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.


Wednesday, June 19, 2013

3rd Degree: If We Don’t Like The Truth, Let’s Vote it Something Different, Facts Be Damned. Kids & Poverty/Parenting.



I note, bemused, that Marxist feminist, Queen of Thorns, has been busy all week on Twitter marshalling the Cult of Thorny to ensure tonight’s vote on TV 3’s 3rd Degree comes out on what they think is the truth for the question: ‘Our Kids: The Problem’s Not Poverty, It’s Parenting’. According to the political Left, it’s poverty, of course, there is no such thing as personal responsibility, thus it can't be parenting, and The Vote will show this because somehow in their minds majoritarism can decide truth, no matter how complex and uncomfortable that truth is.

The Marxists believe, apparently, that a vote based on emotion, and that old bogey of this blog, fairness, can decide the truth and the nature of a thing, regardless of the facts. They will vote for poverty - as they do every national election - and that will justify more redistribution, and the growth of the surveillance state to extract it.

This is wrong on every level, just as democracy has become; throwing away our liberty, thinking the illusory free lunch can be voted into reality.

The question tonight is crippled mainly in its simplicity. Poverty, as regards the question asked, is in big part caused by clueless, irresponsible parenting, so the The Vote tonight for me is a non-issue from the get-go. In a wider view, poverty is now the main by-product of the welfare state: because irresponsible decisions, especially around family size, and family situation, are subsidised and grown by it; see my stories:



And in a wider context again, poverty is sheeted in by huge government distortion of Western economies, not allowing free markets to do what they do best: provide the best standard of living civilisation has seen, ever.

So while I go to work now, Thorny will ensure her cult votes the truths of her cruel ideology, facts be damned, as the Left will vote in 2014 for more redistribution, hence more surveillance, hence more authoritarian government, hence a deteriorating standard of living for all of us.

Proof: look at this:







Of course taxes increase costs: they are a cost to business so increase product and service cost, as I've also written on before:



The ‘discount’ this Tweeter talks of is of course redistribution: taxpayers, such as myself incur much higher costs through taxation, and worse, the loss of our liberty and right to be left alone, so that those, many making and benefiting from imprudent decision-making, get the discount, in a system where the dead weight of bureaucracy adds huge transaction cost, and more importantly, skews coordination in an economy so like all planned economies, ultimately, it fails. We all lose in this.

Finally, talking of the surveillance state, next post will be Judith Collins’s – and in so many ways I love Judith Collins, but Judith, you have this dreadful authoritarian tendency – Anti-Money Laundering and Countering of Terrorism Act, in which further surveillance, further costs, and of course, onerous penalties, are laid on individuals just for wanting to move their money around – because it’s always about the money for big spending government. And this right down to financial institutions will have to report to police and FMA all transfers out of the country from just $1,000 up – Christ, Mrs H and I can drink that in a fortnight.

Monday, June 17, 2013

Race Relations Office Has Turned Censor And Must Go. Peters v. DeVoy: 0 - 0.



We owe a debt to new Race Relations Commissioner, Dame Susan Devoy, for finally demonstrating how retrograde that office is, and how it has no place in a free society.



Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy says she is still formulating her views on racism and has NZ First leader Winston Peters in her sights.

After almost three months since her appointment as commissioner, Dame Susan said she was still "getting a good grasp" on racism and revealed she now deemed controversial cartoons published in South Island papers recently as racist despite previously saying they were not.

She told TVNZ's Q+A programme this morning that she was "starting to formulate my ideas" about racism and said that she would be forced to get involved if Mr Peters continued his "tirade" against the Chinese community.


Where do I start.

Well, for a start my tax money is obviously funding rank amateurism: surely the officer hired to that job has a slightly better grasp of what racism is than this? In fact surely they have an actual grasp of what racism is, period. I pay a teenage apprentice to learn on the job, not a political office at this level.

Though that's just offensive to me, as a member of that bottomless pit known as the taxpayer, and doesn't broach the harm Dame Susan is doing here, in her comments on leader of New Zealand First, Winston Peters.

Winston Peters campaign against the Chinese community is misinformed at best, racist and bigoted at worst, just as is Labour and Green's targeted campaigns against Chinese investment, especially in cognisance of other Euro-centric countries being bigger investors in New Zealand assets. I am particularly well placed to be making the comments in this post, because I have spent some portion of this blog defending Chinese investment against the xenophobia and economic ignorance of our political Left:



But that aside, we classical liberals understand that free speech is the best defence against bigots and racists: such haters must not be silenced by the state, only by reason, as they are given the rope to hang themselves pursuant to the judgement of civilised, informed minds. Being offended is never a crime. Hate speech laws, are freedom hating laws. I don't want Dame Susan using the power of state to censor, and it's appalling her Race Relations primer for Dummies has led her up the garden path of doing so. That garden path merges always with the road to our serfdom. Without free speech, the West becomes the East, circa Cold War.

