Here’s
the problem.
Two
of the current main players in the privacy debate in New Zealand are the man who's single vote
is going to put the GCSB Bill into law, Peter Dunne, and leading the inquiry into the leak of
Rebecca Kitteridge’s report, the man who has just jackbooted all over the freedom of the fourth estate, David Henry.
Look
at the careers of these two men:
Dunne
is the ex-Minister of Revenue: Henry the ex-Commissioner of Inland Revenue. Both men have dedicated some great deal of their career to ensuring
their tax department is so powerful we have no right to be left alone, no right
to privacy, in order the state can take our property and our effort to fund a
planned society some few of us have no philosophical agreement with. A state so
powerful that in the tax field it can enact and apply retrospective legislation
to re-write a taxpayer's history at the whim of bureaucrats - it's not a
Godwin to say the same as the Soviets did, it's merely fact: indeed a practice
so prevalent there are now professional continuing education courses in how to
survive retrospective tax enactment. Neither man could possibly understand what the concept of privacy
entails. Of course Henry asked for Vance’s phone records: given his tax
department background he would have simply thought this normal and routine;
that's the culture of IRD, that there is no private part of you free from their purview, they own you. And as for Dunne: well he’s just contemptible. After
being destroyed via the invasion of his privacy, he is still going to vote for
every Kiwi to be spied on by GCSB. This man is living through a mid-life crisis
that has turned him into the definition of contradiction, and unfortunately we
are paying the price for this with our liberty, as will beagles in laboratories.
If
there had been a Libertarianz member in Parliament in place of Mr Dunne, and a
libertarian minded person who understood the principle tenets of classical
liberalism running the enquiry of Mr Henry, the GCSB Bill would not be about to
become law, nor would Andrea Vance, and
via her our fourth estate, have been compromised. We could’ve all – if we took
enough drugs to pretend IRD can’t frog march every single one of us to
interview room 101 whenever they want with no legal recourse – pretended
this was the free society millions of men and women died fighting a major world
war for. Why was Henry put up to head that inquiry when he had no philosophical
qualifications (academic or experience-based) for that post?
It’s
a travesty. But I knew that, because as the byline of this blog states,
civilisation is the movement toward privacy, the police state the opposite, and
tax legislation, particularly tax administration, has become the legislation and
administration of the surveillance state.
And
while I’m looking into this boiled egg before me, well-salted teaspoon in hand
– I write these posts over breakfast - regarding the fat tax promotion, yet
again. The free society’s perspective simply stated:
A
fat tax is a tax on food choice.
A
tax on food choice is a tax on choice, period.
A
tax on choice is a tax on our freedom.
The
topic of fat taxes does not take place in the health vote, it’s a philosophical
issue.
.
... I'm getting sick of writing this entire post over and over. Hopefully next
post I’ll have time to finish my take-take on the Clifford Bay ferry terminal.
The bureaucrats are mucking up that one also.
But
lastly, as I’ve mentioned the war, what those men and women were fighting for.
No comments:
Post a Comment