It is a clash of civilisations - it's about time we were proud of our's

Back when I studied international relations at university, Samuel Huntingdon’s “Clash of Civilisations” was not cited as a particularly seminal work.  It was thoroughly criticised, as the prevailing view at the time was that Fukuyama’s “End of History” thesis appeared to be more valid.  Bear in mind this was just after the end of the Cold War, and followed what appeared to have been a successful excising of Saddam Hussein’s gangster regime from Kuwait, under UN Security Council sanctions.

The heady days of humanitarian intervention appeared ahead, and with Russia a friend of the West, China focused almost entirely upon economic growth and internal stability and Middle East peace talks focused around pathways towards resolving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it did not look like there was great international disunity like was seen under the Cold War.

Liberal democracy and basics levels of individual rights and free speech seemed largely universal now that what was the Soviet bloc, seemed to embrace them.  The weeping sores of Israel/Palestine, South Africa, Northern Ireland all seemed to be on pathways to progress.   China, albeit a large country still a long way from any embrace of such rights, appeared to be pointing in the right direction, and was inwardly focused only likely to lash out over Taiwan or Tibet.  Latin America appeared to have rid itself of virtually all of its tyrants.  East Timor was finally liberated from Indonesian military rule.  Saddam Hussein seemed contained.  The Balkans were a disaster and a travesty, but after (finally) intervention against Serbia, it all seemed to come to a halt, and Europe has managed to ringfence and rebuild those lands that were once Yugoslavia.   However,  Rwanda/Burundi and Liberia showed how easy it was for political/military leaders to incite mass extermination campaigns.

It has been clear now, at least for 11 years, that this rosy view of the world has been a mistake.  Most importantly, it is abundantly clear that the values of individual freedom, free speech and freedom of religion, are not embraced by the majority of the world’s population.

Whilst those of us in the “Western” world see differences between the US and Europe, these differences are insignificant between those of other civilisations on the planet.  It is taken for granted in the “West” (by which I mean the EEA countries, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), that women should be equal under the law to men, that racism is unacceptable and barbaric, that free speech including the right to criticise all political views, and to both criticise and mock public figures, is inviolable, and that freedom of religion and from religion are part of a modern society. 

However, whilst many share some of these values, many not only disagree but cannot even comprehend a viewpoint that holds them.

It is fair to say that support or embrace of those values may be slightly weaker in Latin America than in the West, and moreso in the former USSR.   Confucian and Hindu cultures in east and South Asia also carry less tradition and support for such freedoms, but there have been, by and large, positive paths towards that (although racism/sectarianism remains rampant).   Sub-Saharan African countries have also a different view of such freedoms, which are more diverse than Huntingdon could reveal.

However, the big conflict is with the Islamic world, which itself has many diverse strands, but which by and large, with the exception of the likes of Bosnia, Albania and Turkey, is hostile to individualism, secularism and freedoms of speech and religion.

The reaction seen across the Muslim world, and in many Western countries, is a throwback of some centuries, indeed it is a difference that is more profound that than between Marxism-Leninism and Western liberal democracy/mixed capitalist countries during the Cold War.

The flames being fanned by Islamists are ones of values that are completely contrary not only to the post-enlightenment settlement between Christianity, the state and society, but also international law on human rights, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 
The protestors are predominantly men, promulgating a misogynistic world view, which not only treats women and girls as possessions, but has no tolerance for even engaging in debate or challenge of their religious view.  Freedom of speech is to be burnt at the stake along with all those who they feel have hurt their point of view.  It is as dangerous as it is infantile, as fanatically anti-reason as the anti-semitism of the Nazis, the anti-classism of the Khmer Rouge and every sectarian conflict you can remember. 

They are as incredulous about the relaxed Western view over a film produced privately in the US, as Westerners are over their violence and (literal) sabre rattling.  They live in societies where drawing an image of their prophet can get you executed, and indeed even deciding that you no longer believe in Islam can mean death.    This is accepted as being integral to their entire social system and set of beliefs.   Religion is not an adjunct to life that provides meaning for certain ethical questions or advice on living under difficult circumstances, for reflection at least once a week.  It is central, fundamental and provides a source of guidance on a daily basis.  The closest parallel outside it in modern history is seen in the personality cult laden totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany, the Stalinist world, Maoist China and today in North Korea.   In all of them, the thoughts and words of the personality cults meant everything, their lives, their deeds took up so much time in education and daily life.   For many Muslims, Islam is that special.  The idea anyone would choose to abandon such believes is not only foolish, but dangerous and any such element is likely to bring down their proud culture.
 
Given they live in states which enforce this society, they find it remarkable that other states do not also reflect their national religions.  The idea that private American citizens can produce a film, without any official endorsement or state oversight, seems improbable and impossible to them.  After all, surely all governments everywhere enforce the religious values of their societies?  Just because the West has corrupt ones, and Christianity has been debased so much (they would say), is not the point.  After all, the Islamists would say, they certainly don’t allow people to poke fun at Christianity (don’t ask about the Jews though).

The seriousness by which they take religion, the state and the offence they feel, is palpably toxic.  Because they fanatically embrace Islam (almost entirely because they were born and raised with it), and because they believe anyone departing from it must be both foolish and evil, they see anyone who dares challenging it to be challenging them personally.  They see it as the devil – like an ancient tribe of animists who see outsiders mocking their totems.   They see it as dangerous and genuinely feel that a challenge or mockery of their faith is an attack on themselves.

Yet people in the West are regularly exposed to mocking, to having either religious or political beliefs challenged.  Few would resort to mass violence to defend their point of view.   You see, Western culture and society has embraced free speech, a diversity of views, open discourse and satire as being healthy.  The amount of mockery and what would be seen as blasphemy against Christianity is significant, and is seen across the Western world (although there are parts of the US where it is a bit scarcer than others).   However, the Christian response is, mostly, to engage, to debate, sometimes to call for new laws, but it isn’t to go out and vandalise or demand beheadings.

That is the response I’d have expected 600 years ago.  That is roughly where many in the Islamic world are.   It is why the invasion of Afghanistan is failing, because barely any effort has gone into changing culture – a culture which is as sexist, racist and religiously intolerant as Western society was in the dark ages, and as economically and scientifically innovative. 

So what does this mean?  The key question is how to respond to such sabre rattling.

There are, logically, five options.

Submit, appease, ignore, engage or fight.

Submitting to such declaration of bigotry or ignorance is not an option, it is surrendering that which literally millions of men and women have died to defend.  No one who even considers such an option deserves to live in a free society.

Appeasement is the worm’s way out, and indeed is the option that more than a few politicians will adopt.  This is to agree with the bigots, and to call for greater “respect and tolerance” of beliefs that themselves embrace little respect and tolerance.  This is the vile sycophantic selling out of more than a few on the left, who are only too quick to want to placate the men who want to continue to treat women as chattels, and execute apostates, rape victims and homosexuals.  No one who speaks the language of appeasement deserves to even be considered to be liberal or respectful of human rights.  It is telling that this is the response of the UN Secretary General.  It is also not the path for victory, for ultimately you will have sold out all of your freedom to placate those who hate the values you say you believe in, but prove by actions that you'll sell for some short term peace.

