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.

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Sorry, But Irresponsible People Breeding Generational Poverty Is Annoying Me, Jacinda.

Spot what is wrong from the first two sentences of this Stuff piece:

A Christchurch couple and five of their six children are living in a relative's sleepout as they struggle to find a place to live. 

Anne Bovey and her partner AJ McIlroysay say landlords reject them because they are both on a benefit and have a poor credit rating. 

Six children on two benefits.

That story is ostensibly about the earthquakes and the housing crisis.

That story has nothing to do with earthquakes and the housing crisis.

That story is about monumental irresponsibility, and this Gulag of Welfarism in which an Arrogance of Altruists in the Fortress of Legislation forces me to pay for it. Watch the kids repeat mom and dad.

Too angry to write more. But if you have a 100% secured fortune, have a big family; personally, I think you're nuts, but fine: if not, just have a responsible sized family, and further, having children is not compulsory.

When Jacinda starts rabbiting (excuse the extended pun) on about tax evaders, show her to this thread, because why would responsible people want to encourage the callousness of this; really, what chance do these children have? This is the argument that tax mitigation and even evasion is the responsible, moral path – though of course I’m not recommending it, as we live in the Surveillance Police-State, this post will be assessed by the hive mind, and those found wanting (not to ‘give’ enough at the gun of government) will be destroyed by the bureaucrats - for the hive minders', please read my disclaimer at the bottom of this blog. It’s a world where morality has been turned upside down, and society in chasing the common good, is eating itself … yet again.

Don't worry about taxpayers trying to stop this nonsense, Jacinda, and protect their property. Don't worry about benefit abuse, as you say, in the scheme of things it's nothing; worry about benefit use - there's the problem, and your every policy will grow that use, and suck innocent, hard-working, risk-taking taxpayers dry to pay for it, while stripping them of their privacy, and right to be left alone. It's not good enough. This tax slave demands to be free of you, but, of course, that's the last thing you can allow on your election bribes, isn't it.

(And where is the reporting of the why? Why have you both had six children on not a low income, on no income? No, actually, on my income.)

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Charter Schools: Individualism Versus the New Zealand School Curriculum.

… it became evident that the only historical revolution with any verve left in it, or any example to offer others, was the American one.

Christopher Hitchens: Hitch-22

Even if charter schools prove to produce no better educational outcomes in reading, writing and arithmetic, they are essential philosophically because they represent what is quickly becoming a revolutionary concept in the West: individual, individually tailored, free choice.

The concept of individualism, on which classical liberalism is built, can broadly be separated into two parts; constitutional-political, and creative-entrepreneurial, and traced back to two antecedents, in the form of those only two revolutions, first of the mind, and then as Hitchen’s reminds us, of the people, that left long-lasting good. From the seventeenth century that questioning by free men of every edict and every authority that is known to us as the Enlightenment, which raised man up by his reason and threw off the shackles of tyrants - albeit the French took it a tad too far; and from the eighteenth century, that remarkable good flowing from the American revolution, which President Obama is currently printing, borrowing and spending the final breath from. Both these revolutions had led to that economic system of individualism, laissez faire capitalism, that raised the living standards for those of us living in the West to such a height it appears to have produced its own demise in the form of pampered humans who are destroying every principle gained by the blood of free men to replicate the rotten principles and evil ethic of those alternate revolutions of forced altruism in Russia and China which in enforcing equality, fairness, and social justice, missed them entirely, and caused only enslavement, death, and human misery.

Over and over, the importance of individualism as the foundation of a free and peaceful society, must be reiterated against the dictates of those choice-destroyers in our mobocracy who would force us to be sacrificed to the(ir) common good: a conceptual individualism is why we once had the freedoms being daily legislated away from us in Wellingrad.

(1) Constitutional individualism in the political sphere.

I simply quote a previous post:

… the common good has been the battle cry of almost every tyrant throughout history. The common good has been so important, apparently, that hundreds of millions of individuals over the twentieth century had to be exterminated or killed by the state for it. We should have learned from the resulting bloodbath that rights cannot attach to a collective, and when you try to, you open the gates to tyranny and atrocity. That same common good is currently being used in Christchurch to usurp private property rights on a breath-taking scale. Just as the common good is used as the excuse to steal the property and effort of productive individuals while making those individuals victims to a department of state with literally the powers of the Orwellian police state. To be meaningful, and cause no harm through the fist of state, rights can and must only attach to individuals. A society must only base itself on protecting the smallest minority: the rights and property of an individual (especially from the abuse of state).

