ACT’s Duplicitous War on Classical Liberals | ACT the Conservative Party in Parliament.

Let me change the narrative again. Euthanasia is not an 'extreme libertarian' position, we know this because the member who almost brought in euthanasia legislation via the ballot was a Labour Party MP. What is the extreme position in this debate is the inhumane notion that we must die in sometimes excruciating, undignified circumstances because a fairy tale, angry God deems that as our lot and it's the ticket  price of that Never Never Land called Heaven, a notion every bit as insane and extreme as the 40 virgins bullshit. Yet 120 children masquerading as adults in the sandpit at Wellington seem to believe in just that, including the faux great classical liberal hope, David Seymour. 

ACT held its conference this weekend, and confirmed their status as National’s toadying conservative partner, and the enemy of the libertarian, and thus classical liberal, vote. 

My comment to Lindsay Mitchell’s broadly supportive post on ACT’s policy position, sums up where I’ve been heading since my earlier post against David Seymour’s double-cross of the libertarian vote via not endorsing a position for euthanasia on either a party or personal level:

Afraid for at least a decade I can't stand pragmatism and the 'game' of politics.

Conservatives, which Seymour most definitely is, are not classical liberals: they believe in the small state economically, but the big moral state in your face and life, often in personal issues that are bigger, for me, than the economic state (though all are linked).

I understand David Farrar spoke 'for' euthanasia at the ACT conference; Seymour, however, remains, as ever, silent, and the issue was side-lined. ACT is a (social) conservative party.

I am now a single issue voter. I see no more important right than ownership of my body, thus euthanasia, because that has to be the foundation of all rights for a classical liberal party: the individual. I will vote for any party, including Green Party, that promises euthanasia legislation for their three year term. I will totally prostitute my vote for that single issue (and related issues such as legalisation of cannabis proper, and especially medicinal cannabis).

That won't be any party with Seymour pulling the strings.

Worse, Seymour’s following statement is where pragmatism and doublespeak becomes the ruling politick, punching the face of liberty forever:

Our tribe is the standard-bearer for classical liberalism in NZ, representing a general orientation towards a defence of private property, freedom of contract and limited government.

This is by no means an extreme or pure libertarian position. Classical liberalism takes a larger and more realistic view of government.

Classical liberals believe in individualism, not ‘tribes’, David. Tribes are cleaved to by Marxist identity politickers and collectivists of all hues… remember?

And your statement against the ‘extremism of libertarianism’ is the Left’s infantile misconception of what libertarianism even is: libertarianism is in fact, via individualism and from that minarchism, synonymous with classical liberalism. Your statement is the final double cross to classical liberalism, and one swift, vulgar kick into the gonads of former ACT leader Jamie Whyte, who was ACT’s only glimmer of hope. What a shame he didn’t stand in Epsom, although, noting your premier positioning out of the conference is for a referendum on superannuation, hopefully looking to at least  means test it again, admirable in itself, but given that is the voting base you appear to be looking for, retired God-fearing oldies, strategy is not one of ACT’s strengths.

For me, any party putting euthanasia legislation down as priority policy, including their non-negotiable policy plank in coalition negotiations, gets my vote for the next general election. In the absence of any party offering this basic right, then they have my wrath, and I’m throwing my vote away on the landfill of this immoral majoritainism forced on us by social democracy. A pox on it and its petty partisan politics; its tribes that vote out of mindless subservience to the body politick, not, as a classical liberal party would, issue by issue, voting for individual volition and the dilution of the state, regardless the consensus or an MP's career prospects.

David, in neither committing your party, or worse, even yourself, to any socially liberal cause, such as euthanasia, you can go to hell, which, as you’ve buckled so readily to the God-Squad majority in ACT, you no doubt believe in. My wish for your abomination of a party is electoral oblivion, so we can clear the slate and get an actual classical liberal party from the ashes.

And finally a footnote. Let me change the narrative again. Euthanasia is not an 'extreme libertarian' position, we know this because the member who almost brought in euthanasia legislation via the ballot was a Labour Party MP. What is the extreme position in this debate is the inhumane notion that we must die in sometimes excruciating, undignified circumstances because a fairy tale God deems that as our lot and it's the price of Heaven, a notion every bit as insane and extreme as the 40 virgins bullshit. Yet 120 children masquerading as adults in the sandpit at Wellington seem to believe in just that, including the faux great classical liberal hope, David Seymour.

