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.


Posted by at 4 comments
Labels: , ,

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:



PART II: Why Simon O'Connor Must Stand Down.


Related Reading:

Lecretia Seales Fight for Right to Die.

Euthanasia Does not Devalue Lives of Disabled.

Lecretia Searle Takes Her Case to High Court | MIA Our Politicians.

Why this Government Urgently Needs to Pick Up Maryan Street’s Bill.

Email to Dr. Mark Peterson, Chair of New Zealand Medical Association I.

Email to Dr. Mark Peterson, Chair of New Zealand Medical Association II – The Response.

Posted by at 12 comments
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

The Psychosis of Trophy Hunting: Cecil the Lion.



I’m sick of writing how animal welfare is the chink in my rationalist armour, because the contradiction doesn’t concern me. I have no argument against anything Lindsay Perigo says in his piece on the senseless (40 hour long) cruel killing of Cecil the lion by the monstrous American dentist, Walter Palmer. Lindsay is categorically correct in his summary:

Rights pertain to the species capable of conceiving them—human beings. Cecil had no concept of rights—just ask any zebra or tourist he might have eaten. Humans may arguably bestow honorary rights on animals incapable of conceiving them (or protect them via ordinary human property rights), and prosecute each other for their breach, but let's keep our empathy for Cecil in perspective. It shouldn't blind us to or trump—much less justify—man's inhumanity to man.

Lindsay is correct in a way that my old Catholic friend who believes God created animals for, quote, ‘man’s enjoyment’ is wrong. BUT, regardless, my empathy for the animals in this piece remains unbounded.

If Mr Palmer weren’t bad enough, now we have American accountant Sabrina Corgatelli, who is relishing her fifteen minutes of fame posting sicko pictures of the wildlife she has slaughtered. Ricky Gervais’ observation about this woman who is killing and maiming her way through Noah's ark, is apt:



Following from that, within my own philosophical framework, I wonder if the libertarian minarchy I advocate is possible in a society populated with a subset of violent psychotics. I use that word advisedly.

This’s the dictionary definition of psychosis:

An acute or chronic mental state marked by loss of contact with reality, disorganized speech and behavior, and often by hallucinations or delusions, seen in certain mental illnesses …

I’m afraid Corgatelli’s words cause concern against this definition as the benchmark. According to this human iteration on the theme of evil:

'Everything I've done here is legal, so how can you fault somebody because of their hobbies?' she said.

For her the killing of a sentient creature for enjoyment (not for food or self-preservation) is a hobby.

'To me it's not just killing an animal, it's the hunt.

If she had the capacity – and she’s a heartless bitch, so she doesn’t – to think around the empathy by-pass involved in that statement, she might understand that killing after the torture of the hunt on an animal scared out of its wits, possibly painfully maimed as Cecil was, is more repugnant.

'Everybody just thinks we're cold-hearted killers, and it's not that. There is a connection with the animal, and just because we hunt them doesn't mean we don't have a respect for them

That last idiot notion seems at the heart of this psychotic trophy hunting industry; noting you are a cold-hearted killer, Sabrina, the civilised mind doesn’t buy into this communing with nature bullshit – you’re just getting your jollies by perpetrating senseless slaughter. You might have Enya playing in your damaged head, but you’re just killing. If you want to commune with nature, grow veges, or take your camera on safari instead. (How does this even work? I have so much respect for you Mr Giraffe: bang, there, I've killed you. I have so much respect for you Hippo mate: bang, I've killed you. ... No, I don't get it.)

It’s hard to avoid the logic that to monsters such as this accountant and her dentist buddy, a war fought for no reason other than the hunt, would be seen by them as communing with mankind, or some such rot.

Indeed, her final comment – in the context she has paid money and made a ten hour flight to stalk the animal concerned before killing it with primitive bow and arrow - has me wondering:

'Giraffes are very dangerous animals. They could hurt you seriously very quickly.

Is psychosis the right word? These monstrous dreks who are communing with their inner-psychotic bring to my mind another definition – retardation:

(Psychiatry) psychiatry the slowing down of mental functioning … [snip] … Impaired intellectual development.

Posted by at 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)