Sir Owen Glenn: A Demonstration of Entitlement: It’s Getting Vicious Out There.

Quoting my last post, ‘…There is nothing more evil than state created dependency, and my next post will show how quickly, and how viciously, such dependency turns into entitlement.’

With the final paragraph of my above blug by-line in mind, below is a demonstration of how the slouching ethic of state coerced welfarism leads so totally to an entitlement mentality that bites off the hand of the benefactor. (And which is, therefore, bloody discourteous.)

Philanthropist Sir Owen Glenn is spending $80 million on projects aimed at ending family violence and child abuse in New Zealand. This post is not concerned with the prudence of such an endeavour, or whether throwing money at men who beat up their wives and children is going to solve any damned thing; I am concerned in this instance with Glenn’s inarguable generosity, and so the startling reaction of a young man in the below TV 3 clip to Glenn’s current hiccup over getting the promised funds out of his family trust – (noting the big lesson here to those readers with family trusts, but that’s not my topic either).

The clip can be seen here: listen to the young man speaking from 31 seconds into the clip, although I find the opening wording of the piece by the newscaster ill-advised as well.

Here’s the transcription of the relevant portion, which I’m translating from the man’s Pidgin English:

“I just don’t know what to say, it’s not fair, aaee, Owen Glenn give us the money, let’s use it; living in Otara, it’s hard.”

Note the nonsense use of ‘fair’ again, he’s obviously heard at least one political speech - the lad is frighteningly some sort of youth organiser, after all - but ‘Owen Glenn give us the money’ is entitlement speaking. That demand needs to be corrected: ‘Owen Glenn give us your money’. What doesn’t entitlement-man-youth-organiser understand about this being Glenn’s money, and that Glenn has some ‘technical’ problems that are beyond his control before he can continue giving it to ‘Otara’?

Everything that led this surly, foolish, and the most damning adjective of them all, non-thinking, young man to say this about a well-intentional benefactor, with his automatic assumption of Glenn’s property to be his own, and his ridiculous righteous anger at it not being handed over fast enough, explains, in a resonant way that exists below his destruction of English, the birth of abuse and the harm that new collective noun, the Arrogance of Altruists, have spurned on the once free West. Already it's not your money, Sir Owen, it's his. No, it’s Otara’s. Already you aren't his compassionate benefactor, you are, apparently, a greedy bastard denying him/Otara what belongs to them as of right. It’s the ethic of generation-text, and throughout this piece, wherever I’ve written benefactor, I could have substituted taxpayer.

This is the anti-mind produced by the welfare state, and there is no hope for the society that has destroyed a mind to this extent. For, as I’ve been intimating up to this point, it’s worse.

It’s not just what this young man is saying; it’s how he’s saying it. How do we have young people leaving a school system sounding like this: his manner of expressing himself says ‘don’t employ me, there’s nothing happening up top’. And it’s widespread.  I see clips on the news weekly of this murder and that maiming, and the inevitable witness interview is too often given in this Pidgin English, frequently much worse than this example, and I can barely understand what the witness is saying, despite their first language is probably English. It’s the null mind, and it’s come from our state education system, though not so much the fault of the education system itself, but the welfare breeding program that feeds the hopeless, unwilling participants into it.

State education, I’m still trying to get to that post, and that statist founding document of New Zealand, the New Zealand School Curriculum, but returning to the murders and maimings - noting the inevitable connection to family violence and child abuse - I’ve already lost count at only the 12^th of February, 2013, how many murders and maimings there have been so far this year. Snap question, you answer it: how many? Let me hypothesise, loosely, that contributing to that is this man’s entitlement mentality, and the uneducated, null-minded blunt way he has over demanding Glenn hand over the dosh.

My advice to Sir Owen Glenn - save your $80 million; in the space of one and a half A4 pages, I may well have half figured out already the wellspring of abuse. To the young man in the clip, you don't need $80 million to stop abuse, just once you partner up, don't whack the kids or the spouse. ‘Think about shit, before you do shit – that would be gr8.’ And if you don't think you can trust yourself, don't have children; it's not mandatory. Solving family violence is actually that easy, only the solution is the deconstruction of the welfare state, and the change of enough individual minds to allow that to be voted on, so outside the nation-wide bankruptcy profligate politicians have brought on Europe and the US thus far, it probably won’t happen in New Zealand in my lifetime, because tens of thousands of individuals following their rational self-interest wisely decided a major part of this country’s economy would be based on feeding the world by capitalism, more efficiently than any other country can thanks to deregulation of agriculture through the late 80’s and early 90’s,  and it’s serving us well through hard times, with the welfare state not quite syphoning enough off, yet, to close New Zealand Inc  down.

Yet. Yet. Yet. All bets are off from the election in 2014, when statists ramp up the lolly scramble again from the playground of my wallet and bank accounts.

Footnote:

Or am I wrong?

How representative is this young man? Or are the MSM reporters going out just looking for ‘him’ and thus giving the viewing/reading public a distorted view of the reality that is out there?

Again: Capitalism is Not a Zero-Sum Game… One for the Unionists. The Gulag of Redistribution & Equality.

