Let me change the narrative again. Euthanasia is not an 'extreme libertarian'
position, we know this because the member who almost brought in euthanasia
legislation via the ballot was a Labour Party MP. What is the extreme position
in this debate is the inhumane notion that we must die in sometimes
excruciating, undignified circumstances because a fairy tale, angry God deems
that as our lot and it's the ticket price
of that Never Never Land called Heaven, a notion every bit as insane and extreme as the 40 virgins bullshit.
Yet 120 children masquerading as adults in the sandpit at Wellington seem to
believe in just that, including the faux great classical liberal hope, David
Seymour.
ACT
held its conference this weekend, and confirmed their status as National’s
toadying conservative partner, and the enemy of the libertarian, and thus classical
liberal, vote.
My
comment to Lindsay Mitchell’s broadly supportive
post on ACT’s policy position, sums up where I’ve been heading since
my earlier post against David Seymour’s double-cross of the libertarian
vote via not endorsing a position for euthanasia on either a party or personal level:
Afraid
for at least a decade I can't stand pragmatism and the 'game' of politics.
Conservatives, which Seymour most definitely is, are not classical liberals:
they believe in the small state economically, but the big moral state in your
face and life, often in personal issues that are bigger, for me, than the
economic state (though all are linked).
I understand David Farrar spoke 'for' euthanasia at the ACT conference;
Seymour, however, remains, as ever, silent, and the issue was side-lined. ACT
is a (social) conservative party.
I am now a single issue voter. I see no more important right than ownership of
my body, thus euthanasia, because that has to be the foundation of all rights
for a classical liberal party: the individual. I will vote for any party,
including Green Party, that promises euthanasia legislation for their three
year term. I will totally prostitute my vote for that single issue (and related
issues such as legalisation of cannabis proper, and especially medicinal
cannabis).
That won't be any party with Seymour pulling the strings.
Worse,
Seymour’s following statement is where pragmatism and doublespeak becomes the
ruling politick, punching the face of liberty forever:
Our tribe is the standard-bearer for classical liberalism in NZ, representing
a general orientation towards a defence of private property, freedom of
contract and limited government.
This is by no means an extreme or pure libertarian position. Classical
liberalism takes a larger and more realistic view of government.
Classical
liberals believe in individualism, not ‘tribes’, David. Tribes are cleaved to
by Marxist identity politickers and collectivists of all hues… remember?
And
your statement against the ‘extremism of libertarianism’ is the Left’s infantile
misconception of what libertarianism even is: libertarianism is in fact, via
individualism and from that minarchism, synonymous with classical liberalism.
Your statement is the final double cross to classical liberalism, and one
swift, vulgar kick into the gonads of former ACT leader Jamie Whyte, who was ACT’s
only glimmer of hope. What a shame he didn’t stand in Epsom, although, noting your
premier positioning out of the conference is for a referendum on
superannuation, hopefully looking to at least means test it again, admirable in itself, but
given that is the voting base you appear to be looking for, retired God-fearing
oldies, strategy is not one of ACT’s strengths.
For
me, any party putting euthanasia legislation down as priority policy, including
their non-negotiable policy plank in coalition negotiations, gets my vote for
the next general election. In the absence of any party offering this basic
right, then they have my wrath, and I’m throwing my vote away on the landfill
of this immoral majoritainism forced on us by social democracy. A pox on it and its petty partisan politics; its tribes that vote out of mindless subservience to the body politick, not, as a classical liberal party would, issue by issue, voting for individual volition and the dilution of the state, regardless the consensus or an MP's career prospects.
David, in neither committing your party, or worse, even yourself, to
any socially liberal cause, such as euthanasia, you can go to hell, which, as
you’ve buckled so readily to the God-Squad majority in ACT, you no doubt
believe in. My wish for your abomination of a party is electoral oblivion, so
we can clear the slate and get an actual classical liberal party from the ashes.
And finally a footnote. Let me change the narrative again. Euthanasia is not an 'extreme libertarian' position, we know this because the member who almost brought in euthanasia legislation via the ballot was a Labour Party MP. What is the extreme position in this debate is the inhumane notion that we must die in sometimes excruciating, undignified circumstances because a fairy tale God deems that as our lot and it's the price of Heaven, a notion every bit as insane and extreme as the 40 virgins bullshit. Yet 120 children masquerading as adults in the sandpit at Wellington seem to believe in just that, including the faux great classical liberal hope, David Seymour.
Update 1:
This
letter to Lindsay’s thread makes a fine point backing up my own:
Anonymous
said...
But I can no longer be bothered
getting emotionally het up about people who take a different perpsective to
mine. Unless, of course, they are socialists.
Ok. So far so good. But then Seymour says:
In short, we all know that government must respond to problems of pollution,
the creation of infrastructure, of monopoly power, and raise funds through
taxation
In short: ACT is socialist.
Can’t dispute that either.
ACT, National, ACT, National, ACT, National … can
you see the difference? I can’t. There might be some minor differences of degree between the two, but there are no differences in principle.
.
