Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Libertarianz influence

Ten years ago the only people you could hear talking about politicians or bureaucrats suckling off the state tit were Lindsay Perigo and Deborah Coddington, on World Service New Zealand and then Radio Liberty. It was also found in The Free Radical, and in coming years would be the language used by Libertarianz in its many press releases.
Oswald Bastable has rightfully pointed out how wonderful the Dom Post is in using language such as "He is also young, personable if reserved, and can boast something almost no one else in Cabinet can: that he is a successful businessman and lawyer who did not spend his formative years suckling at the public teat" to describe David Parker.
Those are words rarely heard from ACT or National - but accurate nonetheless and not the language that people beholden to the sacred state use, but the language of laissez faire free market capitalists.


Rick said...

So what you're saying is that after 10 years of unachievement Libertarianz are now taking the credit for the work other people do.


Libertyscott said...

Well who did start the use of language to describe "nanny state" or "suckling off the state tit" Rick? Forgotten the abolition of the TV licence fee? A campaign started by Libertarianz and (half) implemented by National? and since when have you been in a position to judge Libertarianz in the past two years?

Have you talked seriously to the leader in that time about your concerns? I know you didn't talk to the president. What achievement have you realised if you going to finger point?

If you're going to throw dirt Rick then you could have at least pointed out the spelling mistake in my post (which I have fixed).

Rick said...

Yeah tell me about it. I've never been one to see typos as rationally incriminating. I used to think '[sic]' was an aid to grammar, not an insult...

Language? Lindsay's PI show.
Licence Fee triumph? You want to rest on those laurels? That was 1999!

I don't want to tell tales out of school here mate. But if Bernard, Julian and Scott came along 2 or 3 years sooner I wouldn't have sulked off to Australia.

Reading ancient scrolls of exec meeting minuites from Deborah Coddington days I thought I saw a pattern of lethargy that nobody cared to put an end to. You've got no future just throwing a few pebbles into the pond every 4 years and the rest of the time sleeping and dreaming about old splashes.

Best of luck to the new guy though.

Anonymous said...

The trouble is Libz is its own worse enemy, lashing out and pouring hate onto those politically closest to it.Its telling that the ACT party now has ex-libz members/supporters as president and VP.Why don't the rest of Libz join ACT too and work from within to move things along?

Libertyscott said...

There are some fair points here - I think Bernard, Julian and now Craig are trying their best to revive the party - it was a disaster in 2002, it was revived in 2005 under difficult conditions and now it is trying to be positive. Things have moved on a bit in the last 2 years.

The problem with ACT, and many of us have contact with ACT people - is that it is hard for Libertarianz people to work within a party that support avowedly un-libertarian policies. Such as on drugs or nonsense like demanding Transmission Gully be funded - that is so US pork barrel as to not be funny. If ACT was consistently liberal, even if only mildly I think most Libertarianz might be prepared to work within it - but it is funded by people uninterested in freedom.

A good start would be if ACT did change its name, but it is probably too scared to do so.