Several days ago Julie Fairey – ‘Feminist, blogger, unionist, leftie, local body politician’ - tweeted:

Julie Fairey ‏@juliefairey

Are we ok with being a society where some people can buy $27 ea velvet covered coathangers & others can't afford to eat? :(

I replied:

Mark Hubbard ‏@MarkHubbard33

@juliefairey #Disconnect One's who can afford the coathangers r not the cause of the one's who can't eat. Redistrib. does not fix problem.

Or, to translate tweeterese to my farming readership:

You have a disconnect in that statement, Julie. Those who can afford coat-hangers are not the cause of those who can’t afford to eat, there is no connection, and so a forced redistribution from the coat-hanger buyers, because that's what you're really advocating in this tweet, will fix none of the underlying problems that gets someone to a point they have no money for food.

A capitalist transaction, a voluntary transaction, as with a capitalist relationship (employer/employee), is never mutually exclusive, that is, if one gains, the other doesn’t lose. Both parties gain value. Moreover, when that value is a mismatch, then either party is free to walk away, unlike when dealing with statists and government. If I buy a car, the vendor gets his profit, and I get the value a car gives me. If I work for an employer, I get my wage, she (see what I did there? Julie’s a feminist ;) ) gets my service. If I have $27 I can buy a coat-hanger with, far from denying someone $27 to buy food, I've given a coat-hanger vendor a profit to feed themself with.

Unfortunately, those against the free market, and thus myself, or you, living a free life, do not understand this most basic point about capitalism, and worse, use this misunderstanding to then sanction state force and a society built upon the immorality of ‘a’ theft repeated over and over daily against every producer. It always takes my breath away at how casually and glibly statists just sail right over that crucial theft.

‘Look, that man,’ they emote, ‘has two dollars, and that man has nothing: it’s self-evident, we can ignore context, that ‘rick prick’- so says our former finance minister - must be forced to give that other bloke a buck.’

It’s the bloodied altar of the common good again, and the social contract .

Café Hayek has a great Thomas Sowell quotation up today:

For the currently less fortunate members of society, the costs of envy can be especially high when it misdirects their conceptions and energies.  Where poorer people are lacking in human capital – skills, education, discipline, foresight – one of the sources from which they can acquire these things are more prosperous people who have more of these various forms of human capital.  This may happen directly through apprenticeship, advice, or formal tutelage, or it may happen indirectly through observation, reflection, and imitation.  However, all these ways of advancing out of poverty can be short-circuited by an ideology of envy that attributes the greater prosperity of others to “exploitation” of people like themselves, to oppression, to bias, or unworthy motives such as “greed,” racism, and the like.

Charity and benevolence are noble, if I choose to voluntarily give that man a buck, fine, and in doing so note how I will be motivated to find out more of his circumstances, and what has led him to this so I can perhaps help him fix the underlying problem. However, if that man knows the government will extort from me by force his buck, then he may well feel no compunction to change his life, for he has a free lunch, on me, for as long as he likes. There is nothing more evil than state created dependency, and my next post will show how quickly, and how viciously, such dependency turns into entitlement.

But for this post, I only want to say that Julie’s redistribution, far from solving poverty, by destroying voluntary relationships, and by distorting free markets - that mechanism that has raised the living standards of the West more than any other civilisation in history - will make poverty worse by promoting a lethal, degrading dependency, and lead us all down the road to our serfdom in the Gulag of Force Altruism: to this extent, Julie belongs to that Arrogance of Altruists who believes they know how to spend your hard earned money better than you do, and that they have the right to do so.

Mr Sowell is correct about the envy at the heart of this, and envy truly is the route of evil in our society: our modern day mobocracy turns on it – and will turn on you, if you don’t cough up your alms.

And I might have thought your feminism, Julie, would have found the type of oppression you promote, repugnant. Cast aside those shackles you would place your sisters in, and walk toward the reasoned light of an individual’s freedom from you.  [Fade out to 'Man, I Feel Like a Woman', by Shania Twain ...]

Campbell Live, Christchurch Rentals, Children, Dogs, Tattoos and Cannabis.

A theme of this blog is that we’re living in a semi-police-surveillance state (ie, welfare state), because people are emoting, not thinking about life, and Campbell Live’s piece on Christchurch last night was proof of this as well as the MSM emoting on issues again.

I would normally let The Cactus get the hate mail from the obligatory post below, but she must have missed the program.  Last night's show was centred on how a family would soon be out of their rental home, and couldn’t afford to find further accommodation in Christchurch, ostensibly due to the earthquakes. Let’s look at the family, objectively, with the reasoned eye of a landlord:

Dad had a low paying job  - security guard. (But, yes, at least had one).

Dad was covered in tattoos.

Mum and Dad had four, yes, four kids all under six, in my estimate.

Mum , Dad, and four kids own an Alsatian dog.

Mum and Dad haven’t been thinking.

Before the first child, get your career, or at least your own freehold home sorted so you control your destiny.  That’s the responsible thing. Four kids are hard on any property. And property ownership aside; why not just have the one child, and have the resources to give that child his or her best shot in life? Possibly two children still has a modicum of prudence, but four, in your circumstances: that was mental.

