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.

Friday, August 7, 2015

Euthanasia (NZ): Why MP Simon O’Connor Must Not Chair Select Committee.

My last post detailed how National have followed a Monty Python script in appointing an MP who trained for the seminary to chair the committee hearing submissions on the need for euthanasia legislation in New Zealand (following the petition for same being presented to Parliament).

In the comments to that post a Christian man asked what my problem was; didn’t I think a Christian could be objective. The same notion apparently being put forward by O’Connor himself who believes he can separate this issue from his faith. To repeat the two salient tweets:

Leaving aside Richard’s further quotes in comments to that thread, because Richard is not your ‘stock standard Christian’ this is my logic.

I don’t believe O’Connor can separate the issue of euthanasia from his faith: I don’t believe a Christian can separate any issue from their faith, period; that’s the nature of faith. Other than one sister (of four), I come from a Christian family, and not one of them can separate this issue from their faith. The Christian man in comments who asked why Christians could not be objective, provided the answer by his stance against euthanasia deriving from his faith.

Regarding objectivity, the notion of a Christian chairing this committee thus becomes absurd. An objective person has the capacity to change their views based on the submissions to be made to this committee. A Christian, however, especially one trained for the seminary, has a fixed, faith based a-priori viewpoint against euthanasia that cannot change, because it is a sin.

A Christian can no more be objective in this topic, than they can separate it from their faith – because their lives are governed by the leap of faith itself. For a voluntary euthanasia law to be enacted, and it must be from this process (damn it), the Christian viewpoint has no place in this debate – because euthanasia is voluntary they can still choose to suffer unto God if they want - and that closed, conservative viewpoint certainly should not be chairing the debate.

This is nothing personal against Simon O’Connor; but if this committee is anything other than a fob off by a socially conservative National Government which does not want to discuss euthanasia at all, he must stand down, and the Chair be taken by an atheist humanist – though God only knows where National will find one of those.


  1. Wouldn't an atheist humanist come in to the post with as much of a bias as a Catholic? Could you convince a humanist that one shouldn't be the owner of one's own body and be allowed to do with it whatever they see fit? Therefore from a bias point of view you haven't solved the problem, you've just restacked the deck in favour of a different (correct, IMHO) position.

    1. Cheers for comment TWR.

      But no, you don't get my a-priory argument.


      I think euthanasia is the absolute right to own your health outcomes, just as you manage your health throughout your life. So the need for euthanasia law is a given, it brooks no argument.


      Euthanasia is voluntary. Thus, those that don't agree with it, including Christians, aren't being forced to it. Because those of us who want the basic right, aren't demanding anything of the mystics, then the mystics don't get to make decisions that affect my life (and death). Naysayers have no part in this debate.


      So in the first part, there shouldn't be a debate in a free society where it was philosophically understood to die on one's own terms in an inalienable right. But if there must be one, then certainly the religious should have no part in it, certainly not chairing the debate, as they are not approachable on the topic by reason: it is a matter of irrational faith, a given, that they will never allow (me) euthanasia.

  2. I don't disagree with any of that (except perhaps the second part of (1) where we are getting less and less opportunity to manage our own health with every passing year), and I'm certainly of the opinion that euthanasia should be a personal choice and none of the government's business.

    However, my slightly fatuous comment was solely addressed at the last sentence of your post where you suggested an atheist humanist instead of a catholic as chair. I think it's likely that such a person would go in with their mind already made up about the desired outcome just as much as the priest would. It would merely be the opposite opinion. So, if you wanted someone to dispassionately evaluate the evidence, neither of those two would fit the bill.

    1. I don't agree with that at all - albeit I'm confident the evidence does convince a rational person 'for' euthanasia, in that the majority want it, and no evidence of abuse in any jurisdiction it is legal.

      More than anything it would be great to find someone with a shred of post-Enlightenment philosophy who understands if we don't control our own bodies, then ... well, figure it out for yourself.