventing me from helping out… and I despise them all for it.

I say just let us help!
I say there ought to be enough volunteers in this country to surmount these sorts of troubles

To those of you who really care…. let’s rise up and at least try and save some!

My rave above is written in the hope that by exposing the evils and fears which are preventing New Zealand accepting more refugees… I can stimulate stronger convictions and bravery to overcome them… and ultimately… lets get rid of our Welfare state… for Justice, and the children’s sake.

Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.

CN7zUEXW8AEYjSe

The Statue of Liberty stands in judgement!

Western Nations like America have forsaken freedom and lost their way!

New_colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

statue_of_liberty_facepalm2

Read more…. The Failure of Objectivist Libertarianism.

Albert J Nock and the Atrophy of Charity and Self-Reliance

Hamilton City Council’s relentless agenda to starve out the homeless.

Real voluntary private Charity vs the evils of welfare and Political force Ruff draft.

Where Haters come from.

The Boston Bombing. Christian Grace and Freedom and the Higher Path.

Credits to Daily mail and Jews News.

Terrorists ginna Terrorise! >>>> ‘Just wait…’ Islamic State reveals it has smuggled THOUSANDS of extremists into Europe

Aylan and bro

Family of Syrian boy washed up on beach were trying to reach Canada

Epiphany. The penny drops for Don Brash…. Welfare is evil, and is destroying lives….and society.

Britain_e6c7b0_5615360

Newsflash!
Welfarism is Evil!
Don Brash has been reading….

I congratulate Don for these realizations (see his facebook post Below) …it’s just a pity he’s no longer leader of the National party. (Did I really say that?… hmmm…. no that cant be right!)
My point is that Oh so many leaders seem to ‘conveniently’ have such Epiphanies after they leave office/ positions of influence… where they may have been able to do some good.
No longer pandering to the powers that be, Police chiefs declare the war on drugs to be a failure…. after they leave office, etc.
Politicians get all principled…. after they are no longer soliciting votes.

They come out all Libertarian…. in their farewell address.
Yet still better late than never!

To be fair to Don…. He stood up for many Libertarian truths *while in office*, such as opposition to Waitangi Apartheid while leader of the National party.
He bravely spoke against Cannabis prohibition as Leader of Act.
And of course as a money man… hes always condemned the ‘borrow borrow, spend spend, mentality of the left.
All bold stands in today’s PC Brain dead Socialist lunatic asylum…all these make him a Stand out personality in the history of New Zealand politics.

My question is…. what will Don do with this latest realization?
It really is massive.
Lets hope this is stimulus for New and Greater activism!

Go Hard Don!

Tim Wikiriwhi.

Don+Brash+New+Zealand+Gears+Up+General+Election+3XGiY3qQjr5l

Don Brash
3 hrs •
I have just finished reading a profoundly disturbing book. I bought it 10 years ago, but have only just read it. It’s called “The Welfare State we’re in”, and was written by James Bartholomew. It is about the effect of the welfare state on the UK. Mr Bartholomew concludes that “the welfare state has been a disaster for Britain… [It] has ruined lives and left people morally and culturally impoverished. It has left many depressed and alienated, too. It has caused some to become criminals – a waste of a life – and others to be the victims of criminals. It has spoiled trust between people and caused millions of patients to suffer and to worry. Tens of thousands have died prematurely. It has reduced the decency and happiness of the British people”.
And perhaps most worrying of all, he concludes that the people most adversely affected by the welfare state are the very people it was designed to help – the poor and those on low incomes.
I’m not going to try to summarise a 360 page book in a Facebook post but to me the book is utterly persuasive. He looks at the way in which healthcare, education, provision for support in old age, benefits to the unemployed, provision of “council housing”, together with the high taxation and slow economic growth which have inevitably accompanied the vast expansion of the welfare state, have made the intended beneficiaries of those policies worse off than had the welfare state never existed.
I have no doubt that this post will attract a number of people keen to denounce the book as written by some hard-right guy who just doesn’t understand how awful society would be without the welfare state. And no doubt there will be those who denounce me for praising the book, assuming I like it only because, in their view, I am a “hard-right” former politician. To those people I say: have the guts, and the integrity, to read the book before denouncing it. It is extremely compelling.
Mr Bartholomew has just written another book, this time called “The Welfare of Nations”, which apparently attempts to answer the question “If the welfare state is so bad, what should we do about it?” That is next on my reading list.