Dad, tattoos all over you like that, pretty much has destined you to low paying jobs, sorry. (See following).

And I love dogs, so let’s add to my dog ownership rules for the clueless: ‘you own a dog when you own a property’, end of; because if you own an Alsatian when you’re renting, you’ve just denied yourself ninety nine rental propositions out of every one hundred. Perhaps just buy guinea pigs, or rabbits until you own your own home.

Then the street group-shot in the piece of those complaining about Christchurch’s high rentals. I'm assuming the two women spoken to were solo mums - because it's impossible circa 2012 not to draw that conclusion anymore - with inestimable numbers of children, and yes, tattoos, everywhere, on those two women and pretty much the whole group. Good lord. Tattoos on fatty flesh overflowing pants, tattoos on hips, tattoos on tits, probably tattoos on kids, that whole fad has become so ridiculous.  When I see someone with tattoos visible all over them it tells me something:  this person’s not been thinking much, therefore, are they going to look after a landlord's property? And off topic now, plus call me reactionary, but I find tattoos aesthetically ugly: moreover, if tattoos and body piercings made people more interesting, then people with tattoos and body piercings would be more interesting. Though getting back to the Campbell Live piece, the opportunity costs of those tattoos, is how many weeks rental? And, of course, for the stereotype you’ve just bought into, vis a vis employment and rental opportunities - or rather, lack of: priceless, you'll probably never be able to afford to move beyond it.

Sorry, empathy for your children, not a lot of sympathy for the adults.

Footpiece: Re Campbell Live’s final piece on the crowd behaviour at the Sevens. Appalling, you won’t find me there. Here’s a thought, replace the vomit inducing booze culture with a cannabis culture, and the vibe at the Sevens would be great, no vomit, or angry young men and women widdling all over the carpark who can’t even stand straight. But no, Nanny State has arbitrarily - conspiracy theories about crony links to an alcohol lobby aside - decreed cannabis be illegal, even a humane medicinal use of it in hospices: it's a binge drinking, Neanderthal projectile vomiting, violent, alcohol culture we're to have. Crazy, but that's life in the Big State where you don't own your life no more, no more.

… Work time for me …

The Arbitrary State: Mark Hotchin – A Life Frozen Into Its Third Year. Reprising the Reprise.

Past time I dragged Mark Hotchin and his family into 2013. To repeat myself from 1 June, 2012:

I don't know [Finance Company director] Mark Hotchin, I'm neither defending nor attacking him: we simply owe it to ourselves to dispassionately understand the nature of the society we live in, and most of us would know what sort of a state practices detention without trial; well, a state imposed asset freeze with neither criminal trial, nor charge, for twenty two months, is a police state. When we smugly watch the nascent protests against Putin in Russia, and draw the obvious conclusions about that state, we are all missing the jackboots standing inside every room in New Zealand.

More and more I ask myself how this can happen. Every NBR and interest.co.nz thread about Hotchin is full of personal vitriol against the man, with no one seemingly able to grasp the desperate principles underneath his frozen life. I suspect it just shows how slavish as a society we have become behind the IRon Drape, in which the unprincipled hate of people laughing at the state-built gallows of their own lives, is part of the course in a country where a vigilante TV show consistently tops the weekly ratings.

In that above post I set out the definition of the arbitrary police state in which the rule of law has been voided, and how Mr Hotchin’s case proves the existence of same in New Zealand.

Mark Hotchin’s state frozen life continues into the fifth month of the third year. And worse than no trial, still not a single criminal charge has been laid – remembering from my earlier post, the only role of the state is to prosecute the criminal law here, the Financial Management Authority’s civil case, started last year, is the state moving beyond the boundaries of the free society, again, transgressing the rule of law it should be upholding, (while showing the weakness, I’m beginning to think, of any criminal case against him). Only a bureaucrat with the power of God in our state theocracy, such as Serious Fraud Office chief executive Simon McArley, can sit on his arse and take his time like this, while an individual life is held in absolute stasis, their property held from them. If Mr Hotchin’s actions as a director of Hanover Finance makes him guilty of criminal behaviour, fine, charge him, give him his day in court; in the meantime, his two year, five month, frozen life serves to underline only the state pen we all live in, our lives chained to the whim, incompetence, (and sticky fingers) of arbitrary rule.

Mind you, we already knew that with the police state powers of the IRD.

We already knew that with the actions of the Justice Minister.

The state, its pilfering and spend measuring an obscene 44% of our entire GDP, is out of control, using our money to make a gulag for us all. Free West? No.

Related Posts – Rule of Law:

The Mockery of Law: Tax Avoidance – The Immorality of Uncertainty.

Tax Avoidance and the Morality of Certainty: New Zealand and the UK.

Retrospective Enforcement & the Brutal March of the IR’s World-Wide.

Labour's David Clark Declares War on the Consumer.

Retrospective Tax Enforcement Again: IRD &Accommodation Allowances.

It’s Over: Mr Dunne Has Done Away with the Rule of Law.