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.

Monday, March 17, 2014

Insulting the Rich for Giving, and the Culture that Spawns this. (Hattip Lindsay Mitchell.)

If you haven’t got Lindsay Mitchell’s blog bookmarked then you should: Lindsay is the first go-to for clearing the fog of propaganda and statistics abuse used to justify and build New Zealand’s welfare state. Over Saturday she posted an intelligent piece written by Helen Rittelmeyer of the Centre of Independent Studies which analysed the, at best, deceptive, and at worst, fraudulent, use of statistics in a Sydney Morning Herald op-ed with the overt socialist agenda of hyping, against the facts, a myth that only low income earners have a sense of community, and a further myth that the rich are essentially miserly and only using charity as a tax dodge. The analysis on Rittelmeyer’s post is an important read if for no other reason than to understand how deceitful the editorial stance of MSM outlets like the SMH are, and how they’re emoting the news, with that agenda, not intelligently presenting it factually to their readers.

It is also important to understand the second-hander culture that allows such shabbiness and lies, and inculcates it into the tyranny of the majority voting us all into the prison of each other’s minds. It’s not the free, but the fallen West:

Coincidentally I read the piece on Lindsay’s blog after first reading about this couple who are in the process of giving $100 million to environmental and educational initiatives in New Zealand, and you can bet there are elements of the Left who without so much as a thank you, will scorn them for having that wealth in the first place. As much as I don’t want my life run by the Tories, there is a much too sizeable portion of the Left who are just plain cynical and nasty.

And while we’re on the topic of how according to the Left ethic such wealth should have been forcibly taken from this couple by the tax surveillance state so they couldn’t have the arrogance of redistributing according to their own philosophy, rather than the dictates of state, in response to David Cunliffe’s dreadful and mistake laden speech on how he’s going to destroy us economically (because we’ve already been destroyed philosophically), a personal note:

As ACT leader, Jamie Whyte, rightly points out in this weekend’s NBR:

David Cunliffe yesterday gave a speech to the New Zealand Initiative, an economics think tank. The talk outlined the Labour Party’s economic policy. It displayed so much economic confusion that it will take several posts to get through it all.

Follow Jamie’s critique in the NBR over the next few weeks, as I hope he drives home what a dangerous man Cunliffe would be should he storm the sandpit and grab all the toys at the Fortress of Legislation this coming election. I'm worried about this one; my opening allusion was to the fog of war in which the first casualty is truth, and that's the case in the West currently. There's a war on for peoples minds, which can only be won one at a time, and until that time, a new Enlightenment, there will always be enough voters to put a Cunliffe or a Russel in power.

Finally, this blog will only ever be partisan to the philosophy and the economics that derive logically of classical liberalism, never to a political party, but regarding this year’s general election in New Zealand, and Jamie Whyte, I’ll close this post by repeating one of my comments from that NBR thread:

… I'm finding it so refreshing finally seeing a true classical liberal ethic from a leader of a NZ political party which has a chance of getting seats, and though I don't believe Jamie is carrying anything like all of ACT with him, which is the past has been ruled by conservatism, great to see the liberal in classical liberal being accentuated in other of Jamie's writings. (And the wonderful contradiction of seeing the Left rush to pillory a man who is far more liberal than the bigoted Left can ever be.)



  1. Why is Mr Incest complaining about Labour policies?
    Cunliffe isn't going to be the next PM. Key is.

    And under Key, we've borrowed a billion dollars a month; benefit levels are at all-time highs; the government is giving tens of millions of dollars to protect fully-unionised jobs in obsolete smelters in the depth PM's backyard; and we can't even mention the biggest dole of them all "National™ Super".

    As even RadioNZ put it: communism by stealth!

    Still, yeah, Mr Incest is better than Banks - whose speech about a) how he hauled himself up from his bootstraps; b) how much NZ's state education had helped him; c) how proud he was spending another SIX MILLION of our taxpayers money on schools for kids whose parents don't love them would have been perfect for a Labour or MANA party leader to make.

    1. Goodness, what a cheerful bunch we have in comments today.

      While I agree with you about Key, they are soft-socialists, let's grow up about Jamie Whyte. I wrote about the childish reaction to his incest comments here:

      Calling him Mr Incest is what a leftard would do.

  2. only low income earners have a sense of community

    there's no such thing as "community".

    1. I guess there's the rugged individualism school of libertarianism, and I'm hermit-like and insular at times, however, I would point out that an ethic of individualism by no means infers society doesn't exist.

      I fully realise I live in the village, I just don't agree with the statists that the village owns me.

      Jeez people, cheer up.