From >>>Here<<<.... Please take the time to encourage him to again Step up and *Do something* He's a mover and a shaker.... New Zealand desperately needs Guys like him to act. ************************************ Read more.... A Salute to a Kiwi Hero. Don Brash.

Don, you da man!

Universal Pride in Washington, Separatist Shame in Wellington.

Standing up for Justice more important than Personal Ambitions

Tim Wikiriwhi’s Submission to the New Zealand Government’s Constitutional Review. 2013

Why a new Constitution for New Zealand must protect the Individual from Mobocracy.

The Great Waitangi Debate. 2010

Police know the War on Drugs is making New Zealand a more dangerous place, yet try to pull the wool over the Public’s eyes.

ProhibitionRepealPoster

The irrefutable pattern continues…. not just in Mexico…. not just in Chicago….But the world over… including New Zealand.

Read the latest news…

GARDA SEIZURE 90289179

‘NZ criminals shift to bigger guns’.

Underworld figures are now packing machineguns in what has been identified as a “culture” shift toward heavier arming among criminals, an intelligence report warns.

But police say the big guns are mostly for show, and that their use rarely reaches beyond the closed doors of the criminal world.

A summary of the report, which notes the growing frequency and increasing sophistication of weapons featuring particularly among gangsters’ drugs crime activity, has been released under the Official Information Act.

Assistant police commissioner Malcolm Burgess would not comment on the sources of the information.

He said criminals, not the public, were most at risk of encountering gun crime. “They are more likely to use these firearms in situations involving other criminals, rather than against the general population.”

A summary of the July 2014 report, briefing police officers and entitled “Firearms and Organised Crime: Illicit Supply, Possession and Use”, notes a shift in New Zealand criminals’ attitudes to bearing arms.

“It is likely (the event will probably occur in most circumstances) there has been and continues to be an erosion of the traditional culture of firearms non-usage by New Zealand organised crime group members,” it says.

Read Full article >>>Here<<< MORE FIREPOWER Police raiding a central Wellington apartment found the occupants lying in wait with high-powered rifles. Raids across the region in June last year netted guns, drugs and samurai swords and about $20,000 worth of methamphetamine, as well as cocaine, LSD, ecstasy and cannabis. The 21 people arrested remain before the courts and the swords were returned to their original owner. Asked where such weapons come from, Assistant Police Commissioner Malcolm Burgess said most were sourced via thefts from licensed firearms holders. Police found 22 firearms in raids around Whangarei in December last year which resulted in 38 Headhunters gang members' arrests and $4 million in methamphetamine being seized. Several of the guns seized are alleged to be part of a large cache stolen from a Bucklands Beach, Auckland, gun collector last June. Hunting rifles found rolled up in a mattress at a Plimmerton house in July last year where gang members were living were traced back allegedly to burglaries in the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa. Two people were arrested on methamphetamine, LSD, MDMA and cannabis supply charges. Customs intercepted 1880 firearms and 3393 parts at the border in 2013-14. - The Dominion Post ******************************* cake

Now to any Prohibitionist reading this….there is no point getting upset that your methods are worse than a failure… that your Tyranny is making society much less safe…
When will you admit defeat?
When will you stop calling for Blood on the streets?

Instead, take a look at what is going on in Colorado USA, and how Ending Cannabis prohibition is having a massive effect on reducing violent crimes, and is hurting the Mexican Cartels…

Read this>>>> ‘Legal Pot in the US Is Crippling Mexican Cartels’

And This>>>> Legal US Weed Is Killing Drug Cartels

And This >>>> Colorado Crime Rates Down 14.6% Since Legalizing Marijuana

Or get yourself a copy of Don Brash’s book ‘Incredible Luck’ in which he dedicates a chapter as to why he supports the discrimination of Cannabis in New Zealand.
He is virtually Giving them away… about $7 per copy *postage included*.

