Chris Brown and His Execrable Music Must Proceed.

Here’s the argument for letting Chris Brown in to perform his execrable music.

It has nothing to do with Chris Brown.

He has ‘done his time’ for his crimes. End of.

After that, I don’t want politicians and bureaucrats deciding who can, and cannot, come into New Zealand. It has to be left up to the choice of the individuals of New Zealand whether they want to see, buy tickets, or whatever interaction they desire, with people such as Brown when they are in-country.

The argument he has a criminal record doesn’t wash. Blasphemy is criminalised in Saudi Arabia, and if you are a woman, driving: so should women from Saudi Arabia with criminal records not be allowed in? (Assuming – as you can’t – they have their heads connected to their necks still.) The devout of Saudi Arabia would view blasphemy every bit as evil and repugnant as we rightly find domestic violence. 

Should the countless thousands of Kiwis with criminal records for the victimless crime of cannabis possession not be able to travel freely in the Free West? (Noting that they can’t and that is significant.)

Identity politics wants to disappear Chris Brown. But identity politicos always want to exclude and excommunicate what they see as wrong. And that is always wrong.

I have seen those saying Chris Brown is unrepentant: unless you have talked to him - so that's not a single Twitter account I've seen saying this - that must be an opinion. Excluding him on that ground is purely an emotive one. And that is always wrong.

Free countries have open borders, and not just for immigration, but for ideas and art also. Progressivism and identity feminism, in this instance, and via that, politicians, don’t get to decide who free people associate with if they do no harm (and have fulfilled their punishment for previously doing so). Prohibition is always wrong; is always harmful, and here's why: because of Chris Brown New Zealand is discussing domestic violence. His visit will afford greater light thrown on this dreadful crime.

Next thing we’ll be told a member of the Israeli Defence Force is not free to enter New Zealand and give their side of history in our universities, because campuses have been turned into that anathema of the free-mind: safe places.

Chris Brown must not have his trip banned for the same reason that Ted Dawes should never have had his book banned.

Chris Brown must be free to bring his shite show to New Zealand, because if politicians get to choose who crosses our borders to discuss their ideas, or perform their art - when such people hold no physical threat to us - then New Zealand is not a free land and we all are living in Progressivestan.

Scuttled Lochinver Farm Sale an Abuse of State Power – Why Test Threshold is Bad Criteria.

Pursuant to NBR:

As widely expected, Associate Finance Minister Paula Bennett and Land Information Minister Louise Upston have torpedoed the sale of Lochinver Station to Chinese firm Shanghai Pengxin.

Ms Bennett says ministers are not satisfied there will be substantial benefit to New Zealand in the $88 million deal.

“After detailed and careful individual consideration, we are not satisfied there will be, or is likely to be, a substantial benefit to New Zealand – a key requirement for applications of sensitive land of this size," Ms Bennett said in a joint statement with Ms Upston. 

This is an abuse of private property rights by the state; far too much power is entrusted to Ministers Upston and Bennett (noting the OIO recommended the sale be allowed).

My position is as I have commented to the NBR thread:

In order to mitigate trampling over a vendor's property rights and well-being - both seriously damaged by the state today - isn't the better test 'is there a demonstrable disadvantage' rather than 'is there an advantage to New Zealand' in such a sale progressing? If no disadvantage - a lower test and I defy either minister to prove any such disadvantage in this or any sale - then of course the vendor should be free to sell their property to their best advantage.

If there has to be a test which there shouldn't be.

And whatever the vendor is ultimately able to sell their farm for, then the state should by law have to compensate them for any loss of sale price that results.

There is no disadvantage to New Zealand in the sale of this farm to overseas interests. I suspect the test criteria is being cited by the ministers as a sop to what this really is: politicking in view of how they see their chances in the next general election. That our property rights are dependent on party politics is frightening.