Ignoring the protests is a viable option, until of course, they start engage in vandalism and violence against the innocent.  In some places, they are on a scale where this appears the only logical option, to “let off steam”, but this simply means steam will build up again.  Nobody who fought for fundamental freedoms would see this as being honourable.

Engaging them, would appear to be the most logical and productive step forward.   Indeed, it is promising that counter-protests have appeared in some cities, such as Tripoli, and that some Muslims fear the approach taken by protestors is to deny the freedom some have fought for.   The message to them all should be very simple:

• -          Secular states do not control what films private citizens produce;
• -          Freedom of religion and freedom of speech include freedom to offend, to challenge and to mock;
• -          The response in a free society to being offended, is to challenge back and mock back, to disarm others through argument, reason and one’s own creativity, not violence;
• -          Those that advocate violence or vandalism to make arguments for their religion have already lost, as they are incapable of debate.

Finally, the need to fight in self-defence is critical.  Whether it be people or property owners, the application of violence should be resisted by the state and individual victims to the extent necessary to defend themselves.  For let's be clear, 9/11 was undertaken by those willing to destroy our way of life.   People who are not amenable to reason and engage in force, must be fought - there is no peaceful option to deal with those willing to kill you.

In conclusion, it is critical for those in the West, whether they be libertarians, conservatives, socialists, Christians or atheists, to understand that the commonly shared basic Western values of individual autonomy, equality of the sexes and races, and tolerance of different religious beliefs, are not shared by many on the planet (indeed they are inconsistently shared in the West).  For those values to get greater adherence requires patience, it requires leading by example and it requires continuous consistent engagement against those willing to take it on, and the use of force in self-defence for those willing to initiate force.

This has significant implications for a whole range of public policies, including immigration, education, defence, foreign relations, international aid policy, the welfare state and media.

These require politicians who are prepared to embrace a principle, rather than kowtowing to avoid offence.  Politicians who are proud of the freedoms fought for since the Enlightenment.  However, for them to come out, it requires citizens of Western countries to want to articulate loudly to defend the society that so many have, by and large, done little to defend. 

Post-modernist moral relativists have no place in this.  Neither do those wishing to appease.

Judge says "society to blame" for sexcrime

That, according to the Daily Telegraph, is the conclusion of Judge Gareth Hawkesworth of Cambridge Crown Court (UK). It is also the logical conclusion of many decades of the embrace of the post-modernist philosophical morass of determinism and denial of the causality principle.

What happened?

A 14 year old boy tied an apron around the face of a girl of 4 and performed a sex act with her. The boy got a three year community order with supervision as a sentence.  The girl's parents are upset, but I don't want to dwell on what is an appropriate sentence, needless to say the boy needs both help and punishment.  What matters is how the judge got to his sentence.

The judge said of the offender:

"I'm satisfied it was impulsive and I believe you have become sexualised by your exposure to and the corruption of pornography. Your exposure at such a young age has ended in tragedy. It was the fault of the world and society.”

Actus reus and mens rea are the two key tests to secure a criminal conviction in most cases. Actus reus is the “guilty act” meaning the accused did the deed. Mens rea is the “guilty mind” meaning the accused intended to commit the crime. Prove both beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is considered guilty of the crime.

Judge Hawkesworth has contradicted himself. For the boy has been found guilty and been sentenced, yet he effectively claims the boy did not have mens rea.  The boy was not "at fault".

For that to be true, there could have been a number of defences, such as acting under duress, or insanity. The age of criminal responsibility is 10, so he can’t legally claim that he is not responsible for his actions.  Yet the statement by the Judge implies just that.

He wasn’t under duress nor insane, but rather under “undue influence”, not by one person, but by “the world and society”. We are ALL to blame. He didn’t really have a choice. He was corrupted. Yet the murderers of James Bulger, who were younger when convicted, were not subjected to such an excuse (and their backgrounds did explain, but did not excuse their actions).

This is the philosophical reef upon which Western society has been wrecking reason, objectivity and justice against for many years. It is the underlying foundation of so much taught in the humanities departments of universities. It is the fundamental dimunition and denial of free will and conscious volition.

It is, in fact, the argument put forward both by the post-modernist believers in a large state sector and many religious conservatives. The Muslim women who are told to wear the niqab do so because otherwise men “can’t help themselves” but molest them. Christian campaigners for censorship argue that erotica, pornography and violence in the media “makes” people commit those crimes, indeed the current censorship laws are in part predicated on this. That’s why you can (in New Zealand, Australia and the UK, but not the USA) be prosecuted for writing or owning erotic stories about certain sexual acts ( a woman was prosecuted for writing such letters). David Cunliffe supported this strongly in select committee when challenged about it. The idea is that such stories “make people do them”, so it is better to take away a bit of freedom than to risk “making people do crimes”.

In this case, “society” or rather EVERYBODY made the boy commit the crime, so EVERYONE should feel shame and contrition. Not only the little girl, but the perpetrator is a victim.  Consider what effect that will have on the girl, to think that the offender is somehow less responsible.  If "society" and the "world" are responsible, isn't she a tiny part of that?

In which case, the judge is effectively saying who is he to blame the boy? Society must do more to shield people from such corrupt influences. It is deterministic. Because the boy was exposed to pornography (although it appears he looked for it, watched it and kept doing so), it was inevitable that he would commit this crime.  He wasn't just corrupted (probably true), but he was incapable of reconciling fantasy and desires with reality.  He could not control himself.   Yet he is not insane.

I don’t need to explain the consequences of extending that principle. For indeed we see them today:

Excusing people who steal, vandalise and commit arson against the property of innocent people because they were “upset” at their own lives. Yet vast numbers of people can claim the same or worse, but do not commit such crimes.

Excusing those who beat up their children because they don’t have enough money. Yet millions are in poverty and do not mistreat their children.

Excusing the woeful life choices of this generation, because of what happened to past generations. Yet many make different life choices having inherited next to nothing from past generations.

I don’t doubt Judge Hawkesworth is, in part, politicking. He wants politicians to restrict the access of young people to pornography. You see, he could have blamed the boy’s parents, for allowing him such unfettered access to the internet. He didn’t. He blamed us all, implying the solution is going to come from government or at least from people listening to his preaching.  We all raise all children, we are all responsible for everyone else's children (and of course we must pay for them and have our behaviour regulated, as if we are children too).

Let me be clear, I believe there is an issue about unfettered access by young people to extreme content online, and that there are potentially serious consequences that can arise from this. Whether the state acts or not is a political question. However, when sane individuals commit crimes, including teenagers (who are between being children and adults), it is quite simply incorrect to claim that others are to blame.

To attribute blame to an amorphous collective such as “the world” or “society” is meaningless and even corrosive. There is no such thing as a collective brain or consciousness (unless you subscribe to the malignant class or race theories that ultimately justified mass murder on hitherto unknown scales). For a judge to even think it appropriate to “blame” in this way is not just unprofessional, but dangerous.

Who will turn up in his court next week to claim “it is society’s fault that I…” (insert crime)? How can he disagree when he believes this is a perfectly credible defence to grant someone leniency?

