Random
views of the Police State from sitting in bed this Friday morning, strolling through Twitter.
First,
the surveillance state down on the farm. Health and Safety officers are watching
farmers from roads … no really. Bloody hell:
A Rai Valley dairy farmer says a $15,000 fine handed out to a
Marlborough farmhand for not wearing a helmet while riding a quad bike is
"absolutely bloody ridiculous".
Kerry Robbins said he felt sorry for Rangi Holmes, who had been
punished for doing something all farmworkers were guilty of at some point.
[Snip]
WorkSafe New Zealand inspectors had been visiting farms in the area
more often, making farmers uneasy about being seen to be doing the right thing,
he said.
"You feel a bit like Big
Brother is watching you, they sit out on the road there, you're too scared to
fart in case someone hears you."
On
news that the police have come out publicly to oppose legalisation of cannabis
by dint only of the affect this may have on road safety, my response:
A) It's not up to police to be making political comment against legalising cannabis; B) police are 1/x http://t.co/nXtkCPg85J via @nzherald
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) May 15, 2014
@nzherald ... are against legalising cannabis only by dint of the road toll, so by same logic they are politically against legalised alcohol
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) May 15, 2014
It
is the role of the police to enforce the non-initiation of force and fraud
principle: it is not the role of police to say what private citizens can or
cannot do if they are doing no harm to others. If you include in harm to others
the road statistics, then by the exact logic the police must also demand
prohibition on alcohol. Yes, driving under the influence of cannabis, as with
alcohol, should be a criminal offence, but that is not an argument against the
legalisation of either. On the same theme, if someone wants to die stupidly by not wearing a crash helmet, that is not the business of safety officers stalking farmers on their farms.
In
passing, now I’ve mentioned prohibition, I read another article
this morning (didn’t bookmark, sorry) on how the program of legalising cannabis
across many states in America is for the first time achieving what the DEA were
never capable of by ruining countless many innocent lives in the infamous war on drugs: destroying the violent drug cartels in Mexico, by market forces and people going about their lives voluntarily, taking away demand for their product. Minister Dunne
and all of our own MP’s, who’ve just handed the legal high addicts they created
to the gangs in New Zealand, please take note.
Twittering
on, it soon become evident some guy from our spy agency, GCSB, was being interviewed
on Radio New Zealand; I didn’t listen, didn’t need to, for Twitterdom was
alight with the indignant Left, who yet advocate the complete destruction of
our privacy under the tax surveillance state. I’ve been blogging on this
hypocrisy a lot lately.
And
as if to prove my point, in Minister Bill English’s 2014 budget delivered
yesterday, the budget spend for the GCSB was reduced, I said, reduced, by
$260,000, but the surveillance state proper, the real one against which we have
legislatively no privacy protection, at all, and against which even the burden
of proof has been turned against the taxpayer, namely, the tax surveillance
state, part of an Orwellian global surveillance state, was given a boost
in funding: $132 million, that’s million, additional funding to IRD audit over
next five years, on the jackboots of, and on top of, the $94 million boost
given to IRD audit funding in the 2013 budget, that on the jackboots of the $90
million additional funding to IRD audit given in the 2012 budget, and so on
back to the point classical liberalism was gutted in the West by the tax state,
and our road to serfdom began.
That
2014 budget also demonstrated how National is simply Labour-Lite: included in a
government annual spend of $73.1 billion, a figure that has risen for every
English budget - this the political party of small government (yeah, right) - was
a rise in the length of paid parental leave from fourteen to eighteen weeks, to
ensure many more young woman who wish to start careers, probably won’t get
given the chance. And of course eighteen weeks is not enough for the Green
Party, they want twenty six.
Green
MP Catherine Delahunty started off Friday morning pushing the slavery of
equality, ending with:
If you shrink Govt you will shrink core activities like health and welfare -Johnson
— Catherine Delahunty (@greencatherine) May 15, 2014
@greencatherine So how big does government need to be to enforce equality? What right destruction isn't justified? Who owns my income?
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) May 15, 2014
Catherine
chose not to answer that one, not silly of her at all, though she had a crack
at the paid parental leave:
One month is good but 26 weeks paid parental leave would be great -we dare MPS to do this
— Catherine Delahunty (@greencatherine) May 15, 2014
@greencatherine I have choice of hiring a woman at start of career who has not had a family, & one who has: who will I employ?
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) May 15, 2014
@MarkHubbard33 how about employing the person irrespective of their reproductive journey or status! Hope you pay living wages
— Catherine Delahunty (@greencatherine) May 15, 2014
@greencatherine If both are equal ability who would I employ? Indeed younger woman would need to have incremental better ability.
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) May 15, 2014
@greencatherine Though of course your ultimate objective will be for state to decide who I can employ via quotas, yes?
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) May 15, 2014
No
answer to that one again. Other Twitterees entered the fray; the usual ad hominem
Lefty brigade:
@MarkHubbard33 I have choice of hiring you, or someone who isn't a douchecanoe. You don't get the job. @JessBignell @greencatherine
— SJT (@simonjtapp) May 15, 2014
@simonjtapp Your've learned a big bad word there Simon. Doesn't fix the policy problem though. @JessBignell @greencatherine
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) May 15, 2014
Although
in ending my Friday morning, Tweeter LittlePakeha, who I unfairly dissed at one
stage when I confused a tweet he made with someone else – it happens on Twitter,
sorry about that – made a good point to which I answer as follows, to the
effect policies like this, as with gender or ethnic quotas on boards, etc, hurt
the groups most they’re trying to promote:
@greencatherine I have choice of hiring a woman at start of career who has not had a family, & one who has: who will I employ?
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) May 15, 2014
@MarkHubbard33 @greencatherine they could also decide they hate working for you, or get sick, or want to travel a lot
— not all bears (@thelittlepakeha) May 15, 2014
@thelittlepakeha Bkfast cooked, so can answer to this now. I can't ask a young female interviewee if she plans on a 1/x @greencatherine
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) May 15, 2014
@thelittlepakeha ... family, that would be discrimination, so must assume close to 100% chance she will, as unfair as 2/x @greencatherine
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) May 15, 2014
@thelittlepakeha ... that may be. Her leaving coz of other causes, chances not that high at all, other than perhaps not 3/x @greencatherine
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) May 15, 2014
That
final tweet ended with ‘other than perhaps not liking me’.
Have
a good weekend; don’t forget that today is officially Sauvignon Blanc day: we’ll
be sure to have a few in the Mahau.
No comments:
Post a Comment