Update 1:

This letter to Lindsay’s thread makes a fine point backing up my own:

Anonymous said...

But I can no longer be bothered getting emotionally het up about people who take a different perpsective to mine. Unless, of course, they are socialists.

Ok. So far so good. But then Seymour says:

In short, we all know that government must respond to problems of pollution, the creation of infrastructure, of monopoly power, and raise funds through taxation

In short: ACT is socialist.

Can’t dispute that either.

ACT, National, ACT, National, ACT, National … can you see the difference? I can’t. There might be some minor differences of degree between the two, but there are no differences in principle.

.

My First Blog on Race Politics/Relations in New Zealand, & that Speech of Jamie Whyte's … Well, Maybe.

[I may soon be publishing a post that starts with this.]

 

… The Left echo chamber of Twitter is growing firmly into the opinion white men should not proffer their opinions, with this perversely being the opinion particularly of the lefty white men giving their opinion on white men having opinions on Twitter. I'm sick of that type of childishness, so here I am for the first time posting my thoughts on racial politics and race relations in New Zealand, a discussion until this point I’ve deliberately stayed out of – and for the reasons written on, below, not because of the opinion against the giving of opinions by the opinionated lefty white men on Twitter.

 

Be warned, this post is the worst written, biggest (9,000+ words), most rambling, at times incoherent, self-centred post I’ve ever published, and is in main part a frustrating failure, yet, because personally seminal I’m putting it up for general ridicule. You will read how I started out riding the ethereal wings of epiphany, before crashing back to an earth as hard as reason, unable to get to the point I wanted, despite struggling over and over, trying to reconcile via goodwill, contradictions that could not be reconciled. In the final analysis, I couldn’t get over myself, although ironically the political notion I started out with remained, because it came from that set of principles I do understand: freedom.

 

So, in a post so conflicted it reflects the subject perfectly, to all sides of the race debate, prepare to be, pending your disposition, challenged – I hope - or offended – if you must. The following was written over a two week period, and is put up, in defeat, almost unedited.

 

[Roughly mid-way through that post I write this:]

 

“I have by this point, while thinking I am following a logical argument, somehow ended up within the internecine machinations of another argument altogether. … [Snip.] ...  Let me reiterate (for myself) that the reason for Maori self-determination is an end unto itself: whether Maori want it because they believe it will better the outcomes for Maori is irrelevant if considered the aim is to live defined by their own ‘culture’ as the indigenous people of New Zealand. This was the discovered knowledge I started so optimistically from. I’ve become derailed throughout this piece, and more than once, by that whole welfare motif again – bloody Marxism. I don’t seem able to think myself out of that because the debate over Maori self-determination as appropriated by the Left politick in New Zealand, constantly resets the race debate back to a solution based one founded in socialism: redistribution. … [Snip.]

 

Indeed, two great disservices have been dealt to Maori by the Marxists. First they captured the debate on ‘things-Maori’ and monetised it to the welfare tax surveillance state in a way that not only alienated classical libs like myself, but blinded us – as absurd as that seems in after-thought, and certainly as it would seem to Maori - to the truth of Maori self-determination – that is, it is a worthy end in itself if that is what Maori want. Secondly, the Marxists inveigled in via the generational destruction of a child’s mind in the state school system, the socialist state which by its very nature cannot allow Maori self-determination any more than it can allow my own, individual self-determination. My blog essentially has the single governing theme: self-determination as opposed to living as a plaything of the state.

 

[Ultimately, this is one of the at least three conclusions I end with.]

 

The irony is that for Maori to achieve self-determination we will all need a Western Spring to reclaim classical liberalism and the minarchist free society in which choices are available. That said, noting the legitimacy of the Treaty, and with the contradictory meanderings through my feelings (if not thoughts) regarding tangata whenua, toward the opinion Maori politics, and certainly the concept of identity, is not as simple or similar as classical libs would like to think, I wish Jamie had not played the race card this election. Yes, I realise tactically it might get him the percentage he needs in that dirty game called politics, but I would rather have a classical liberal party to vote for that was not actively out there cynically pushing the buttons of the red-necks – let the Conservatives and NZ First do that.