After all, if this boy isn’t to blame for his actions, why should others be to blame for theirs? Is not every criminal a product of their experiences, influences and history? Can everyone with rotten parents, or who was bullied, or who saw a violent or sexually explicit film, image or read a story, or had no friends, or grieved their dead pet or whatever – now say they are not to blame, but society is?

Similarly, does it not mean that everyone who does well at school, who wins a sports match, starts up a very successful business, becomes wealthy, becomes popular, invents, creates or discovers something of note, is not actually responsible for that? Are not those who succeed therefore “because of society”? Should not everyone who does well then be made to share the fruits of their endeavours? Think how often you hear that trotted out by those on the left who fondly believe in increasing taxes for those on higher incomes, who say that successful people are only successful because of “everyone else”. That if the state hadn’t provided a hospital, school or roads, these people would have been “nothing”.  Even though the number of tall poppies that grow from this very same field are always few and far between.

Think what that means for how the state treats individuals. You’re not to blame when you do bad, and you’re not to get all the credit when you do good. It was all going to happen anyway, and we’re here to soften the punishment and to share the proceeds. Individual choice? Not so important now.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is at the core of so many of the political debates that are engaged in today.

Is the individual to be treated as a thinking, conscious, choosing human being, who whilst carrying a vast array of influences from family, peers, media, community, school, religion, business, can decide whether or not to act in a certain way, including whether or not to act with objectivity, reason, benevolence and respect for others? Or is the individual already pre-determined, with his ancestors, sex, race, religion, sexuality and class effectively programming him to think, act, succeed or fail in certain ways?

If the former, shouldn't people be free to live as they wish, as long as they respect the right of others to do so?  If the latter, is there any point to anything people do at all, unless it is a constant battle of power between those pre-determined to succeed and those pre-determined to fail, until everyone is ironed flat so we are all pre-determined to be in the same way?

What the UK election will tell you about Britain

With at least 60% of the electorate likely to support the two major leftwing parties, Liberal Democrats and Labour, it becomes clear that Margaret Thatcher didn’t fundamentally reform attitudes towards the state during her administration, what she did was reform the economy and wind the clock back, somewhat.

However, the hearts and minds of the vast majority of the British public carry a view of the state that I characterise as being supportive of the nanny state. The relationship those people have with the state is either being a co-parent, or as a dependent child.

Those who see the state from the view of a child are scared they’ll lose “their benefit” “their NHS” “their school”. They can’t envisage looking after their own health care, selecting schools, selecting retirement plans or actually paying for what they use. They are the dependent underclass, and comprise perhaps as much as 15-20% of the population. People who don’t think there is any other way. They are brought up loving the Labour Party, almost in the mould of North Korean propaganda, that they owe their house, their education, their health and their employment to the Labour Party. Without the Labour Party paternalistically supplying all of this (who cares where the money comes from) it is a terrifying brutal world indeed.

The myth built around it is the classic Marxist binary view. Them or Us. Because the Labour Party pays for Us, and supports Us, then the Conservative Party must pay for Them and support Them. Labour gives the underclass money, so surely the Conservatives must make things so the rich get richer. This is the repulsive lie manipulated and used by politicians on the left.

Not for one moment is it argued that the tax paid by the wealthier is what pays for Us, or that businesses create the majority of jobs and the money that pays for Us. More insidiously, it is not argued that the “rich” (a catchall for anyone middle class and above) earned their money, but rather there is a focus on inheritance, and on privilege. That those who are financially successful somehow got there through luck, rather than through effort or intelligence. You see the overwhelming myth is that without Labour, you are nothing, cannot be anything and the rich will get what you are getting now – forgetting that the vast bulk of what the government spends comes from the “rich”. The dominant theme of the campaign in the past few weeks has been to concentrate on getting that base of supporters out to vote, purely out of fear of the alternative. The BNP caters for these same children, who blame the "new kids" for getting more with a sneering disdain for big business and immigration generally. The BNP comprises the local bullies, whereas Labour makes friends with the immigrant underclass and says "you can have some too".

While that is all understandable, what about the rest? What about the 40-50% of voters who also vote to the left. Well they are not children in the state-citizen relationship, but supportive parents. These are people who, on the face of it, would admit they can choose the school for their kids, they could buy health insurance and retirement incomes, and could pretty much make their own decisions for themselves and their families. However, they all would say "what about everyone else?"

That is the point, when the bulk of middle class voters think, the state needs to look after the "children" I mentioned before - the underclass. "You can’t leave them to their own devices." In other words, it nurtures the “what about the people who couldn’t” view, pointing at how so many of the underclass are living grossly unhealthy lifestyles, bearing in mind that they are demonstrably unable to look after themselves.

They treat their fellow adults as children, they buy homes to avoid the underclass, and want to give them opportunities at best, and to lock them away at worst. Meanwhile, they too also want “their share” of nanny state, in tax credits, middle class welfare and the like. They support universalism so they can get some of their taxes back, because you see, they DO pay for themselves indirectly. They advocate the nanny state, but want their cut, increasing the overall cost.

So you see, it is about the dependency of the infantile, and the belief by the self-appointed nannies in the wisdom of the state “sorting out” the poor and the feckless. That essentially comprises the majority of British voters, who are one or the other.

It is both these attitudes that believers in small government and individual freedom need to address. For the “children”, it is about a transition to encourage them to “grow up”, give them opportunities to make more choices, not tax them, and increase the incentives to abandon what should be a shift from the welfare state to self sufficiency and private benevolent initiatives. For the “grownups” who want to help them, it is about taking away their own middle class welfare privileges in exchange for tax cuts, and encouraging those who wish to help others to do so, more directly, and in this perhaps some of the elements of the poorly named “Big Society” of David Cameron may have some merit. If you are concerned about the homeless, then don’t let the government fix the problem, do something yourself.

How are both these attitudes confronted? I don’t know. I don’t think it is about surrendering, as the Conservatives have largely done. However, until both are confronted and the concerns and views answered clearly, there will be next to no chance of ever electing a government that will consciously have a mandate to shrink the size of the state.

Two views on how people should move

Joshua Arbury is a planner, his profile is here. He appears to be a reasonably intelligent young man who has a very different view of the world, and particularly the transport sector, than myself. You see he loves the development of the Auckland rail network, he appears to embrace the so-called "Smart Growth" land use intensification philosophy promoted by Auckland local government planners, and believes the future for Auckland's transport system is about railways and public transport. He is so keen on it he set up a separate blog about it. In it he posts about transport policy, taking a view that is pretty much in alignment with the Green Party. I have debated extensively on the blog, and to his credit he has engaged quite well on the issues, and has linked to me.

A little of what he writes is interesting urban design matters, like this and this.

So what is his perspective?

In short he believes (and no doubt will correct me if he sees fit).
- More use of public transport is a good thing;
- More use of the private car is a bad thing;
- The way to resolve traffic congestion is to improve public transport;
- Electric railways are good, the more the better;
- It doesn't matter if users don't pay for new public transport, it is a "good thing" and the way the rest of the world does it;
- Road building is something to be suspicious about because it encourages people to drive more;
- More road transport is bad for the environment, more public transport is good for the environment;
- Land use restrictions, urban boundaries and intensification polices are all good;
- Peak oil will happen and the way to reduce its impacts is.... more public transport;
- Climate changing is happening, road transport is partly to blame and the way to reduce its impacts is.... more public transport;
- Cities with more public transport, especially rail, have better transport and economic outcomes than those with less.

