Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.


Thursday, August 2, 2012

For the Record: Mark Hotchin Enters Month 21 of the Freeze. Same Sex Marriage ...

The New Zealand state continues to flout the rule of law: no matter what you think of Mr Hotchin, a state that can freeze an individual's life for twenty one months, without trial, or criminal charge, is not a state free men should have a bar of. If they can do it to him, they can do it to you.

This type of issue is as easy as knowing that if two consenting adults want to marry each other, no one is harmed, so it's nobody else's business, certainly not politicians, or their electorates. For those politicians equivocating on this, then you are equivocating on giving adults something as simple as choice. What are you thinking? What makes you think you are fit to be our jailer? Get out of private, grown-up relationships; get out of our heads; get out of our lives. This is a country, not a kindy.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

5 comments:

  1. Mike WebberAugust 2, 2012 at 8:42 PM

    Spot on Mark.
    Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mark HubbardAugust 2, 2012 at 9:21 PM

    Cheers Mike. And as stated, this stuff is not hard. Politicians ... How depressing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. RichardAugust 4, 2012 at 6:29 AM

    Louisa Wall's bill is about defining a term for legislative purposes. It would define 'marriage' as "a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity." In philosophy (semantics) we call it a stipulative definition. No big deal. I really don't care if the government changes the wording on one of its stupid forms. (But Blair Mulholland does. He has an excellent post on the topic of gay marriage here.) Simple, not hard. Sideshow stuff ... or is it?

    Reed has raised some interesting points, and I've been thinking out loud on SOLO and on Eternal Vigilance. The issue has to do with New Zealand's Bill of Rights Act that outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sex or sexual orientation.

    Suppose that I'm a conservative Christian florist. Whereas, previously, gay couples would come to me to order flowers to celebrate their upcoming civil union ceremony, and I have obliged, they will now come to me to order flowers to celebrate their "wedding". Will I be free to tell them, in no uncertain terms, to go fuck themselves (metaphorically speaking, of course!)? Or will I oblige, for fear of being demonised by the state, the MSM and the sheeple?

    I think there's a potentially serious issue here.

    Meanwhile, of course, Hotchin's assets remain frozen ...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mark HubbardAugust 4, 2012 at 9:14 AM

    That last paragraph does hold a valid concern, Richard. Obviously, and for exactly the same principle, just as a gay couple should be able to marry, so should a conservative Christian florist be free to be the bigot his God tells him to be ;)

    And I'm not making light of it, you're right. Perhaps the real problem is we've got far too many laws, and we're far too over-governed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. RichardAugust 4, 2012 at 10:53 AM

    Perhaps the real problem is we've got far too many laws, and we're far too over-governed.

    Perhaps the real problem, in this case, is the Human Rights Act. See here.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)