You can contact/ private message Don >>>Here<<< Ending the war on drugs will be the greatest step towards more justice, and public safety that is possible with the stroke of a pen! Our Jails will empty... Respect for the Law will increase. Add to that the 100s of millions of Tax $$$ Savings which are currently wasted on enforcement of the failed policies of prohibition. Add to that the benifits of having a Legal Cannabis industry. We will stop Jailing peaceful people like Dakta Green! If you have not met this great man.... why not? We are about to stick him and several of his comrades in jail again... for being brave enough to resist the Evils of Cannabis prohibition, and pushing for legal safe dispensaries. free_the_daktory_three
I am having trouble finding an up-to-date article on Dakta’s latest predicament…. I will remedy this when I can…. yet >>>here is a blogpost<<<< I wrote about his earlier civil disobedience. *****There will be an all night Vigil before the Sentencing for the Daktory 3 on April 22 at Auckland District Court. If you want to stand up for your rights, be there if you can.***** Hamilton-Jay-Day-2014
Hamilton J day 2014
William Mckee, Gary Chiles, Dakta Green, and Tim Wikiriwhi.

Read my speech >>>Here<<< and find more Eternal vigilance posts on Ending the Drug war. Tim Wikiriwhi. Christian Libertarian, Friend and admirer of Dakta Green and company.

Libertarian Hatchet. Peter Davies. Mayor of Doncaster.

jeff

Why this Pic?….. Bloody Internet would not give me a Pic of Pete!

From Stuff…. Would you vote for Peter Davies – if you were given the opportunity?

He’s a maverick English mayor elected after promising to slash council spending, clear the streets of yobs and ditch politically correct services – the torchbearer for how towns should be run.

On his first morning as mayor of Doncaster in South Yorkshire, Peter Davies cut his salary from 73,000 to 30,000 then closed the council’s newspaper for “peddling politics on the rates”.

Three weeks into his job Mr Davies pressed ahead with plans he hopes will see the town councillors cut from 63 to 21, saving taxpayers 800,000.

Mr Davies said: “If 100 senators can run the United States of America, I can’t see how 63 councillors are needed to run Doncaster.”

He’s withdrawn Doncaster from the Local Government Association and the Local Government Information Unit, saving another 200,000.

“Doncaster is in for some serious untwining. We are twinned with probably nine cities around the world and they are just for people to fly off and have a binge at the council’s expense.”

The mayor’s chauffeur-driven car has also been axed by Mr Davies and the driver given another job. Mr Davies swept to power in the May election with 24,244 votes as a candidate for the English Democrats, a party that wants tight immigration curbs, an English Parliament and a law forcing every public building to fly the flag of St George.

He’s promised to end council funding for Doncaster’s International Women’s Day, Black History Month and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month.

He said: “We need to cut costs. I want to pass on some savings I make in reduced taxes and use the rest for things we really need like improved children’s services.

“Politicians have got completely out of touch with what people want.”

– These facts are from reader Ian Sprott

Does that quote “completely out of touch with what people want” sound familiar?

Would he have okayed hundreds of thousands of dollars on a brochure telling ratepayers what clever people he and the councillors are – ignoring specialist staff warnings about the cost?

Would he have allowed yet another expensive switch on Auckland’s logo – after $329,000 was spent on a design in 2007?

How would he have reacted to the shambles on the first night of the world cup?

The mailbag reveals other drums being beaten in Auckland’s far-flung suburbs:…. read more..

Davies Reforms mirror my own campaign policies that I have represented in Local body elections over the last decade.

Google this guy and you will see how his reforms are met by seething hatred by those whom parasite off Heavy rates Big spending Busy Body Councils.
The Devils wail and gnash their teeth… yet it is their own Vampire which has brought them to ruin!
Their Victims have had enough.

Read about my personal efforts to halt Socialist Tyranny and Bankruptcy below…

‘Revolution At The Roots’ Making Hamilton’s City Council smaller,better, and more conducive towards Prosperity. Tim Wikiriwhi.

Cannibalising the cannabis vote (Part 1)

The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party took a big hit in Saturday’s general election. I don’t mind saying that I’m somewhat disappointed. (It’s my party – I’m the Vice President – and I’ll cry if I want to.)

The 2014 GENERAL ELECTION – PRELIMINARY RESULT gives us 0.41% of the party vote. That’s roughly 20% down on 2011’s final result of 0.52%, and pretty much back to where we were in 2008.

This time around was supposed to have been our election. With many jurisdictions around the world decriminalising (e.g., Jamaica) and some countries (Uruguay) and US states (Colorado, Washington) outright legalising, globally the tide has turned on cannabis prohibition. Consciousnesses were supposed to have been raised and cannabis law reform was supposed to have been much more of an election issue. But it wasn’t.

