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.

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Euthanasia Debate (NZ): There’s a Seminary Trained Catholic Chairing the Committee - Truly.

More Monty Python-esqe scorn and disrespect being shown by a too complacent National Party. Today I find that National MP Simon O’Connor, selected to chair the Committee into our (urgent) need for euthanasia legislation, is a practising Christian who trained for the seminary before becoming an MP. Of all the MPs, John Key allowed this, and I believe for only one reason.

Mr O’Connor, who believes presumably that if he has any hand in euthanasia becoming law in New Zealand he will burn in a fiery pit for all eternity, believes this is not an issue. The below was preceded by my asking when the committee would be taking public submissions:

No, the chair can subtly, and not so subtly, control a lot more than mere process. And besides, there’s the farcical symbolism involved here. Because have no doubt whatsoever on the stance of Catholicism toward euthanasia: thou shalt not. I believe no euthanasia law will come from the internecine machinations of this committee which after this time doesn’t even have guidelines set.

More, Judge Collins confirmed from Leticia Seales case the euthanasia debate is one for responsible government. My take on that being it’s not a conscience issue, but one for the government of the day as the only body which is able to make and have law enacted (the ballot also not appropriate). So long as the government fools itself into the luxury this is a conscience issue, it will never act:

And so Lecretia Seales has died, a petition has been delivered to Parliament – because poll after poll indicates the majority of New Zealanders believe we should have euthanasia law, other than the medieval superstitionists – but instead of responsibly enacting government led legislation, National fobs the issue off to this committee, then middle finger firmly wagging in the air, appoints the MP who trained for the seminary to the chair.

We, and our inalienable rights, are constantly played for fools. We need a revolution. We need to destroy (peacefully) this stifling nanny state. We need a small state minarchy with individual rights constitutionally front and centre; but between the Big State Progressives and the Conservatives of National, that isn’t going to happen at the emoting booth. Because this is the state of free choice in New Zealand:

Related Reading:


  1. Hi Mark

    We all approach every issue with a personal bias. Do you believe that Atheists are less biased than Christians, or am I to believe that Atheists are the only people capable of objectivity. :-)

    If having religious or non religious bias was to exclude people from public office, no one would qualify.

    1. There is definitely bias on the issue of euthanasia. It's a moot point. Atheists should only be involved in the debate. Remembering euthanasia is voluntary, thus those who don't believe in it for religious reasons should not have a say, they can die 'how God takes them' regardless.

      No one gets to choose how I die other than me and, if applicable, a euthanasia sympathetic doctor/service. It's no business of a Christian. But a Christian cannot, per their belief system - my proof, yourself - allow it, so having one chair the committee is first to destroy it symbolically, then, in actuality.

      Think of it this way, Brendan; would you be happy with a fanatical Muslim deciding policy matters for your Christian church?

    2. I’d generally agree that voluntary action is preferable to compulsion, however we all accept that some State compulsion is appropriate in order to maintain order in a functional civil society.

      Not everything can be reduced down to a matter of individual choice and personal preference, any more than a business can be reduced to a set of numbers in an annual report.

      However my point simply related to the ability for any of us to be truly objective. I could argue that because you are the most passionate person I’m aware of in championing euthanasia, it would be difficult for you to be objective, even more so than perhaps a Christian on the committee. Furthermore, the pro-euthanasia lobbies opinions are not the only ones that need to be considered when society consists of many people holding a variety of sincerely held views.

      I suspect you will get your way eventually, that’s the present trajectory of our culture. There will however be a number of as yet unforeseen and unintended consequences resulting from legalizing euthanasia, not least of them being the diminishing of what it means to be a human being.

      Just as the business cannot be reduced to a set of numbers in the annual report, we are more than just bone and tissue.

    3. Again. Euthanasia is voluntary: this is not a tough moral issue. A Xian by faith must suffer unto their God and cannot support euthanasia. Xians should be no part in the enactment of this right for those of us who want the choice. You do not have a right, Brendan, to have your say in the manner I die, as I have no right in yours. O'Connor is the last MP who should be on this Committee.

    4. Also, your statement euthanasia diminishes what it is to be human derives solely from your Xian belief and perfectly demonstrates why Xians cannot be allowed to sway this debate in the matter of my inalienable rights.

    5. Last point because I'm on road all day.

      O'Connor says he can separate this issue from his faith. Rubbish. None of mr Xian family can separate this from their faith, you certainly can't, so I would like to hear from the chair how he can.

      Regarding objectivity, an objective person has the capacity to change their views based on the submissions to be made to this committee. A Xian, esp one trained for the seminary, has a fixed, faith based a-priori viewpoint against euthanasia that cannot change, because it is a sin. Again, a Xian cannot be objective in this topic, nor separate their faith from the issues. For a voluntary euthanasia, the Xian viewponit can thus not be admitted, and should not be chairing it.

  2. I'm Christian and don't care about euthanasia - you should be able to do what you want to yourself as long as the legally required paper work is complete. The Belgian style suits me as I'm not much inclined to paperwork. The consequences of our decisions will come to pass in due course and time will tell if it was smart or stupid.

    Excluding a small section of people from the debate because you don't like what you see as their moral views means that we are not having a debate. The reality of life in NZ is that there is no weight placed on a Christian perspective today and I'm becoming tired of the ranting as though there was. You will get your law soon enough and the Christian view will have been irrelevant.


  3. Mark and Brendan. You two need your heads banging together, as my mother used to say. Your stereotypes of Christians (Mark) and libertarians (Brendan) are very naughty. I might have to write a blog post to show you both the errors of your ways. :-D

    1. Richard, I would love to read your biblical 'allowance' for assisted suicide. And your opinion on whether the seminary trained O'Connor is likely to hold it.

    2. As for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. (Luke 19:26)

    3. Mmm. A bit 'thin'. Do you agree the (overwhelming) majority Christian belief (including certainly O'Connor's) would be against euthanasia as a sin.

      Care to comment Brendan?

    4. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death. Now you are the body of Christ. Give to everyone what you owe them. (Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23, 1 Corinthians 12:27, Romans 13:7)

      Bit of a mash-up, but hey, these Biblical justifications for just about anything aren't difficult to come up with.

      > Do you agree the (overwhelming) majority Christian belief (including certainly O'Connor's) would be against euthanasia as a sin.

      No, because I have no idea what the majority of Christians believe. I agree that the vocal minority of Christians would be theocrats who believe in freedom of conscience for themselves but not for anyone else.

      > You do not have a right, Brendan, to have your say in the manner I die, as I have no right in yours.

      Quite. Live and let die, and MYOFB.