In this way we have a constitutional individualism won in the American Revolution, in contradistinction to those gulags such as the Soviets had to endure, where law-making was the legal enactment of the common good – noting that planned totalitarian menace is what our social democracies are slowly devolving down to: regulation, tax, plain packaging; the sacrifice of our liberty to the needs of complete strangers, to whom our free will is first bent, then taken from us.

(2) Individualism as Creativity, Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

A laissez faire capitalist economy, and therefore our standard of living, turns on entrepreneurial innovation; the same human impulse of artistic creativity which provides a depth of meaning to our existence. By individualistic creativity I don’t mean, in this instance, wanton, emoting self-expression; many of the brats I see could do with a deal less of that, and a bit more discipline; save me from, as Harold Rosenberg aptly termed it, ‘the herd of independent minds’, but rather as George Orwell, well versed in the ways of the police state, said:

... Modern literature is essentially an individual thing. It is either the truthful expression of what one man thinks and feels, or it is nothing. As I say, we take this notion for granted, and yet as soon as one puts it into words one realizes how literature is menaced. For this is the age of the totalitarian state, which does not and probably cannot allow the individual any freedom whatever. When one mentions totalitarianism one thinks immediately of Germany, Russia, Italy, but I think one must face the risk that this phenomenon is going to be world-wide. It is obvious that the period of free capitalism is coming to an end and that one country after another is adopting a centralized economy that one can call Socialism or state capitalism according as one prefers. With that the economic liberty of the individual, and to a great extent his liberty to do what he likes, to choose his own work, to move to and fro across the surface of the earth, comes to an end. Now, till recently the implications of this were not foreseen. It was never fully realized that the disappearance of economic liberty would have any effect on intellectual liberty. Socialism was usually thought of as a sort of moralized liberalism. The state would take charge of your economic life and set you free from the fear of poverty, unemployment and so forth, but it would have no need to interfere with your private intellectual life. Art could flourish just as it had done in the liberal-capitalist age, only a little more so, because the artist would not any longer be under economic compulsions. Now, on the existing evidence, one must admit that these ideas have been falsified.

Unfortunately all is gone. A constitutional individualism has been suffocated by bleeding heart collectivism, and creativity and innovation are being lost to a writer’s block of bureaucracy, taxation and ‘you must do this, you must wear this, you mustn’t smoke that, better tax that it’s not good for you, no don’t take that risk dear, the taxpayer shouldn’t bear the cost if it, this women with the IQ of a rabbit has ten kids you have to look after them …’

And at the root of it, explanation for why this essential, civilising ethic of individualism, and classical liberalism, have been defeated in New Zealand, as it has in the West, is that the minds of our young are captured, each generation, by those foot soldiers of bounded-liberty, teachers, 95% of whom are signed up Borg of the PPTA, impaling us all on that confounded founding document of statism, the New Zealand School Curriculum. I quote:


To be encouraged, modelled, and explored

Values are deeply held beliefs about what is important or desirable. They are expressed through the ways in which people think and act.

Every decision relating to curriculum and every interaction that takes place in a school reflects the values of the individuals involved and the collective values of the institution.


Students will be encouraged to value:

  • equity, through fairness and social justice
  • community and participation for the common good.

There it goes: direct from the Soviet Union and into our curriculum, written in the blood of those shot trying to scale that bloodied wall between East and West Berlin, or otherwise trying to escape their grey, plain packaged lives behind the Iron Curtain. Whereas individual based law promotes a peaceful freedom and prosperity, laws around the common good always devolve to a slavery forced violently – just look at the Tax Administration Act if you want proof of this.

Too many of the Arrogance of Altruists in the Fortress of Legislation whom think they have a mob’s sanction to rule over me, of those who fill our bureaucracies, and finally the PPTA, a union conducting an all-out campaign with my tax money – because that’s where teachers wages come from -  to deny parents the choice of charter schools in order they keep their monopoly of a child’s mind, grew up with this group-think taught to them, as they now teach it: and there are not enough left questioning the evil at the heart of it, as the flame of the Enlightenment is extinguished in more complete a sense than Hitler, Stalin et al ever managed, because it’s been hard wired onto each child’s mind, and people now take sacrifice of everything good in the pursuit of happiness, to the bloodied altar of the common good, as axiomatic. Per by blog by-line, Gramsci won, and turning it back one mind at a time is not enough, the western state lurches ever more quickly toward planned lives, not free ones.

So liberty is lost in this unenlightened age, though regardless, to the PPTA I say, no one has said charter schools are to be compulsory, they will exist alongside the state school system, so if your ethic is worthy, the teachers you represent so needed and consented to by parents, then you don't need the force of government to defend yourselves against the competition of ideas represented by the choice that parents will have with charter schools. Why are you so against choice and the voluntary society?