I was optimistic that we’d double our vote and achieve 1%. I never doubted that we’d stay safely above 0.5%. But we didn’t. So what went wrong?

Before we get to that, let’s take some big bong hits. All our candidates did well in their electorates, and their individual successes are worth celebrating.

Preliminary vote counts are highlighted in the table below, with some comparable figures from the NEW ZEALAND ELECTION RESULTS from the previous two general elections in 2011 and 2008. (Figures in brackets may not be the same candidate, the same electorate or the same party. Two out of the three.)

Candidate 2014 2011 2008 Electorate
KINGI, Emma-Jane Mihaere 838 703 Te Tai Tonga
DOMBROSKI, Jamie 608 439 New Plymouth
GRAY, Abe 466 (398) (483) Dunedin North
CRAWFORD, Julian 395 (398) (483) Dunedin South
WILKINSON, Robert 373 (254) (487) Christchurch Central
GOODE, Richard 332 332 (64) Mana
MANNING, Romana Marnz 307 352 Tukituki
McDERMOTT, Adrian 267 (319) Te Atatu
GREGORY, Alistair 258 (404) (407) Wellington Central
LYE, Jeff 221 (331) Kelston
(559) (788) Te Tai Tokerau
WILKINSON, Steven (203) 450 623 West Coast-Tasman
MACDONALD, Fred (107) 253 Otaki

Clear star of the show is Emma-Jane Kingi harvesting 838 votes in the southernmost Maori electorate of Te Tai Tonga. EJ, you rock! Also a very strong showing from Jamie Dombroski harvesting 608 votes in the New Plymouth electorate. Solid numbers too from the ALCP’s Leader Julian Crawford and Deputy Leader Abe Gray in the Dunedin South and Dunedin North electorates respectively. (The numbers in brackets are Julian’s results from 2011 and 2008 when he ran in the Dunedin North electorate.) And well done to budding newcomer Robert Wilkinson representing the party in the Christchurch Central electorate.

I’m happy enough with my own preliminary result of 332 votes in the Mana electorate. I expect a few more votes when the special votes are counted and the Electoral Commission announces the final results early next month. But my tally right now is exactly the same as last time. It’s significant that I got over 5 times as many votes standing under the ALCP banner this time and in 2011 as I did in 2008 when I was a Libertarianz Party candidate. Whose mast you nail your own colours to matters a great deal. I’ve included a couple of candidates in the table above who stood as ALCP candidates in previous elections, but who went their own ways this time. Both Steven Wilkinson and Fred Macdonald stood as Independents, and both more than halved their yields.

Satisfying results from our other candidates too, albeit slightly down on previous figures at this stage. I’d anticipated a few more votes for rising star Alistair Gregory who ran a stellar campaign in Wellington Central. In fact, the not quite comparable numbers in brackets are votes won in previous elections by Michael Appleby, the ALCP’s locally well-known leader and brand-recognised figurehead since the party’s inception in 1996 until he stood aside late last year. Suffice it to say, Ali had big shoes to fill.

But I think there’s another reason that Ali’s (and Jeff’s and Adrian’s) vote counts were down a little on previously (and also why Julian’s and Abe’s vote counts were steady despite Dunsterdam being this election’s ALCP campaign headquarters). They all had competition in their electorates from Internet Party candidates. Which brings me to what I think accounts for the significant drop in the ALCP’s party vote.

The Internet-Mana Party cannibalised the cannabis law reform vote. Read more in Part 2.

Libertarianism’s last bastion against the unrule of the godless

in-god-we-trust-art-0b6414eb76501dc7

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!

who_will_build_the_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.

LEAP NZ’s Angus Fisk’s criticism of Dodgy Police decision not to prosecute John Banks, and other Public officials.

angussss

Angus Fisk…Retired NZ Policeman and member of LEAP NZ.