 

[Not sure when or whether this post will go up; you can read Life Behind the IRon Drape and won't be much the wiser about my life, certainly my wife – which would be a quick way to strife - nor my family, but this post necessitated just a slight bit more than that, so I'm weighing and wondering if I am exercising the required good judgement to let it go live in that vicious place known as the political blogosphere. Stay tuned, though it may be a week or two more …

 

For now, I’ll end my teaser post pondering this interesting piece questioning why none of America’s most prominent libertarian writers or commentators have yet written on the shooting of innocent teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, USA – the town now virtually under martial law after rioting – for the crime only of walking to his grandmother’s house, when that shooting and the increasing militarisation of the US police hits on so many libertarian themes regarding the out-of-control state. Which has me thinking about the libertarian writings of the time (or not) in New Zealand on the Tuhoe raids, for which police just this week have apologised. Might be more than 9,000 words. And yes, in this paragraph I’ve just confused issues of ethnicity and identity, the subjects of the debate on Maori self-determination, with another quite different topic, skin colour and racism, but that confusion itself speaks to one strand of my thought in the (maybe) coming post. And no, I didn't just say libertarians are racist ... this stuff is complicated.]

 

 

Insulting the Rich for Giving, and the Culture that Spawns this. (Hattip Lindsay Mitchell.)

If you haven’t got Lindsay Mitchell’s blog bookmarked then you should: Lindsay is the first go-to for clearing the fog of propaganda and statistics abuse used to justify and build New Zealand’s welfare state. Over Saturday she posted an intelligent piece written by Helen Rittelmeyer of the Centre of Independent Studies which analysed the, at best, deceptive, and at worst, fraudulent, use of statistics in a Sydney Morning Herald op-ed with the overt socialist agenda of hyping, against the facts, a myth that only low income earners have a sense of community, and a further myth that the rich are essentially miserly and only using charity as a tax dodge. The analysis on Rittelmeyer’s post is an important read if for no other reason than to understand how deceitful the editorial stance of MSM outlets like the SMH are, and how they’re emoting the news, with that agenda, not intelligently presenting it factually to their readers.

It is also important to understand the second-hander culture that allows such shabbiness and lies, and inculcates it into the tyranny of the majority voting us all into the prison of each other’s minds. It’s not the free, but the fallen West:

@dyslexialady1 People who strive to better themselves (then others philanthropically) can't win in a statist culture that says they 1/x
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) March 14, 2014

@dyslexialady1 ... should only have been left with a 'living wage' the rest of their wealth/income taken from them by the state to pay 2/x
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) March 14, 2014

@dyslexialady1 ... the 'living wage' of everyone else :) We're well down the road to serfdom.
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) March 14, 2014

Coincidentally I read the piece on Lindsay’s blog after first reading about this couple who are in the process of giving $100 million to environmental and educational initiatives in New Zealand, and you can bet there are elements of the Left who without so much as a thank you, will scorn them for having that wealth in the first place. As much as I don’t want my life run by the Tories, there is a much too sizeable portion of the Left who are just plain cynical and nasty.

And while we’re on the topic of how according to the Left ethic such wealth should have been forcibly taken from this couple by the tax surveillance state so they couldn’t have the arrogance of redistributing according to their own philosophy, rather than the dictates of state, in response to David Cunliffe’s dreadful and mistake laden speech on how he’s going to destroy us economically (because we’ve already been destroyed philosophically), a personal note:

Oh, @DavidCunliffeMP knows my balance sheet so well he believes I can pay more tax. Well fuck you too David #DontTellMumIUsedThatWord
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) March 14, 2014

As ACT leader, Jamie Whyte, rightly points out in this weekend’s NBR:

David Cunliffe yesterday gave a speech to the New Zealand Initiative, an economics think tank. The talk outlined the Labour Party’s economic policy. It displayed so much economic confusion that it will take several posts to get through it all.