In short, he wants to subsidise public transport users, and wants everyone else to pay for it. He considers more car use as bad.

I take a different view. I don't really care how you get yourself around (or your business's goods around). What primarily matters is that you pay for it.

That means, as far as public transport is concerned, the private sector investing in infrastructure and vehicles based on future projected fare revenue collected from users. As far as roads are concerned, the same basically.

Now the big problem at the moment is that roads are all priced on a common basis, vehicles pay different amounts based on the type of vehicle (trucks pay more, which tends to fairly reflect the wear and tear they impose), but the road and time of day does not change what you pay. The money all goes into a pot which is spent through bureaucratic processes, year by year, on road improvements officials think most benefit road users, and some on public transport.

What that means is that the busiest (most profitable) roads cost the same as the emptiest, when they should cost more when they get congested, so more money can be made from them, and decisions made as to whether to invest in more capacity. In other words popular roads should cost more because space is scarce. At other times, they may cost little to encourage people to use them. Big new roads should be funded on the basis of the numbers prepared to pay to use them, as should railways.

Of course under this scenario precious few railways would be built, because it is clear rail passengers don't value travel by train as much as politicians and planners value them travelling by train. For example in Auckland rail fares would have to treble for services to start to make a financial surplus, by contrast the roads already generate one. Some bus services do too, but others would have to rise by as much as double to make them profitable.

So it is about philosophy. I don't think transport is special. I think it should be treated like the rest of the economy. Indeed, most freight operates with little to no government involvement or subsidy. Aviation and intercity bus (and rail) services operate without subsidy either. Why can people travel between cities without a subsidy, but not within?

You see I don't it is bad for people to travel by car, as long as nobody is forced to subsidise them, likewise by public transport, cycling or walking or staying at home. I make no value judgment at all on it. It's called freedom.

Joshua doesn't share that. He wants to plan the city so you catch the modes he prefers, and he thinks we're all better off being forced to pay for this. I don't believe he is irredeemably irrational yet, he has good intentions. However, I encourage you to debate some of his points.

I believe the fundamental difference is between those who want to tell others what to do, and those who want to get the government out of the way of sending the right price signals. The fact he doesn't think price is the biggest issue says much.

So to conclude, have a think about this:

- If anything else you buy were priced the same year and day round, would you also expect to queue for a long time to get any goods or services at times of peak demand?
- If roads were such an inefficient way of moving goods and people then how come politicians in most countries can tax them well in excess of what is needed to pay to maintain the road network? In New Zealand the surplus is now spent on improving roads and public transport, in the UK most of it goes on general government spending. What railways do you know in state ownership that can be taxed and have their surplus spent on other things?
- If public transport is so efficient, go around railyards and bus depots outside the morning and evening peak times. Notice plenty of carriages or buses sitting around idle. They do that from around 9-9.30am till 3.30-4pm every weekday. Ask yourself why you should be forced to pay for all of this when most of the time it sits around as idle capacity. Before the public transport advocates point out this is what happens with cars most of the time, they should ask who paid for the car in the first place?

Oh and you'll find truck operators and intercity bus companies don't tend to do that, and airlines tend only to have planes sitting around due to noise restrictions at airports at night.

By the way, if you really want to find busybodies who think they know best, and treat economics as something they don't need to swallow, try the Campaign for Better Transport (better from their perspective, not from what the user wants to pay for, or others are willing to pay for). Don't hold your breath for comments on aviation.

The smallest most oppressed minority

All governments treat this minority with contempt to a greater or lesser extent, although some do talk respectfully of it, their actions are rarely supportive.

They say members of this minority are "only" that minority, denigrating them as being insufficiently worthy of consideration. Members are told they are "just a ......" or "you're just thinking of yourself as a ........".

Members of this minority are always told they should think of others first, sacrifice themselves.

Members of this minority regularly have violence done to them by governments, gangs and others.

This minority has an endless history of being robbed and its diverse cultures suppressed.

All of its people belong to the land of their birth, and have no common religion.

They comprise a global diaspora seen in every country.

A common philosophy to oppress them is to talk of the "greater good" and the need for "sacrifice for the public good". Schools even raise members of this minority to believe in sacrifice and in a greater power than themselves.

What is most tragic is how some members of this minority turn on their own kind, for power, in collusion with the oppressors.

Perhaps most universal is how the most successful, talented and brilliant are subject to punitive taxes, denigration and told they are "up themselves". Those who set up businesses are thought of as slave merchants. Those who are simple workers are treated as imbeciles incapable of making their own decisions.

You should know this minority well, it is the human individual.

and if governments treated everyone on the same basis, gave everyone's body and property the same rights, and protected this minority as a non-negotiable absolute - then no minorities would be oppressed.

(Reminded of this by Andrei at NZ Conservative)

The Standard distorts the idea of "service"

The Standard has made a peculiar post saying:

"All those engaged in service violate the neo-lib/neo-con ‘ethic’ of looking out only for yourself. Since neo-liberals depend on the stable running of society to pursue their own interests, they operate as free-loaders on the efforts of others to maintain a civil and just society. Since they do not understand the urge to help others, they denigrate."

Where is the evidence for this? When has anyone either conservative or laissez-faire liberal ever condemned those who either choose to be in the armed forces or engage in voluntary or paid work that is primarily about helping others?

It goes on to claim those who "denigrate service" are "parasites on society" because they rely on the stability that comes from those who "give service".

What?

What planet of Orwellian doublespeak and lies is The Standard coming from?

The condemnation of Helen Clark as "engaging in service" is valid because she has NOT engaged in defending the country, or providing health, education, food or housing for ANYONE? Politics is not some sort of self-sacrificial "service" it is a relatively well paid (for a fair number who enter it) activity that is primarily about controlling people and spending their money. How is this service? What else would she have done? Who can possibly say Helen Clark feels unsatisfied or that she has sacrificed herself for what she did? Moreover, how can this be compared to being a doctor, cop or an entrepreneur who sets up business and employs people?

The "stability of society" primarily comes about because most people most of the time get on with their own lives, look after themselves, families and loved ones, and don't try to meddle in or control the lives of others. The Police play a role in being called upon in last resort when people initiate force against each other. This is seen as "service" because it isn't obviously self interested, but few join the Police to suffer. The Police are paid, and most enter the job for a sense of fulfillment and satisfaction. THAT is part of the selfishness Ayn Rand talked of, the virtue of looking after yourself as the primary goal.

You see for virtually everyone there is satisfaction in providing for yourself materially and emotionally, and in being benevolent to your friends, family and loved ones. It is what being human is.

Sadly some on the left think they have a monopoly on this, bizarrely translating "service" into meaning the superstructure of their beloved state - a series of interlocking institutions which initiate force.

That's where the two visions of human benevolence differ.