From A Fisk…
Sent this off yesterday………
The Editor
Otago Daily Times
I submit the following open letter to the Commissioner of Police for publication in your paper.
The Commissioner of Police,
Sir,
The incidence of the NZ Police taking upon itself not to prosecute certain cases on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to warrant charges being laid has come to light as an increasing and unwelcome phenomena.
Most recently we have the unedifying instance of the case against Mr John Banks for submitting a false election return in which your judgement of insufficient evidence has been proven to be flawed threefold; first by a member of the public laying a private prosecution, then by the Crown Prosecutor taking on the case and finally by a judgement of the Court finding Mr Banks guilty. Then today I read of Sir David’s finding of excessive force by a Constable who employed pepper spray, a baton and two ‘shots’ of a taser to subdue an offender. Again the police considered that there were insufficient grounds for prosecution. Media reports of other similar instances seem to crop up all too often.
The practise is not new – I also know of a case, now dated, against a former police Sergeant for forgery, perverting the course of justice and perjury (of which you will have intimate knowledge by virtue of your service as a Detective in the Far North in the 1980’s) being written off on the same grounds not-withstanding abundant evidence to the contrary – but is becoming too commonplace.
Surely, it should not be necessary for a former Police Sergeant to remind the Commissioner of Police that the Courts are the right and proper venue for judging such cases, not behind the closed doors of Police Headquarters since the latter raises the question of why such dubious decisions are being made within the higher eschelons of the Police. Is it mere professional incompetence, an inablity to grasp the facts of a case? One would hope not given the considerable experience of our most senior police officers and the legal advisory resources available to them. Or could there be some more sinister motive; favouritism, partiality, corruption even? I make no judgement here, I am merely reflecting the growing public disquiet on the subject I perceive about me.
The fact is it is not necessary for the police to have an absolute and watertight case before a prosecution is lodged. Reasonable grounds to suspect an offence are sufficient criteria. It is up to to Courts then to decide the worth of a case. I would argue there is no harm in police losing cases in Court since this merely demonstrates that they are doing their job properly – and not usurping the Courts role. How many cases are disposed of in this convenient manner? And what proportion relate to police misconduct/politically delicate matters? Do we need some sort of Judicial auditing to ensure our police are up to the job, perhaps?
Prevailing Police practise does little for the good name of the Police; indeed it contributes to a growing public cyniscm on the integrity of the Police. I urge you to either address this issue or to stand down for somebody that will.
Angus Fisk

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

bad good

Awesome Angus!
While I believe it is prudent to allow some police discretion with regards to minor issues,
Your remarks are particularly true when dealing with Public servants, politicians, police, etc because the faith of the people needs to be maintained.

The whole Banks/ Dotcom affair has been a laughable joke (I’m not talking about the Raid… that was serious Tyrannical Bullshit!).
It is fitting that a power tripper like Banks should finally reap some of the ‘love’ he has sown against so many peaceful peeps… (re The war on drugs).

A Political Spider got caught in a political web.

This Saga makes a mockery of the silly rules regarding election donation disclosure… as if a 25k anonymous bribe is ok… 50k… becomes a crime!
It also shows how politicians like Banksy ‘work the system’…. “Hey Dot… break it down into two donations…. and we fly under the radar….” 🙂

Angus is truly a Hero.
He has commented on a very serious corruption which infests the Police culture from the Top down.
Now we have a Police Chief who publicly hailed a corrupt policeman whom framed an innocent Man…. costing him his farm and sending him to Jail for 9 years!

Now how is it that this is the sort of guy we have at the top????
Surely *If anything* this attitude is a clear indication of his *Un-fitness* for the roll.

Read about that >>> Pressure grows on top cop to retract Hutton funeral eulogy

How many people have forgotten that the NZ Police also failed to Press charges against Helen Clark’s Labour Party regarding their 2005 ‘Pledge card’ election fraud and theft of nearly half a million dollars by which they were able to *Pervert the democratic process*… Defraud Don Brash of his opportunity to End Waitangi separatism… and Keep their filthy hands on power????
Then Libertarianz party leader Bernard Danton privately sued Helen Clark for Fraud, which case was only nullified by the Machiavellian Labour party writing retrospective legislation to prevent a guilty verdict.???

Read about that here>>>> Labour escapes charges on pledge card but case found

Helen Clark could become the next Secretary General of the United Nations!

Read about it>>> Former PM Helen Clark tipped for UN’s top job

The Police have lost their way.
They have become Political players…. Stooges and Gangsters… rather than servants of the rights and liberties of the public.

They are in dire need of reform.
This requires an entire Enlightenment Re: the philosophy of Law, and code of police conduct as servants of the people rights and liberties…. rather than Political enforcers… and lobbyists for their own power and vested interests.

Tim Wikiriwhi.
Christian Libertarian.

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

Read about the Police Dodgy decision not to prosecute John Banks >>>here<<< Read more from Angus>>>> LEAP NZ Law Enforcement against Prohibition. New Zealand.

