Thursday, August 17, 2006

State funding of political parties?

Michael Cullen, Jordan Carter and the NZ leftwing political world is now promoting state funding of political parties. This already happens for TV and radio advertising and is immoral. Libertarianz only takes the funding because it is not allowed to buy its own.
Now the motivation for promoting state funding is as follows:
1. Distract the media and public from the scandal around funding pledge cards.
2 It means parties can give up that tedious task of asking for funding from people who may otherwise choose to buy a beer, a pair of shoes or a movie ticket. That takes a lot of effort that people in parties would rather spend socialising moaning about the state of the government. It enables parties to be lazy, to be out of touch with grassroots supporters, and simply be corporate political bodies that exist because the public is forced to pay for them.
3. It means that parties that are supported by the most productive and successful (typically wanting less government), don't do better than those supported by the least productive, parasitical and statist. In other words, the left's supporters are poorer because they vote for governments to take from the more successful to give to the less.
4.. To remove allegations of corruption and pork-barrel politics with funders wanting "payback" from the party they help elect (Labour never did that for its supporters now did it?).
5. To save the trade union movement buckets of money it would rather spend on beer, shoes and movie tickets. Far better to get the government to collect it from members and non-members by force.
Jordan Carter's approach to state funding of political parties suggests it would see funding allocated according to the votes cast at the previous election. Given it would mean parties couldn't receive large donations, this means:
1. The incumbent has an advantage. Even if it is deeply unpopular, it will get the greatest amount of funding. So funding will be biased towards NOT changing government, or Parliament.
2. New parties are fucked. Even if they are dripfed some crumbs, the likes of the New Zealand Party, New Labour Party/Alliance/Greens, NZ First, United, ACT, Maori Party and Libertarianz will get little. Just what Labour (and I suspect National) would simply love. It is destroying MMP through the back door.
3. Personal freedom of citizens to donate to causes they support is destroyed. What if I wanted to give a party thousands of dollars? Why the fuck is it the business of any other party, the public or the government if I willingly support the campaign? The only answer is...
Sanctimonious pricks who support state funding of political parties are envious that other parties do better than theirs. They are envious that people with more money (they probably made it by oiling factories with the blood of working class children) HAVE more money and DON'T give it to them, they sometimes give it to National or ACT, or even NZ First or the Maori Party. They give to Labour too of course, but less often.
Just check out this quote:
"The right stands for the interests of those with money and power. The left stands for redistributing money and power more fairly."
That's right Jordan, the "right" were born with it. Full of hand wringing Montgomery Burns and Uncle Scrooges, money they must have not earnt "rightfully". Whereas the left are so honourable - they call theft, "redistribution" (Robert Mugabe calls it that too), and power redistribution means removing individual freedom and making it political control - fairer power means power to bureaucrats and politicians.
State funding of political parties is wrong because it is fundamentally immoral to force citizens to pay for organisations whose goals and objectives they do not believe in. Would it have been good to force people on the left to pay for Labour and National in 1990, when both parties were pushing economic liberalism? Is it right that the last election result should decide funding to campaign for the next one?
How about this one? Would you have been happy being forced to fund Graham Capill's campaign for election in 1996, 1999 and 2002, how about Destiny NZ in 2005, how about the National Front?
and shouldn't political parties who can't rustle together funds outside the state, simply be allowed to wither?
Those who support state funding of political parties need to be transparent - they are envy ridden Marxists. They oppose parties they disagree with receiving more voluntary donations, and oppose it because they don't believe the people who GAVE the money truly earnt it or deserved to choose what to do with it. Accusations of corruption from money donated by business are equally laid at those who get money from unions, or tribes.
Democracy is about individual votes counting -and about people who are like minded supporting political parties through either donations of money or time and effort. The state should remain separate from that - and parties survive, grow or die because of voluntary effort only.
Those who oppose that - oppose liberal democracy - they support statist democracy, where the state protects and supports the dominant incumbent political views.

No comments: