Three not entirely related items - not entirely unrelated either.
First,
to isolate a question buried in my last post on Judith Collins’s Anti-Money
Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism legislation with its extension
of the surveillance state: under the increased powers proposed for the GCSB,
safe guarding - alongside issues of national security - New Zealand’s economic well-being (at the expense of the
freedom and privacy of every single one of us), a question plainly put for the
Minster. Given that:
The legislation also gives the Cabinet the power to decide by regulation that agencies other than the GCSB, SIS and police are enforcement agencies for the purpose of the bill, allowing them to request that particular service providers have interception obligations placed on them.
And
upon my prior post on taxing authorities moving to police social media for thought crimes, does this now
allow the Inland Revenue Department, as an enforcement agency, to use the
intrusive powers and methods of GCSB and/or SIS, to augment their existing considerable
privacy busting powers, to gather information on taxpayers to enforce that
department’s tax mandate for the ‘economic well-being’ of New Zealand? (As
farcical as this would be, given taxation destroys economic well-being). And if
such power is given by the Cabinet under regulation, will that be public
knowledge, or under secrecy (as seems usual for the operation of government
now, since our politicians have given away the possibility of remaining a free
society)? Noting all the while that such eavesdropping would be in breach of
the privilege that otherwise exists between a taxpayer and, say, their lawyer.
Actually,
given IRS maintain they have the right to lift all a taxpayer’s electronic
communications, email, texts, et al, without a warrant, can the New Zealand
taxpayer be given the assurance by the relevant two ministers, of Justice and of Taking, such criminality, hence breach of privilege, isn’t occurring in New
Zealand already?
Unrelated,
an interesting post by economist Matt Nolan on TVHE recently, concerning the
dependence, or rather lack of, and increasing politicisation of central banks.
Matt makes the worthy points:
The point of an independent central bank IS NOT so that technocrats can do fancy things without needing a democratic mandate … it is actually just the way democratically elected governments tie their own hands with regards to monetary policy, just monetary policy.All these other “structural” policies in the broad economy, they should be determined by our democratically elected government.If technocrats/economists are not able to “persuade the public” about risks, this is not a reason to use public office to “force” the public to accept this – it is instead a call to try to make your argument more compelling, and to learn to accept that sometime society may not agree! I’m not a political scientist, but a situation where unelected technocrats punish us if we don’t do what they think is right doesn’t sound like the right way forward …
I
only wish to make the point that libertarians have always known: bureaucratic
bodies, including those that distort free markets, such as central banks, will
always be politicised. Every government department and function is political:
IRS in the US certainly have been proven to be so this year, and I contend IRD
in New Zealand have been so for some time. This is the precisely the reason we
need limited government and the small state. Never trust government. Never
trust bureaucracies that will always seek power for themselves, and that seek
influence according to their own agenda, or, as bad, allow themselves to be
used by politicians for their own advancement. The notion a politician or
bureaucrat does not work for their own self-interest is childish and dangerous.
Minarchy
…. Please.
Finally
a thought:
I didn't agree with NZ's anti-nuclear stance, but why not opt out of the global surveillance net? That would be a strike for free society.
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) June 25, 2013
Why
doesn't New Zealand just opt out of the global surveillance net, in a similar
manner to our protest on opting to be nuclear free? Let's shout out we're the
free society, we will not be part of this Orwellian nightmare on its world-wide
scale; we don't want to be defended by the crony Western military complex;
we'll assume as our own defence against terrorism, simply to mind our own
business (in every sense) and not piss off those who would become terrorists.
And we'll trade peacefully with everyone. Of course this means all surveillance
must stop, so stepping away from every information sharing double tax agreement ...
Oh.
No. Silly of me.
No comments:
Post a Comment