Statists believe your primary goal should be to "serve others", to "sacrifice yourself" is the highest virtue, and the best way to do this is through the state. You do this by working for the state and "doing service" through this, or you can surrender your taxes and know you are "caring" somehow by having it all done through this mammoth collective exercise.

Objectivists believe your primary goal should be to "live" and "enjoy life", and that is up to you. Human nature means people are social beings, so will be generous, benevolent and kind to family, friends and loved ones. It is, after all, how families are created. By maximising your life, you also maximise your own capacity and willingness to give to others - witness the generosity of Bill Gates.

Human beings who live their own lives pursuing their own values produce enormous positive externalities to others, as well as often being generous in their own right.

However nobody exists to satisfy the needs and wants of others. That is slavery.

Bad boys and girls

I heard Geoffrey Palmer, ever the old school prefect, on RNZ (via wifi radio) last night talking earnestly about how people drank too much and how there needed to be steps to address it. The Law Commission is arguing for a higher drinking age, for higher taxes on alcohol and shorter opening hours. A bit like keeping the whole class behind after school because a few kids did something wrong. The NZ Herald reports further on this.

Will de Cleene correctly slams this, as raising the drinking age makes alcohol MORE of a forbidden fruit than it is, and all the measures combined just raise the black market opportunities, including increased theft of alcohol.

Yes, some people commit crimes when they are drunk - that is a matter for the criminal justice system. Yes there is legitimate concern about people who drink so much they barely function or act in ways dangerous to themselves and others. However, that isn't because alcohol is available, it is cultural and particular to certain individuals.

You might ask yourself why so many people want to escape reality. Could it be because far too many people talk as if something isn't what it is? Could it be because so many live lives of quiet desperation and intoxication is an escape from them loathing reality?

UPDATE: Blair Mulholland puts it rather succinctly "Why should the government stop restricting alcohol sales? Because alcohol is fun. Because people enjoy it, most of the time responsibly. Because I like it and want to buy it. That should really be all the argument anybody ever needs."

Exploit the earth or die

It's today! The Greens will hate it, because it runs counter to the philosophy so many have had rammed down them for the last two decades - that the best way nature can be is left alone.

Capitalism magazine says:

Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual's right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature onto the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.

Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.

Oh and it doesn't mean polluted air, water and the end to parks, forests and lakes. It means recognising that human beings survive by using the earth. It means acknowledging that people worldwide survive by exploiting the earth and applying their minds to it.

(Hat Tip: Not PC)

So what about supporting the child?

I am unsurprised that Maia is supporting the woman who gave birth on a plane, who clearly was so distressed she isn't fit to be a mother (you can't look after a child if you can't look after yourself), but more curious that she is supporting her in prison (as is her right)- but doing nothing about the completely helpless baby she gave birth to.

I don't doubt Karolaine Maika is a seriously disturbed woman - but mothers, unless they adopt, have responsibilities for their children. If they fail to take even basic steps to ensure that someone else can look after them, then they are beyond the pale.

For regardless of how disturbed she is, the baby is completely and utterly helpless.

Although Maia has previously said that when people are so poor, you can understand them torturing a three year old. "it's part of a bigger project to blame people in poverty for making bad choices on an individual level, rather than seeing the structural issues which leave people so broken that they torture a three year-old".

Need I say more?

Sacrifice or responsibility?

In your life you probably work quite hard for yourself, so you can not only survive, but can afford things you like, time for leisure, and enjoy life. You may spend time and money on people you love, it's not sacrifice though. You may have children you love and support, but it's not sacrifice.

All of that is following your values, pursuing what you value for your life. Remember much of what you do benefits others, but you don't do it primarily because it is for them, but because it gives you a sense of achievement, satisfaction, you get something back - even if it is enjoying the smile on the face of your child.

Of course while you do that the government takes a third or more of your money, that's a sacrifice. Some of that money pays for things you wouldn't disagree with, like law and order, some is taken to pay for government services you are forced to pay for - like health and education - regardless of how much you like it.

Beyond that you choose to do as you wish with others, you may belong to clubs, a church, you may volunteer for a charity, you may coach a sports team, or tutor music, or whatever. Those things you do are because you enjoy it, it is an affirmation of your values and life.

So when Barack Obama calls for "sacrifice" ask yourself whether that is an affirmation of your values and life, ask whether the world would be a better place if Bill Gates had spent his life sacrificing his time and energy to volunteer in soup kitchens, or perhaps the Wright Brothers should have.

Or does he mean individual responsibility? That is something that SHOULD be affirmed - that you own your life and you are responsible for your living, and that of your offspring, and for what you do.

THAT would be a truly revolutionary positive change, not nonsense about sacrifice, not "what you can do for your country", but simply owning your life.

It's hard though, because the Democratic Party has spent decades arguing for government doing things for people.

Trotter's admiration for threats of violence

Chris Trotter's blog talks of "working class justice":

"the story I was told by a rank-and-filer whose workplace was visited by two burly union organisers. He recalled especially their East-End accents, and the lengths of lead pipe they were carrying. They were there, he said, to “caution” the poor little bloke who was holding-out against joining the union on “conscientious” grounds.

And then there was the hard-bitten union secretary, who responded to one of his members’ demand for a secret strike-ballot with the immortal words : “Ya wanna secret ballot? - Shut yer bloody eyes!”"

In other words out and out thuggery and intimidation. Working class? More like the union mafia. However, Trotter doesn't really speak of how vile it was.

He approvingly talks of it in the comments, saying compulsory unionism was an achievement. Yes - because being forced to join an organisation that you don't want representing you, and doesn't represent your views is an "achievement". Only if you're a fascist.

The vileness of compulsory unionism, how the trade union movement treats people who value their jobs more than they do (the definition of a scab is someone who values the job more than those calling him that), and how willing these savages are to turn to violence.

That's the dark side of the hard left of New Zealand politics. Something Trotter appears to pine for. It's savage, and shows the mentality of those who prefer the fist to the argument to get what they want.

Reason vs the irrational

As the Hadron Collidor was switched on (and yes I know it was funded by taxpayers), few can fail to be amazed at the constant seeking of knowledge by humanity and science, to understand the fundamental nature of the universe.

Meanwhile, sadly the ignorant paid a price, as according to the Times, a teenage girl in India drank pesticide because she was convinced the world would come to an end, after talking to relatives (and reading parts of the local media which were hysterical about it.

What could more starkly show the difference between those who seek to take humanity forward, peacefully, in leaps and bounds, and the superstition bound anti-reality hysterics who spread fear, loathing and doubt.

Though it has always been like that - ancient Greece was the first great attempt to embrace reason, and it took the Enlightenment to throw off the shackles of oppressive Christianity suppressing science and reason - a process that has yet to be completed against all religions and all philosophies of subjectivist irrationality.

A dream to follow

Today is a day to remember one of the great men of history and his dream, a dream that is a great one of liberty, a message of hope and aspiration that, unalloyed by the statist motivations of many who quote it - should be the universal declaration of hope of individualism. I need not say anymore than this, and urge that THIS be remembered today, despite the ambition of a gang of control freaks, liars and corrupt mediocrities currently having a conference in Denver to take control of the United States and further erode what this dream really means.

