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, July 18, 2013

My Questions for Russel Norman – Green Party.

NBR have an ‘Ask Me Anything’ Thursday segment; this week, Russel Norman. I have sent in the below questions:

You blocked me on Twitter merely for respectfully taking you up from time to time on your dodgy economics: especially pointing out the often contradictions between your words, policy, and the classical liberal philosophy which once, before it was destroyed, made Western civilisation the peak of human achievement.

If you gain the ministerial bench, will you run the country in this same manner: that is, unaccountably, opaquely, and economically disastrously? Re the latter, if you were ever finance minister, do you believe that government interventions in markets (including the money supply) can achieve better outcomes than the spontaneous order which arises from the individuals in a society transacting voluntarily with one another, as they pursue their happiness? In your opinion does the fist of state thump the voluntary society to a bloodied second place?

Finally, an Act built on cruelty to an animal is a cruel Act, no matter how noble are its aims. With the only poll I've seen showing 97% of Kiwis implacably opposed to animal testing merely so adults can 'choose' to get high on party pills - animal torture for human recreation – why did the Green party not make the striking down of their excellent amendment to have no animal testing  a game-changer for their vote on the Psychoactive Substances Bill? This is not, as Minister McClay states, a public health issue, it’s adults making choices on what to do Friday night, so why did your party, knowing the evil of animal testing in these nonsense circumstances, still vote for it?

Also, outside of the technicality that scheduler substances cannot be considered ‘safe’ under the Psychoactive Substances Act, given cannabis has been tested by humans, voluntarily, for at least 6,000 years, without a single recorded death, it is non-toxic in other words, then why, scientifically, is cannabis not ‘safe’ under this Act? For those of us appalled at animal testing for this trite purpose, we are especially confused that the ‘ends’ of this cruel Act could be achieved by decriminalising cannabis, without a single animal being abused.

PS: What happened to the other ‘l’?

Update 1:

Obviously NBR truncated the above, but I'm very happy to see the final two paragraphs have made the cut of the twenty questions put to Russel (here, scroll down). Will we finally get an answer to why cannabis doesn't qualify as safe, and why decriminalisation wasn't considered as reaching the sames ends as the Psychoactive Substances Act without animal testing? I'll post cross post answers once he puts them up.

No comments:

Post a Comment