Update 1:

My further comment to NBR’s story, Chinese Stuck With Lochinver Decision – noting I penned this quickly over breakfast, please excuse the typos and clumsy structuring in parts:

It's chilling how single ministers have this huge power to decimate the property rights and wealth of individuals. Because all future buyers of Lochinver must now factor in the likelihood of not being able to sell to overseas interests that will put a sizable discount on any sale price as the farm is remarketed - quite apart from the considerable transaction costs on vendor and hopeful purchaser reaching this point after 14 months of bureaucratic faffing. Moreover, we know the property could have sold for $88 million: why isn't the government liable to compensate the difference over the lower price it will now sell for? And to compensate for those transaction costs in both good faith, and a rearguard action to try and keep overseas bids on other assets in NZ?

In a free country this could never have happened. A government that supposedly believes in the small state and individual rights would have spent the time they've spent destroying the wealth of the individuals concerned here, and with it, the property rights of every one of us, instead, debating for an inalienable right that NZ demands debate on, namely euthanasia.

It's shameful and frightening what happened yesterday, at the hands of a government which has completely lost its philosophical ethos, and deserves to be swept away the next general election.

Footnote: part of the problem here is fragile politicians pandering to the xenophobic economic ludditism of too many Kiwis who don't understand that dividends going overseas don't leave the country (because $NZ can only be spent in NZ). Whereas the money that was coming into NZ from China in the premium offered on this farm would have had great benefits for us in the form of reinvestment in other productive businesses for which this money was planned.

.

Overall Good News re Silver Fern Farms Re-Capitalisation.

Our debt-moribund meat processor Silver Fern Farms now has a 50% Chinese investor. Copying my comment to NBR:

The major argument against it, surely, is equity financing is dearer than debt ... until you have so much debt you can't make your own decisions anymore which seems to be where SFF is at. So this injection is a bonus, especially if it gives them avenues into new markets, including Asia. (And perhaps a different set of oversight disciplines at Board Level through the new shareholder may bring invigoration also.)

Better still there’s an injection of cash direct to our rural sector with this investment by way of a special 30 cent dividend (a boon to the rural communities suffering on the low dairy payout).

For the mercantilists and economically illiterate who will raise the fallacious argument against dividends flowing to a Chinese investor, no, you need to read my below two posts and answer the questions therein on why there are no detrimental effects on New Zealand at all – this investment is pretty much all good.

Asset Sales and Foreign Ownership: I Don’t Care – Here’s Why.

For convenience, here’s the question posed in that post:

… say that I’m a Mexican, and I buy a shareholding in one of the energy companies here when it is floated. After the first year I’m going to be distributed a dividend of NZ$100k. You call this a ‘foreign dividend flow’, and seem to think it bad for New Zealand. However, think about it, I can’t spend NZ dollars in Mexico, the drug lords just don’t want them, so the only way I can spend this dividend is to first exchange my NZ dollars with pesos, that is, I have to find someone to sell my NZ dollars to. The only person who is going to buy those dollars from me will be doing so to spend back in New Zealand, that’s the only place they can be spent, ultimately. So, where’s the outflow of physical dollars from New Zealand? Explain it to me.

I make further points on this post:

A Tale of Two Dividends – Show Me the Outflow?

Particularly, while a dividend flowing to China still has to be exchanged for New Zealand dollars and thus spent in New Zealand, a dividend going to the Kiwi farmer investors is probably going to end up in Japan, Europe or even China to buy that new Hilux, Range Rover or plasma set. [Just a little sleight of hand there ;) ].

The Compulsive Disorder of Wowserism | Over This Morn’s Coffee.

This headline in today’s Nanny Herald sums up the mind of the modern statist (though I got a pleasant surprise at one of my favouritees on tweeting this ;) ):

Why Our Obsession With Caffeine Needs To Be Stopped.

'Needs to be stopped' ... Really? We are to have even the choice of a coffee taken from us. 

There’s no attempt to educate anymore; it’s straight to the ban and boycott, and it needs to stop.

Further Symptoms of Wowserism:

Political Subversion in a Wine Glass: Scarlett Johansson and the Context of Joy.

Food Taxes: The Mathematics of Health and Tyranny. Gareth Morgan - Fascowerist.

And the Wowsers Even Disrespect Lou Reed.

Bloody Jamie Oliver Cashing in on Food Wowserwism.

The Miracle of Wine Despite the Bastards of Bureaucracy.