Read more from me…. Legalised Force attracts Thugs and Bullies like flies to…

Tracinski’s ratchet

LIB

The last time I stood as a candidate for the Libertarianz Party was in the 2008 general election. We gained 0.05% of the party vote. We needed to gain 5% of the party vote to reach the MMP threshold and get 6 libertarian MPs in Parliament.

We needed to be 100 times more popular with voters. But then what? What if we gained 5% of the vote and ended up with 6 libertarian MPs in Parliament? What would we actually do once we got in there?

To be honest, I didn’t give the question a great deal of thought at the time. But Peter Cresswell did. He advocated a principled rule of thumb which I’m going to call Tracinski’s ratchet.

Writing in the Intellectual Activist (July 1995), Robert Tracinski says

In judging a measure, one cannot hold it responsible for all aspects of a mixed economy – only for those aspects it changes. These changes can be evaluated by a straightforward application of the principle of individual rights: Does the reform remove some aspect of government control or does it add more control? … It is not a compromise to advocate reduced government control in one sphere even if controls in other spheres are left standing. It is a compromise, on the other hand, if one seeks to purchase increased freedom in one area at the price of increased control in another.

PC called this rule of thumb a ratchet for freedom. Or, more freedom with no new coercion. Or (as I remember it, anyway), new white, no new black.

It looks almost like a corollary of the Libz slogan More Freedom Less Government, doesn’t it?

Here’s what PC says in his post Transitions to freedom: Shall we kill them in their beds?

Start with what you find, and design the means to work step by step towards your goal, without ever purchasing increased freedom at the expensed of increased coercion. This is what is meant by the phrase ‘ratchet for freedom.’

A principled opposition — call them ‘Party X’ — would promote such policies. … The principle with each policy must be clear: More freedom with no new coercion.

PC then gives a couple of examples of policies that pass the test (including my own Transitional Drug Policy) but also some that fail. Here are a couple of the proposals that fail.

Flat Tax: Here’s another example of this same error. A “low flat tax” would reduce taxes for some, true, but this reduction would be purchased at the expense of increased sacrifice by those whose present tax rates are below the chosen flat rate. Far preferable is the Libertarianz transitional proposal (and Green policy) to offer a threshold below which no tax at all is paid, along with the slow and gradual increase in the level of this threshold.

School Vouchers: The idea of school vouchers is popular (not least with the purveyors of twilight golf and the owners of Wananga o Aoteaora). Vouchers do purchase wider choice, it’s true, but only at the expense of either bringing private schools even more under the Ministry’s boot (as a once relatively free early childhood sector now understands), or of throwing the taxpayer’s money away on bullshit. Best just to give the schools back and be done with it.

Two policies very popular with the libertarianish ACT Party. You can now see why Lindsay Perigo dubbed them the Association of Compulsion Touters. Not pure enough! Pragmatism over principles and how soon until we arrive at the bottom of the slippery slope?

10377446_10154267203975574_7197730999236087931_n

The problem with Tracinski’s ratchet is that it doesn’t work. If Tracinski’s ratchet doesn’t allow us to move from an oppressive, progressive tax regime to a low, flat tax then what use is it, really? If Tracinski’s ratchet doesn’t allow us to move away from one-size-fits-all state factory farms of the mind to a school voucher system any time soon, then patience is a virtue.

Here’s a thought experiment to illustrate the general nature of the problem.

Suppose we were lucky enough that we already lived in a prosperous country with a low, flat tax rate. (The opposite of the actual case, but just suppose.) And suppose that the Libz got elected to Parliament and found themselves in opposition to a fiscally irresponsible socialist “tax and spend” government. Suppose that the government tables legislation—let’s indulge in some newspeak and call it the Fair Tax Act—that would replace the low, flat tax rate with an oppressive, progressive tax regime but with the sweetener of a tax-free income threshold of, say, $25,000. How would the Libz vote?

The new tax system means some new freedom. Low income earners will find themselves paying less tax. More of their own money staying in their own pockets. But the new tax system also means lots of new coercion. Middle to top income earners will find themselves paying a lot more tax. So, some new freedom but also some new coercion. The measure fails to pass the Tracinski’s ratchet test. Libz vote against it.