Charter schools must exist, and only as the first rear guard action in the dismantling of the state. If I have a complaint, in every piece of literature I read on them, I keep seeing a charter school is still a partnership with the State … we need to grow up way beyond that, for as W. Hayden Boyers writes of the common good, look what we have done to ourselves (hat tip Café Hayek):

Unquestionably, simple out-and-out plunder is so clearly unjust as to be repugnant to us; but, thanks to the motto, all for one, we can allay our qualms of conscience.  We impose on others the duty of working for us.  Then, we arrogate to ourselves the right to enjoy the fruits of other men’s labor.  We call upon the state, the law, to enforce our so-called duty, to protect our so-called right, and we end in the fantastic situation of robbing one another in the name of brotherhood.  We live at other men’s expense, and then call ourselves heroically self-sacrificing for so doing.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Chester Borrows & Beneficiary Fraud - Calm Down Jacinda.

Chester Borrows brought in new measures yesterday to battle benefit fraud in New Zealand, including the ability to prosecute partners (in crime) of welfare fraudsters. However, the day became most marked by how Labour tried so hard to make us all look the other way. The chief diversionary tactic was exemplified by MP Jacinda Ardern, confusing two completely separate topics, asking why Borrows wasn’t so ruthless over hunting down and shooting tax evaders. Twitter was alight with how Chester Borrows was beneficiary bashing, why wasn’t he going for tax evaders, why wasn’t he going for bankers, one tweeter wanted to know why he wasn’t taking down the HSBC.

Let me dispel some of the confusion for the Emptiness (new collective noun) of Airheads that’s is becoming the chief voting block in New Zealand:

Q: Why did Borrows bring in new measures to bash beneficiaries with, not tax evaders and banker wankers?

A: Because he’s Associate Minister of Social Development. It is Minister Dunne who would bring in measures against tax evaders, etc and so forth. (This stuff is not hard). It would be no more likely or appropriate he brought in measures against these other groups, than introduce health reforms.

Q: Why is Borrows bashing beneficiaries?

A: He’s not. He’s merely attacking benefit fraudsters. If laws attacking benefit fraud are beneficiary bashing, then laws attacking shop lifting are shopper bashing. To make this mistake, the Emptiness must believe that all beneficiaries are fraudsters?

But my main gripe is with Jacinda who in her heart of hearts – because she doesn’t use her head at all – plainly believes that every businessman owes beneficiaries their living, and every businessman is a tax evader.

First, beneficiaries and tax evaders aren’t even comparable, Jacinda: it’s like comparing thieves to apples. Beneficiaries who are playing the system are living off the effort of others, and are happy to see honest taxpayers have their property, including earnings, and privacy stripped from them by force so they can live parasitically. Tax mitigators are free men and women living by their own means, trying to protect what is theirs – their property – from out of control politicians who have no morality at all.

You know, in ending, around the time of the American Revolution, the only revolution that has had lasting good, tax evaders were called heroes and the champions of liberty. The Jacinda’s of this world champion only Soviet styled slavery. And as for her ludicrous statement that New Zealand’s Secret Police force, IRD, aren’t going after tax evaders, I can only assume Jacinda is clueless as to what shock and awe powers her Arrogance of Altruists in Wellingrad have given them: and on this she has no excuse, because I spelled those powers out directly to her last October, and the proof of how they are used to destroy honest taxpayers, from half way down this post.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

The Media & Hekia Parata: Christchurch School Closures

This is not a post about the Christchurch school closures, indeed, because I’m against state education given the New Zealand Curriculum Document has for a long time been our founding document of statism (the middle paragraph of my blog by-line above shows the disaster of this), I don’t think we need a Minister of Education. Putting that to one side, this post concerns the infantile behaviour of the mainstream media, and how badly served we are by it.

Ele Ludemann has put a good post up about the School Closures this morning, all I want to put on this post is the comment I put on her post – well, amended to what I wished I’d said originally:

I’m growing respect for Hekia Parata ... And as for the newscasters, John Campbell last night, and I see Rachel Smalley this morning, trying to brow-beat [the Minister] to extract a ‘sorry’ from her, that’s infantile, and not the role of media, which is to extract the relevant information and present it to me. News broadcasting is not a confessional; by trying to get a sorry, you’re putting yourselves in the role of some sort of moral arbiter of morality proper: the minster is doing her job, with 95% of teachers signed up to the teacher union, she’s never going to do anything they agree with and they’ll politicise every damned thing, and you are pandering to that, giving you the look of having an agenda (the PPTA’s – so do I now need to view charter school reporting by you through a filter?); you’re newscasters, stick to reading from the prompter, and please bugger off with the emoting nonsense, or put it on your blogs.