You can read the speech to remember in full here, but for me the highlights are below. I am aware of the politics of many surrounding Martin Luther King, Jr, but neither they nor his religious beliefs take away for a moment about what this speech does. I defy those who passionately love freedom and despise the mindlessness of collectivism to not be moved.

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification - one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers."

The day before he was assassinated he talked of being at the mountaintop:

"All we say to America is, "Be true to what you said on paper." If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand some of these illegal injunctions. Maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn't committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right. And so just as I say, we aren't going to let dogs or water hoses turn us around, we aren't going to let any injunction turn us around. We are going on.

Never stop and forget that collectively -- that means all of us together -- collectively we are richer than all the nations in the world, with the exception of nine. Did you ever think about that? After you leave the United States, Soviet Russia, Great Britain, West Germany, France, and I could name the others, the American Negro collectively is richer than most nations of the world. We have an annual income of more than thirty billion dollars a year, which is more than all of the exports of the United States, and more than the national budget of Canada. Did you know that? That's power right there, if we know how to pool it."

May we all for a moment consider his ambition for a world free of racist bigotry - consider also his call for the use of voluntary protest and economic choice by those supporting him to influence change in behaviour. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not perfect, but he was a truly great man who changed the course of history and advanced freedom - oh to have a politician today who is 1% of what he was.

Olympic glory for NZ and British athletes

Well it seemed bleak earlier on in the week, when Togo had a medal and New Zealand didn't, but now a more respectable 21st on the medal tally as of the time of this post shows there is some excellent talent in the NZ Olympic team. Having said that, it would be nice for them to beat North Korea which is at 20th! (Though North Korea might notice its compatriots in the south in 6th place).

The British is also doing well, now in third place! Ahead of team from Australia, Russia, Japan, Germany - all Olympic powerhouses. Quite something indeed, although the teams from USA and China remain far out ahead, and undoubtedly things could change in the week.

However one side of the Olympics I haven't missed is the inane sense of nationalism that TVNZ puts upon Olympic medals - the notion that "we won". What nonsense.

I agree with Oswald Bastable on this:

"there is the collectivist bullshit about NEW ZEALAND winning- like every fat prick in a Lazyboy had anything to do with it...It SHOULD be about individual excellence. The teams sports can generally sod off, although events like team rowing and relays should remain."

The victories are for individual athletes achieving outstanding results against the best in the world. They are not victories for nations, races, ethnic groups, states and least of all governments. New Zealanders can cheer the medalists for their success, be pleased for them and support them - but "we" did not win.

However, don't expect any politicians to understand that - expect almost all of them to want to bask in the glory that should be that of the individuals concerned. Notice the few who wont.

Hating the rich because it meets your needs

Giles Coren is a brilliant writer, and in the Times he has systematically demolished the banal, finger pointing superiority seeking envy driven nonsense of infamous leftwing writer Polly Toynbee:

He starts:
"Leafing through The Guardian this week, I have been gripped by extracts from a new book by Polly Toynbee and David Walker, Unjust Rewards, in which the two Guardian stalwarts interview loads of rich people and discover that... they're not very nice.

Who would have thought? It's lucky we have The Guardian to get to the nub of things for us with its unique blend of snobbery, bitterness, jealousy and thwarted ambition, cobbled together with the tawdry and risible clichés its readers have thrilled to for years."

Well honestly Giles, if you WILL read the Guardian - the newspaper for the leftwing intelligentsia, that fawns over Castro, remains uncomfortably aligned with new Labour (where else can they go? Lib Dems? pfft The Independent already is up their arse) and scrapes out an existence from its onanistic sarcastic snivelling socialists.

Go on, think of it as an well aimed kick at the heart of the pinups of the left - Idiot Savant likes Polly Toynbee - and you do wonder what she does everyday to help the poor, besides helping sustain a newspaper that they wrap their fish and chips in.

Gordon austerity Brown tells Britain off

"There are poor kids in Africa who would love that food" says Gordon Brown in effect, as he puts on the school headmaster outfit and tells the UK off for throwing away "too much food".

Like a little protestant guilt monger he snarls at us all, eyes darting from right to left with that dour expression permanently etched on his tightly judgemental face. Already lovingly taking between 20 and 50% of our incomes, because, after all, he knows best how to spend that money (no longer "ours"), he's decided we don't spend the rest of it well either.

According to the Daily Telegraph he said "If we are to get food prices down, we must also do more to deal with unnecessary demand, such as by all of us doing more to cut our food waste which is costing the average household in Britain around £8 per week".

Furthermore "If you don't eat your meat, how can you have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat...(whipping sound)". (OK so I made that one up).

Talking to the British public as if they are children is hardly going to endear him with them all, but no doubt he thinks it is good. Maybe he was raised to eat everything off his plate, overcooked dried peas, boiled to a pulp carrots, bland mashed potatoes and lard fried sausage products, and be damned lucky he had that.

Now don't get me wrong, I KNOW people waste food. I do. Sometimes things go off, sometimes something you buy is quite awful (like the pasta we had last night). Maybe some people who moan about it could be more economical, but it's the same about petrol, electricity, clothes, gambling, alcohol, entertainment - hell, anything.

However, what is particularly grating when the G8 summit he has gone to has ensured he is well fed with a banquet including caviar. Yes Gordon, eat up!

What I care about more is whether Gordon can stop his rapacious consumption of taxpayers' money. He bailed out a bank with it, he is pouring money into the Olympics with it, he's pouring money to pay for other people to have easy access to the property market, he's pouring money into a long list of petty welfare projects that are nothing but politics. Gordon, maybe people would be under less stress if you didn't spend so much of their money? By the way, hope the caviar was good, and you saved doggy bags for your constituents.

oh and by the way, next time you want to tell me how to spend the remainder of my money after you took over half through taxes, just fuck off. You're not my moral superior, and the money you take from me already is not that well spent. I learnt enough about being thrifty from my own Scottish Protestant parents, I don't need a highly paid new one who constantly has his hand in my fucking wallet!

4th of July

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Beautiful words, thank you USA. For all the flaws, and the criticisms, you still are the repositary of the idea that government is the extension of the rights of the governed, not governing subjects.

Now to think simply this, can all the powers of government ever be legitimately more than the rights that the citizens have themselves? (self defence) and if so, why? How can government by the people, for the people have rights that the people themselves cannot delegate?

Without the Declaration of Independence, this question may not have been answered for some time - and that is why it is worthwhile to celebrate the 4th of July.

No WE are not at fault Tapu Misa

Tapu Misa in the NZ Herald has claimed "We are all at fault for bad kids"

What rubbish. What a completely abrogation of parental irresponsibility. I'm not to blame at all, and neither are millions of others. Bad kids have themselves and their families to blame, not the amorphous cop out called "society".

You see she is claiming kids reflect the "values around them". Indeed they do, the values they see at home whether it be hard working courteous and loving parents, or lazy, abusive and hedonistic ones will speak volumes - but it isn't my fault. She paraphrases Plato rather ignorantly saying "Plato talked about the best of us being the wise and the virtuous, guided by the idea of the common good for the benefit of the whole community." You know, the philosophy that most dictatorship and autocracies have adopted? The idea of telling others what to do because it is in their interests.