But the government passes the measure anyway. And, over the next Parliamentary term, the economy suffers. (Predictably enough.) All the economic indicators are bad. So bad that the main opposition party campaigns on the platform of repealing the Fair Tax Act. And wins the election! The Libz also sneak back in, too.

Now suppose that the new government tables legislation—let’s call it the Fair Tax Repeal Act—that would simply revert to the previous low, flat tax regime. Gone is the oppressive, progressive tax regime but so, too, is the tax-free income threshold. How would the Libz vote?

Reverting to the previous tax system means lots of new freedom. Middle to top income earners will find themselves paying less tax. More of their own money staying in their own pockets. But reverting to the previous tax system also means some new coercion. Low income earners will find themselves paying a lot more tax than they were before. So, some new freedom but also some new coercion. The repeal measure fails to pass the Tracinski’s ratchet test. Libz vote against it.

So there’s the problem right there. Nearly always, Tracinski’s ratchet means that bad legislation cannot be straightforwardly repealed. Unless it is really, really bad legislation. Bad through and through. Didn’t give anyone any new freedoms at the time, so repealing it isn’t going to take any new freedoms away, just restore old ones.

(PC does offer a partial defence of Tracinski’s ratchet, but I’ll get to discussing that in a future blog post. I’m not done with Tracinski’s ratchet yet! Spoiler. A partial defence isn’t good enough, and the whole concept of Tracinski’s ratchet is deeply flawed.)

The Psychoactive Substances Act is really, really bad legislation. Bad through and through. Pure evil, in fact. It meant plenty of new coercion (thousands of previously legal recreational drugs banned) and no new freedom. Some manufacturers and retailers were allowed to continue to sell products they were already legally selling, but only if they applied for and were granted interim product licences at $10k a pop. No new freedom, just more new coercion. And now the Act has been amended. All interim product licences have been revoked. Yet more new coercion.

So Tracinski’s ratchet would, at least, allow Libz MPs to vote to repeal the Psychoactive Substances Act. But only because it is thoroughly bad.

The Misuse of Drugs Act is thoroughly bad legislation, too.

Repeal the PSA! Repeal the MODA! End the War on Drugs™!

Oh, wait. That’s right. I almost forgot that over the past year I’ve changed tack and sailed off course and become an apologist for Socialist Statism. We can’t just repeal our draconian drug laws, damn it. Because that would be way too much freedom all at once. People might overdose and put pressure on the public health system and we can’t have that. Got to keep costs down and taxes up.

It is my personal view that we should legalise all drugs. But in an orderly, paternalistic, supervised fashion. Starting with cannabis. Let’s see how cannabis legalisation goes, and take it from there. If it were up to me, I’d rank all drugs in order of safety, and legalise them in that order, over an extended period of time. That’s my policy. Obviously, most of the recently banned synthetic cannabinoids would be some way down the list …

Utilitarianism vs Libertarianism. Socialist pragmatism vs Libertarian Idealism

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 in 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.

POLICY STATEMENT

LIB

The Libertarianz Party strives for a future New Zealand in which Nanny State no longer coddles and chastises us at every turn. We envision a New Zealand in which parents exercise authority over their children, and adults are free to do as they please, so long as they respect other people’s freedoms and take full responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. In such a libertarian utopia, there will simply be no need for legislation banning things which have a “moderate potential for harm”. Parents will see to it that their children stay out of harm’s way, adults will take responsibility for their own welfare, and the government will not waste your money on futile efforts to stem the tide of human nature. Ultimately, we would repeal the Misuse of Drugs Act. Meanwhile, the Libertarianz Party has a transitional drugs policy: to legalise all drugs safer than alcohol. This policy would result in the legalisation of a surprisingly large number of substances already scheduled in the Misuse of Drugs Act – and all of them safer to take on a night out than a few drinks.

– Dr. Richard Goode, Spokesman on Drugs for the Libertarianz Party, 2007

I’m now with the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, but still a libertarian. It is my personal view that we should legalise all drugs. Starting with cannabis. Let’s see how cannabis legalisation goes, and take it from there.

If it were up to me, I’d rank all drugs in order of safety, and legalise them in that order, over an extended period of time. That’s my policy. Obviously, most of the current crop of legal highs would be some way down the list.

By legalising drugs in order of safety over a period of time, we can monitor the effects of the policy, and call a halt at any time. If it turns out that we’ve take one step too far, we can always quit while we’re only one step behind.

Sounds like a plan?

logo_new