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, October 29, 2015

If You Support The Voluntary Transactions of Capitalism, Avoid NZ Banks. #Privacy

Quite apart from MP Judith Collins’ monstrous Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act making banking at times damned near impossible, and hugely inconvenient always, even on the simplest of transactions, (try opening a bank account for your kid), this post references the philosophical quagmire individuals find themselves in with a central banked system captured completely by the Big Brother State – and not just for the tax take, (although that moral battle was where freedom was lost).

This week political activist Nicky Hager found out what every taxpayer knows: if you’ve got a bank account, then the state has a convenient source for spying on every aspect of your life. That was when Westpac handed over all his bank transactions for a requested period directly to police, without his knowledge, or a warrant. I’m employing no hyperbole here: give me your bank transactions for a year, and there’s not much I couldn’t tell you about your life in the broad strokes, or intimately.

IRD routinely get this information from the banks - for up to four years - also without their customers knowledge; my understanding is they often go on such fishing trips initially unwarranted (albeit that’s a moot point, regardless, given obtaining such a warrant is a mere routine procedure for the Department. I wonder if there has been even a single case of a judge turning them down (bet there’s not).)

Last year I wrote how in the most cynical of political workarounds our government signed an Inter-governmental Agreement (IGA) with the United Police States of America, for all the information held by New Zealand banks on every dual US citizen (anyone with a US passport), to be sent annually first to our own IRD (because that gets this process around our Privacy Act which IRD work above), and then from IRD to IRS. This allows the US government to track all US citizens no matter where they are in the world, and makes the activities of NSA, et al, look civilised. It's notable via that IGA the godlike powers handed to our IRD are for the first time I can think of, used for a purpose that has nothing to do with our tax take -  with such a precedent set by the lawmakers, without a squeak of protest from the tax-take worshiping Left, well … That post is in my top ten and  worth a read to understand how privacy has no meaning in a political context: it simply doesn’t exist.

Thousands of dollars belonging to a charity advocating for medicinal cannabis has been returned after a bank stonewalled its moves to open an account.

United In Compassion (UIC) is a non-profit group advocating for New Zealand-based research into the therapeutic effects of cannabis-based medicines.

Kiwibank was the third bank that UIC, which has been trying to set up an account in the lead-up to a national symposium in April, has hit hurdles with.

On Wednesday afternoon Kiwibank agreed to release the money immediately but won't open an account for the group until compliance issues are sorted.

UIC co-founder Toni-Marie Matich approached Kiwibank for help in June and close to $5000 has been sitting in the account for the last month.

On Tuesday a Kiwibank manager told Matich he wasn't sure whether the account would be approved.

Initially the bank stalled over validating all the trustees but after each one spent hours in their local Kiwibank branch filling out forms Matich thought the green light would be given.

Matich's daughter, Monique, suffers from intractable epilepsy - a seizure disorder that cannot be controlled with conventional medicine.

Although here’s the killer paragraph – if you don’t understand how monstrous this is, then you are beyond hope, as is the banking system:

Matich said both she and her business partner, Damas Manderson, had been told by the same Kiwibank manager that there were moral and ethical concerns about the account being set up.

There’s no other logical viewpoint to hold, anymore, than that to support the ethos which made the West the pinnacle human civilisation once reached, the ethos that is the beating heart of capitalism, namely, the voluntary transaction, then you must avoid New Zealand banks. They’re not instruments of capitalism, they’re instruments used routinely by authority in the long-lost war of the individual to be free of the rampant state. Think of your bank account like a telephone, that's been hacked, with a bureaucrat listening to everything said. Twenty first century, meet twentieth century.

And politicians wonder why Bitcoin has captured the imaginations of the free …

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Today's Letter to the Editor - Christchurch Press | Euthanasia

To the naysayers against euthanasia – including Chris O’Brien (28/10/15) - you will find not one instance of abuse of euthanasia in the jurisdictions it is legal. Your generalised surmisings of abuse with no factual proof is scurrilous fear mongering and offensive. And you all conveniently forget euthanasia will be voluntary (with many safeguards). You can still choose to die suffering if you wish, but to seek to assert others do so, due to your beliefs, is selfish, arrogant and without compassion. The NZMA does not represent all doctors. The NZMA’s sophistry they are against euthanasia, yet it is ethical to administer a pain killing regime (successful or not) that hastens death, is negligent. We self-manage our health issues throughout our lives; the choice of euthanasia, if desired, merely the end of that process. Let’s grow up.

Mark Hubbard, Geraldine.

[142 Words.]

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Mils Muliaina and Reversing the Burden of Proof in Sexual Assault Cases.