The Race Relations office must now be disbanded, though while Dame Susan waits in the antechamber, and given she has thrown herself into the childish sand pit of political partisanship, perhaps she could pen a missive to censor and censure both Labour and the Greens for their program of repugnant nationalism ... that is, as far as the Chinese are concerned. Then please someone give Dame Susan a copy of Freedom for Dummies: or as I call it, my blog.

Because finally, the most important question to come from this, is what has happened that our theocrats in the Fortress of Legislation no longer understand that foundation stone of the free society: free speech? No, wait a minute, they're theocrats, I've answered my own question. The solution, of course, is minarchy, and Libertarianz.

Friday, June 14, 2013

PRISM: The Huge Contradiction for the Left. Retort to Chris Trotter.



Following is something approximating the comment I have made to Chris Trotter's otherwise fine post made today, opining the size and intrusiveness of the authoritarian surveillance states now standard in the West. (I didn’t take a copy of my actual comment, and as you’ll see below, Chris isn’t going to post it).

My comment:

Chris, what would be your defence to my claim that anyone who holds the redistributive taxing state as their central ethic cannot then bemoan loss of privacy to the state?

The taxing state can only work on a single premise: that the state takes away my right to be left alone, and my privacy: this is the only way they have ‘legal’ access to my money, and via that, my effort. Every other post you make is to support, and strengthen, the existence of the surveillance state in the West. The Left’s crocodile tears over this issue, is nothing more or less than rank hypocrisy. You, Chris, and your thieving rotten ethic of a world based on need, created this damned world where the state is now a theocracy, an individual’s privacy left behind to a still-born Western classical liberalism that should’ve been our birth-right.

And note well the difference between the issues surrounding PRISM, and the as complete global surveillance state set up by the taxing authorities: the taxing surveillance state operates not to protect us from terrorism or harm, as PRISM supposedly is – and no, for the record, that does not excuse PRISM – rather, the taxing surveillance state exists only to ensure the state can take the money/effort of its own citizens; it exists solely to plunder its own citizens, as with every thug state in the twentieth century.


Chris’s reply:


To: Mark Hubbard

We've had that debate, Mark. We're not having it again.

This is not a blog for libertarian venting.

Sorry.


That’s alright, Chris. I understand this is yet another impossible contradiction for you. It is no wonder for me, either, that Labour and the Greens are also contradicting themselves as between their stance on Snowden, which I commend, and their stance on Peter Dunne and the leaker of the GCSB report.

Novopay: Bulk Funding vs Central Planning.



I’m sure someone has made the below link before? (Have they?) Following is merely this morning’s ditty sent to Christchurch Press, letters to the editor: for my American readers (just about as many as Kiwis lately), Novopay is the centralised software program used by the State to pay wages for all the country’s teachers, and is a complete disaster at doing so:

To answer R Lea Clough (13/6), we had to move to the centralised disaster of Novopay because the unions forced the end of bulk funding of schools. Under bulk funding, each school paid their own wages, normally via simple, off the shelf payroll systems, which worked wonderfully because the wage rolls were so small, admin knew the teachers, and there was the flexibility to fix any error on the spot in the staff room office. A centralised, stranger to stranger system, like big government, doesn't work: its central planned chaos every time. You can't beat local, small, de-centralised administration. But I've not seen one MSM journo report on this point, because bulk-funding, as with an individual's liberty, is now regarded as seditious thinking. To the 95% of teachers who belong to the PPTA, you voted yourselves no pay: the fact you have so much influence over the minds of New Zealand’s young, is frightening.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

IRS Training for Black Ops? Let’s See … Calculator, Lunchbox, AR-15 Assault Rifle.



Given the news over the last few months out of the United Police States of America, and my previous post on how IRS are mining social media for thought crimes, I’m not at all surprised to hear IRS employees are now training with these:



AR-15’s.

Pursuant to these tweets from Rep. Jeff Duncan on touring a Homeland Security facility:







You can follow or look at Duncan's Twitter timeline for updates as he continues to look into the issue. I’m not surprised, but still have to wonder what reason there could possibly be for such training. Or is it obvious? This is what happens when irresponsible politicians build up such impossible levels of debt.




The United Police States has become such a cruel parody of itself, and something quite evil.

I understand given the series of secret service gaffs in New Zealand, our IRD employees are only being trained with cap guns, currently, but if Labour/Greens win the election in 2014, I’m sure we’ll see the heavy arms soon enough; they’re going to have to hoover up that huge tax take they need somehow, and the bottom line of the surveillance state is always brute force.


Update 1:

I see reason.com have just reported on this also.


Update 2:

Senator Duncan newsclip.

IRS spokesman quote: "... for security reasons they do not discuss their firearms training operations ...'  What!




Update 3:

Bad news: IRS agents do actually use their guns in the field

Worse news: they fire their guns accidentally more than then do intentionally.