Follow Jamie’s critique in the NBR over the next few weeks, as I hope he drives home what a dangerous man Cunliffe would be should he storm the sandpit and grab all the toys at the Fortress of Legislation this coming election. I'm worried about this one; my opening allusion was to the fog of war in which the first casualty is truth, and that's the case in the West currently. There's a war on for peoples minds, which can only be won one at a time, and until that time, a new Enlightenment, there will always be enough voters to put a Cunliffe or a Russel in power.

Finally, this blog will only ever be partisan to the philosophy and the economics that derive logically of classical liberalism, never to a political party, but regarding this year’s general election in New Zealand, and Jamie Whyte, I’ll close this post by repeating one of my comments from that NBR thread:

 

… I'm finding it so refreshing finally seeing a true classical liberal ethic from a leader of a NZ political party which has a chance of getting seats, and though I don't believe Jamie is carrying anything like all of ACT with him, which is the past has been ruled by conservatism, great to see the liberal in classical liberal being accentuated in other of Jamie's writings. (And the wonderful contradiction of seeing the Left rush to pillory a man who is far more liberal than the bigoted Left can ever be.)

 

My Comment on the Childishness Surrounding the Debacle over Jamie Whyte's Incest Statement

As I've commented on Carrie Stoddart-Smith's intelligent and challenging blog post on this topic:

Unfortunately because Jamie’s an honest guy, he can easily be ambushed by every such question, from this to p use. Just because you believe all drugs should be legalised given prohibition doesn’t work, and freedom can only rest on individual responsibility, doesn’t mean you’re advocating p use.

What the haters are hating on this one, the Left particularly, is the concept of responsible adulthood free of the state (ie, the prison of each others minds).

The one good thing is this will set a cat amongst the pigeons in ACT. I like Jamie, but believe ACT is still a stalwart of conservatism I’d have no interest in voting for.

When the incest question was put to him, Jamie allowed sway to his natural instinct for academic honesty by repairing to the first principles of classical liberalism: good on him for that. His later retraction indicates there was political naivety involved, but in that retraction is a problem, being he's already being turned by the mincing machine of party politics into that thing I despise: a politician.

Never lose the principled honesty, Jamie. Don't let an intelligent conversation with the electorate fall to its opposite: electioneering.


Final Clarification.

On another blog I've just seen a Tory announce that Whyte 'wants to marry his sister'. Showing again that the civilised society will not be found from either the blinkered, bigoted Left, or the blinkered, bigoted Right.

The inane agenda-led conclusions this issue has brought about confirms for me that democracy is not in the interests of freedom. (Watch that statement get taken out of context.)

I can state the principle involved here no clearer than this:

Jamie made it very clear he in no way agreed with incest; the classical liberal principle that he was enunciating, and it's a bedrock of a free society, is that it is not up to the state to police incestuous relationships unless there is the initiation of force involved, and thus no consent - remembering that minors, as with those of unsound mind, are not capable of giving consent, so relationships with them, incest or not, will always be criminal behaviour.

Now apply that principle to everything, including taboos and behaviours you (and I) might find repugnant, and that's classical liberalism, the only basis on which consenting adults can transact free, fulfilling lives.

Odd Future ... No, A Police State Future, Here We Go Again.

Some of the most dreadful dreck to fill the minds of generation airhead is that noise called rap. In my opinion it has no saving graces and I would love some day to learn its angry, hate-filled, misogynist words and imagery have been consigned to history. But those words and images are created from these tax surveillance welfare states we've had forced on us in the West, so should the words of these young cretins be banned?

No, of course not, but of course they have.

Ask yourself about the nature of the society you live in where a bureaucracy can ban freedom of expression like this. Or a particular political/cultural elite can do so because we have become so philosophically bereft in the West, such as Giovanni Tiso's campaign against radio announcers Willie and JT (from paragraph beginning 'coincidentally, half way down blog post).

Now for those of you left with a dreadful taste in your mouth, something beautiful to clean the palate:





And why not click over to read classical liberal Jamie Whyte's great piece against plain packaging in New Zealand, in which more words and images are to be banned by the false messiahs and wowsers in our Fortress of Legislation.