Mils Muliania should be able to sue the Welsh police for the harm they have done him. The judge hearing his sexual assault case has thrown it out, and on the face of the reportage, I find it incredible this former All Black has had his life, and reputation, shredded over the last seven months on the basis of this:

 Proceedings in Wales have ended because the Cardiff Crown Court ruled there was insufficient evidence, and no realistic prospect of a conviction.

Muliaina, 35, had been charged with sexually assaulting a 19-year-old woman in Cardiff in March.

His defence counsel, John Charles Rees, said the Crown's case was "outrageous".

He said the allegation was that the complainant's bottom had been fleetingly touched [outside her trousers] on a busy nightclub dancefloor.

Muliaina was later [publicly with TV cameras in attendance] arrested by police moments after a cup match before being charged with sexual assault.

Speaking outside the court, Muliaina said the past seven months have been difficult for him and his family.

"While I understand the police have a job to do, the manner in which I was arrested I find difficult to understand.

"I can still hold my head up high and, as the judge said, this is no stain on my character. I have always known that I did not do anything wrong.

"I don't even know the woman and I don't know what happened, but I wasn't the person who had done what she said had happened."

I have written previously on how identity feminism (as opposed to a feminism based on individualism) has the agenda of reversing the burden of proof in sexual assault cases such as this, and further, that women making false rape complaints are not prosecuted (noting I’m not saying ‘this’ was a false complaint, but certainly a wrong-headed one. Although, to invite censorious condemnation on my head, this public demolition of a prominent 'male' for a 'fleetingly' touched bottom in a nightclub - really?) ... Matters of scale and gravity in Muliaina's case aside, if won, this reversal of proof will destroy the hard fought for principle that justice is best served by innocent until proven guilty, and turn our legal system into a mechanism for vendetta (by social justice thugs) and politicking.

Worse, this notion, along with the concomitant concept there be no right to silence in such cases, has been given oxygen way too high up in the current government, including Prime Minister Key.

There is one other field in our modern tax surveillance states where the burden of proof is reversed against the individual: taxation. IRD assess you, and it’s your job to prove them wrong. This is a system loaded toward the state, where individuals are on the back foot, with few resources (compared to the entire tax-pool turned against them), and consequently over the last fifteen or so years IRD haven’t lost an important, precedent setting tax avoidance case. And that has meant everything is tax avoidance now, pretty much wherever the taxpayer is not paying the maximum quantum of tax. The standard of classical liberalism we had in the Commonwealth protecting us from this abuse by a rampant state, the Westminster Principle, is destroyed at the enfeebled hands of a judiciary captured by Gramsci from their earliest state-schooled infancy who firmly believe that property in your effort and income vests in the state, not you individually.

This is a vicious dystopia. Because turn Muliaina’s burden of proof around to the Welsh police simply being able to have charged he touched her bottom, and rather than they have to prove he did, he has to prove he didn’t - how well would he have got on then? This would be playing out differently, and not in the cause of truth and justice.

We need to find our way back to individualism, because the foundations of the next Western gulags are clearly visible.

Related Reading (Not Linked in Source Post):

Retrieving Roger Sutton's Corpse from the Cross of Shesus.

Monday, October 19, 2015

Health Minister Jonathan Coleman Stand Down Please – Obesity to the Police State.

Nanny statism has its strongest foothold in the Health Ministry (and medical commissariat at Dunedin University). Our Big Brother of Health, Jonathan Coleman, has spent the last year coming up with this:

More than 60 per cent of pregnant women gain more weight than is recommended, which has implications for a child's weight later in life.

It's the reason the Government will be targeting women in the perinatal stage - before and after birth - as part of a major programme to hone the growing waistlines of New Zealanders.

Health Minister Jonathan Coleman has confirmed he will announce his package - nearly a year in the making - later on Monday. 

Launching the policy this afternoon, he told RadioLive:

Well done Jonathan, thanks to you being clueless on history you’ve re-invented totalitarianism.

I know your worry is that fatties, like smokers, are a drain on public health, but even were that true it is only the argument for privatising health so individuals reap the consequences of their life choices. But you’re not even right: a long range Dutch study conclusively shows that fatties and smokers are less cost on a public health system as they die early and quickly (example, heart attacks), whereas the humourless devotees of long-lived low calorie lives linger on to stink up the place, having more points of contact with the health system, and dying of long-lasting, expensive diseases such as dementia, cancer, et al.

So the fatties are saving us money. Which is why every excise on alcohol, tobacco and soon, sugar and fat, is wrong headed from the get-go.

Please, enough is enough; go rent a chilling, but superb movie called The Lives of Others - you're in it - have a wee lie down, then hand in your badge. You’re a menace to my freedom.