She then goes into "we" mode. Who does she think she speaks for? "We" this "we" that. You don't speak for me Tapu Misa, so get rid of your "we" statements, when you mean "me". Or don't you even mean that, in which case, who the hell are you meaning? Why don't you like people having individual responsibility?

She says:

"we more enlightened beings place a higher value on individual success, as measured by the accumulation of wealth; we have nurtured greed, cynicism and the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake."

Do you? I think individual success is measured by the individual, as long as you don't seek to force others to make you live, you should live your life as you see fit. Why do you nurture greed and cynicism? By the way, there is nothing wrong with the pursuit of pleasure, as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others at the same time.

"We have been so intent on throwing off the shackles of religion that we have thrown out spirituality with the bath water, and with it the idea of morality, of the virtuous citizenry that a civilised society needs."

Have you? You said you went to church. Again, it's partly nonsense. There is a problem with ethical nihilism and a non-culture of hedonistic cannibalism. A culture fueled in part by welfarism, in part by cynical envy of the successful and a culture of blaming others for your own inate lack of self belief. That is more the point, but you're far far away from the solution. You see your article is about abrogating personal responsibility for one's own life and that of your children. I'm not at fault for other people's children. Maybe you need to go back to some rather simple points:

- When you have children you are responsible for them, that means materially, emotionally and spending time with them;
- The very basic values you should teach them are that they are in control of their life, but they should respect the right others have to control theirs. That means your property and body is your own, but so is everyone else's. It means you have to earn more, you have to be clever to do this, which means work;
- Success is up to you, live your life as you see fit, but respect the right of others to do the same. Do what makes you happy under these limits, and be proud, enjoy yourself, embrace and enjoy life;
- What other people think of you is not as important as what you think of yourself. Don't live for the sake of others, or how others will judge you, live for you, and let those you associate with be those who support who you are.

However, it's not as simple as saying "it's society's fault" is it?

What post-modernism does to the mind

Two children die, due to serious head injuries, inconsistent with accidents and consistent with murder, manslaughter and a family environment of neglect and hedonistic irresponsibility.
.
However in the world of the Marxist post-modernist, "colonialism and capitalism" are to blame. So presumably there shouldn't be a Police investigation, violence towards children is simply the fault of "the system". Smashing an infant's head is, not the fault of the person doing it -no - it's what you do when you're a loser who blames everyone else for your problems or when the state doesn't give you the life you think you deserve. She's said it before. "It's part of a bigger project to blame people in poverty for making bad choices on an individual level, rather than seeing the structural issues which leave people so broken that they torture a three year-old"

.

So if she had a child, and a "person in poverty" tortured that three year old, she could point a finger at all those business people and blame them. It's rather like accusing the Jews of ruining Germany's economy in the 1920s, or educated people for the war in Cambodia. It denies people have conscience choices, and justifies doing violence to another because of "structural issues". One could argue such issues might "make a man rape a woman", except the post-modernist identity politics type classify people, like Leninists and Nazis did, into powerful and powerless, so that women by definition have less power than men DENYING that it varies enormously by individuals.

.

You see when you're infected by post-modernist relativism, individuals are irrelevant to your grand theory of the universe- the theory that says it's not the fault of Maori people who abuse their kids, for example.

.

Oh and don't forget that when she says "capitalism and colonialism played a large part in those babies deaths" (sic) no alternative is offered. Certainly not the alternatives of communism, Islamism and post-colonial nationalism which have blighted much of the world for decades, although she shows some sympathy towards Islamists fighting for Iraq to be another Iran.

.

Of course I wonder that if "capitalism killed Mrs Muliaga" (despite the evidence of her family having at least made multiple mistakes along with herself, the evidence of multiple warnings of disconnection of something that hadn't been paid for), why Maia didn't pay Mrs Muliaga's bill herself? In fact why don't those who "blame the system" use their own money to help those who "suffer"? For indeed if you are going to blame "the system" for the reason why some people abuse kids, then you should blame yourself for not doing enough for the victims. Her death is sad, but frankly I care about people I love, not some stranger dying because she and those who loved her didn't pay her power bill, didn't call the hospital and didn't follow medical advice.

.

Then you can say "The idea that we can all control our own health, if we have the right 'lifestyle' runs strong in our society" which is true, because to some extent it IS true. If you smoke and take drugs it will more than likely shorten your life, if you are a vegetarian who exercises it will probably lengthen your life. If you don't exercise, eat a lot of saturated fat and sugar, then it will probably shorten your life. It's medical fact, but then if it doesn't suit a post-modernist, she will evade this as being "culturally inappropriate" or whatever new means there is to be wilfully blind. However then to accuse the public hospital system, taxpayer funded, of being culturally insensitive and claim this is "capitalism" requires even more contortions of reality. How is a compulsory state funded hospital's poor advice to the Muliaga family the fault of capitalism? Might the hospital have been more responsive had the family been paying it?

.

So does one book therapy when your mind suffers from the contradictions that:

- People who commit crimes were "forced to" by the system;

- People who neglect their own welfare or that of their family have no responsibility to themselves or their families;

- Those that have not the slightest link at all, on any measure of evidence, causality, intent or responsibility, ARE to blame for the crimes, neglect or simple foolish irresponsibility of "victim groups" (defined by race, sex, class and whatever other silos make you a powerless victim of the oppressor groups);

- Parents who abuse kids are not responsible for it, but policemen who rape women are responsible, but while neither should go to prison, there is no alternative given?

.

Maybe I'm being a "right wing idiot" (another banal simplistic generalisation that there is just a left and right) but when do people become responsible for their own lives, their own actions and their own families? Why are people to be collectivised like sheep in the minds of the post-modernist collectivist, instead of being judged by their actions as individuals? and when do post-modernists ever recognise that, applying their own philosophy, everything they think is coloured and biased by their own experiences and so is, relatively speaking, not applicable to anyone else?

.

I'd simply like to know what the alternative to capitalism is and how it doesn't involve initiating violence against others.

Post 1000

I have been blogging for over 2.5 years and so today this is my 1000th post.

So why do I bother? What has been the result?

There is some effort involved in having a daily rant. It started and still is about that, but I’ve noticed the hit rate rise and drop. I average about 100 users with about 130 page views a day. I've been linked to by numerous sites from time to time, and am grateful for that.

However, what I want to do most of all is make people think, beyond simply a rant. I blog primarily about NZ politics from afar, but also UK and US politics, international affairs, and occasionally trip reports and personal matters. Given I am a transport sector management consultant I have a lot to say about that, but know the audience is limited. Indeed transport almost highlights why I have a suspicion of government doing good, as in most cases it makes foolish decisions.

So I am a libertarian, objectivist and atheist. You figured out that easily enough. However why? What was my philosophical, political journey to take me to something that is, frankly, a highly minority opinion?

My first ever exposure to politics was my maternal grandfather who was a card carrying member of the Labour Party. I briefly remember the 1978 general election, and that “Mr Muldoon” was the Prime Minister. My grandfather told me why he supported Labour though I understood little, I listened to his criticisms of Muldoon. Sadly he died when I was 10, but from that I followed politics a little more. It seemed to be a contest between good and evil. I remember the 1981 election and more specifically the party political broadcasts that Labour, National and Social Credit put out on TVNZ, which then had a statutory monopoly. Labour argued that income tax was too high, but business tax too low. National argued Think Big “Jobs for our children and our childrens’ children that’s what this is all about” bellowed Muldoon. Social Credit was difficult to understand, but the idea of a third party automatically appealed.

The political environment of the time was full of conflict. The Springbok tour, protests against US nuclear powered/armed ships, and the economic malaise all caused concern and divided opinion. I remember inflation at 18%, and interest rates BELOW that for the bank, thinking I was getting a good deal on my paltry savings at the then Post Office, when in fact Muldoon was ripping me off, like he did hundreds of thousands of children. Those are the days Jim Anderton and Winston Peters remember fondly for some reason. I also recall learning from books how dictatorial East Germany was, with citizens prevented from leaving by big barbed wire fences. I wondered how bad a country can be that it needs to force its people to stay.

The 1984 election was an exciting one, not least because Bob Jones’s New Zealand Party made it amusing. I was loyal to Labour, not least because it was the party that could unseat Muldoon and National, which I thought was a party of economic madness. At school we were meant to do a project on the election, and I remember going to the Social Credit office in Wellington to ask for a manifesto, only to have a weird little bearded man mumble and hand me something. Bob Jones’s diatribes on Skoda driving grey zip-up shoe wearing bearded teachers made some sense at that point. Nevertheless, I was convinced David Lange was honest and would do what was right – in some respects had Labour embarked on a mad socialist programme I would have accepted that at the time, but no…. it was all going to be very different.

I was astounded by the reason behind pulling the plug on subsidies, the opening up of markets and the general willingness by the fourth Labour government to get out of the way of business. The sheer mind numbing ineptness of the Post Office, Railways, Petrocorp and the like was patently obvious. Why couldn’t these be businesses, why should businesses receive taxpayer funds at all? How possibly could politicians know better than consumers, producers and entrepreneurs?

I was convinced by Douglas, so supported Labour even up to voting Labour in 1990. Why? Because of the sheer audacity that politicians would do what is right rather than obtain short term political advantage. The fourth Labour government outraged farmers, manufacturers, unions (albeit somewhat muted) and many others, yet who could argue to retain the bloated state sector and its inane regulations of things such as international air fares! Who could argue that the government could keep overspending ad infinitum?

However, it didn’t all please me. The Treaty of Waitangi became centre stage, and the cries of victimhood and claims that Maori committed crime, did badly at school and smoked, drank and ate themselves to early graves because of Treaty breaches sounded suspicious. The establishment of new Ministries such as Women’s Affairs seemed like an unnecessary increase in the size of the state. On top of that Labour had reintroduced compulsory unionism, and effectively severed military ties with the USA- the anti-nuclear rhetoric appeared largely emotive nonsense, and the anti-American insinuation was ridiculous. Few protested Soviet nuclear weapons.

However National did absolutely nothing to confront any of this, except voluntary unionism. National was totally unwilling to deal with the Maoist attitude to debate on some of these things that I encountered at university – all Maori were disadvantaged and I should be disadvantaged to give Maori a “hand up”. Funny how I noticed some who had such a “hand up” came from wealthier families than I did. I am the first from my family to go to university.

I also was far from enamoured at the conservatism of some in National. Graeme Lee had a strong influence on censorship law in the early 1990s, to the extent that it became an offence to possess “objectionable material” even if you didn’t know it was or reasonably should know, and that definition included depicting acts that are legal.

I believed in freedom and wanted less government, the only voice in the early 1990s appeared to be Roger Douglas and the newly formed Association of Consumers and Taxpayers. However while ACT promised radical reform of health and education, it never spoke about freedom – that was when I discovered the Free Radical.

The notion that adult interaction should be voluntary was so clearly obvious as to make it strange to think otherwise, yet that was what government was all about. I became a libertarian because I was tired of people demanding governments use force to make others do what they couldn’t convince them to choose to do. Those on the left are particularly keen to tell others what to do, but many on the right do too. However it is more than just freedom, it is about life.

That is how I discovered being a libertarian and the philosophical underpinning for it – objectivism. You see I value human life. I don’t seek purpose outside existence, I am alive and I may as well enjoy it. I want to be free to do this, whilst respecting the same in others. My body, my property and my life, and others have the same. I can’t conceive why others can have any right to tell me what to do with any of these, given I do not want it over anyone else. Government should exist to protect people from each other and from other governments, it should not exist to do anything else.

However objectivism goes beyond the role of the state, and is actually about why we live and how to live. A life of reason and passion, enjoying what time we have is what objectivism is about.

Contrary to this is so much in statist politics, whether it be socialism, fascism, conservatism or more recently environmentalism. All are an abandonment of reason. Environmentalism selectively uses science to spread fear of doom and death, whilst often advocating anti-science, in objecting to biotechnology, or anti-economics, in advocating protectionism, subsidies and higher taxes. Religion all too often, besides being explicitly an abandonment of reason for faith, is concerned about the after life, not life. At its worst it has been the banner for murder on a grand scale, at best it is a distraction and a private comfort for some.

My overwhelming mission in this blog is to question the role of the state in almost all aspects of human affairs. The state, after all, is simply a collective of human beings with only one difference from everyone else – the right to use force against them. The idea that in many instances politicians and bureaucrats know better than other people how to spend their money, use their bodies or their property is rather peculiar – yet it is the core belief of those who join the Labour Party or the Green Party, or dare I say it, National.

The liberty of the human individual is a beautiful thing. You can see this most clearly in a child, who unsubconsciously explores the world around her, who smiles, trusts and seeks to learn, and make the world into what she wants it to be. That is before being told not to be “too clever” or “how important it is to be liked”.

Today, thousands of young people grow up concerned most of all about being liked and “belonging”, when they should celebrate being themselves, pursuing their passions and respect others doing the same. Millions live today demanding the state take more money off of others because it is “fair”. Fair apparently that others should live for them, make a living that must be paid to others. The insipid socialism that there is something wrong with the “rich getting richer”, and the “poor” standing still –and that the rich should fix their lot, not the poor.

The violence of the state is every bit as abhorrent as the violence of individuals who mug, steal, attack and take from others as crimes. However it has the veneer of respectability – it is ok to vote for your neighbour to be robbed to pay for what you like. After all, taxation is theft, regardless of any justification one may make or other cliché claimed, taxes are taking money by force.

So I ask you, when you read this blog, or read others or the rants of politicians who want something from you, do politicians not have the powers granted to them by the people they are meant to represent? If politicians only have the powers granted to them by the public, why do they use powers that no member of the public could ever have? You have no right to steal, so how can you grant that to a politician? You have no right to stop your neighbour painting his house the colour he wants, so how can you grant that to a politician? You have no right to arrest someone because he ingests something you disapprove of, so how can you grant that right to a politician?

That is why I advocate freedom – I don’t think politicians and bureaucrats are better than me, or anyone else. What could be more egalitarian than that?