If the Greens just handed out condoms

it would apparently be far more effective per dollar spent to reduce CO2 emissions than the current panoply of subsidise what we like (solar energy, wind power, railways) and ban or tax what we hate (aviation, road transport, coal fired power stations) policies that the Greens and their friends embrace with such enthusiasm, so says the London School of Economics according to the Daily Telegraph.

"Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says"...."If these basic family planning needs were met, 34 gigatons (billion tonnes) of CO2 would be saved – equivalent to nearly 6 times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total"

In other words, address contraception and it will address the CO2 concerns that many have.

By contrast, of course, the Greens embrace subsidising breeding through the welfare state. So while they continue their adolescent approach to policy (car bad, train good, gas powered electricity bad, solar energy good), wouldn't everyone be a lot happier if the Greens, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth (not people) etc raised money to pay for targeted contraception campaigns globally? Meanwhile, if they stopped supporting welfare programmes that reward breeding, it might help a little too? Consistent with freedom and reducing CO2 emissions.

Yes it would upset the Catholic Church, but you wouldn't be forced to use contraception, like you shouldn't be forced to breed.

However, I'm talking about people who believe in a certain catastrophe convincing people to act to reduce the risk - not about initiating force. I think that confuses far too many in the environmental movement (which is, perhaps, why my comments on Frogblog get moderated now?).

Whose tree?

Well it is still not yours, this doesn't make your property YOUR property.

However, at least we know where Labour stands on this. Thieving pricks. The Nats may be gutless wonders for only rolling the law back a notch, but Lynne Pillay and Silent T have shown themselves to be pilfering petty little busybodies. They'll be wanting half your income and to tell you how your kids should be educated next, what to eat and... um

If you like the tree on someone else's property, it's simple. Attempt to persuade the owner to do what YOU want with it OR buy it.

No need to resort to violence.

More importantly, no right to resort to violence.

However, for most politicians using violence is part of what they embrace isn't it?

Do nothing is an option, but

Some years ago when I worked in the public sector, I was reminded by a sagacious manager that "do nothing" was always an option that should be put forward to Ministers, with the relevant consequences. "Do nothing" was valid and often the best option he said.

Sadly, those days appear to have faded somewhat. "Do something" is what people expect and Ministers all want to "do something".

Lindsay Mitchell has written wisely about "what would happen if the government did nothing more about child abuse".

The state houses and pays for some child abusers, it supports those who don't want kids to keep them. So on the one hand it provide succour to those who abuse, on the other hand it also has its core and proper role, which is the identification and prosecution of cases of criminal abuse and neglect. In other words, when the state steps in for the rights of children not to be raped, punched and ignored.

There will always be parents, guardians and strangers who will abuse children in the foreseeable future. Quite simply because there will always be flawed human beings, who thrive in the torture and abuse of others, or those who are simply recklessly destructive, not caring who they ignore in the process. This sort of abuse always happened, children who would be beaten to within inches of being sent to A & E, who were too scared to tell anyone. Parents who knew they could physically abuse or sexually abuse, with others not able to find out. Indeed, in the not too distant past children weren't believed when they told of such things (fortunately the era seems ti have moved on from being convinced kids were being abused even when they adamantly denied it and there was no evidence of abuse).

So what can be done? You cannot hope to have the state monitor and interfere at every point in a child's life and detect abuse. No. Health professionals can keep their eyes open for signs of harm, as can teachers, but this will be by chance. The best hope is for the abused to be able to speak out, which beyond a certain age is possible.

That means both feeling confident to speak out to teachers, relatives, friends, neighbours and strangers, but also for those people to feel they can listen.

For one of the most malignant trends in the last 20 years has been scaremongering about the contact adults have with children, particularly men, particularly alone. Children are taught to fear adults, and adults are taught to not be seen alone with children who aren't their own.

Yes the odds are that every child will encounter at least one adult with such intent, but for every abuser, there are easily 100 adults who will do all they can to be helpful to children. Why? Because frankly if most human beings didn't act that way around children, the species would have died out a long time ago, or barely advanced from the caves.

So how about children being encouraged to talk to adults who they trust, how about children being taught self defence, and how about adults not being scared of children, and finally, how about NOT judging adults with children, unless it is obvious something is wrong?

Oh and while we're at it, is there any reason why those convicted of serious violence and sex ual offenders should be allowed to live with children? Isn't that one way to stop intergenerational abuse?

When will adults be given full time parents?

This sort of scheme is absurd. "A smart card that subsidises healthy foods has been recommended by obesity researchers. The system was proposed in research commissioned by the Ministry of Health, the New Zealand Herald reported."

We have the nonsense that people who are overweight, are actually poor. The opposite of the developing world. The latest excuse is that "it's cheaper to eat badly". This, of course, is nonsense.

Here are some ideas:
- Pasta (without cheese);
- Soup, with bread;
- Canned vegetables;
- Water, the universal drink - or even tea and coffee.

The attitude that people are overweight because of money is the attitude that there are adults incapable of looking after themselves, that they should be wards of the state, that nanny looks after them, feeds them, spends their money and ensures they are healthy. It is at best patronising, at worst a damnation of decades of welfarism that has produced people who are no better than children, because the state houses them, gives them money to spend and expects little in return. Of course once obese, people have the delight of the state picking up the tab for health care, because it sends no price signals over the years about how much extra it will cost.

I love this at the end though "Pensioners should be excluded because they had not been found to experience food insecurity, he said."

Oh hold on, so pensioners don't have this problem because presumably they aren't so stupid as to buy unhealthy food, or they aren't so lazy to not think a little bit about their shopping?

It's time to give up on this nanny approach, start thinking about health care as a personal responsibility and move towards people paying towards their health costs. I don't support removing GST on food, as GST should simply be abolished altogether. Removing GST on food makes food relatively cheaper than other "entertainment". However, it wont make any difference to obesity.

One thing might though. Getting rid of subsidies for bus services would encourage more people to walk and cycle.

Feedback on Telecom proposal

The NZ Herald reports "The Government wants feedback on Telecom's request for a variation on its planned operational separation.

Telecom announced a three-way split of its operations as part of the previous Labour Government's 2006 decision to reregulate aspects of the industry.

Communications and Information Technology Minister Steven Joyce said Telecom recently requested the government consider a variation to the proposed plan"

Here's my feedback:

1. Let Telecom do as it wishes. The Government does not own Telecom, Telecom's shareholders do.

2. Advise Telecom it does not need government permission for any changes to its own corporate structure, and that the Telecommunications Act 2001 will be amended to remove any powers of the government to direct the Telecom as to its property rights.

The NZX50 should take a rather significant leap at that point. The mooching participants in the telecommunications industry might have to think again before expanding their "businesses" using other people's property under duress.

"Nanny state" is about defending freedom

Dr George Thomson from the University of Otago, Wellington has told delegates to a Public Health Association conference that 'public health initiatives to protect populations from the risks of the tobacco, alcohol and food industries have increasingly been labelled as nanny state'.

He of course portrays the "initiatives" as being benign measures by people who know what's best for us (doctors of course, who could dare question the good intentions of members of the medical profession, in whose hands we always want to submit our lives), and that the measures are protecting us from the "risks of the tobacco, alcohol and food industries", presumably because we are all naive children.

No Dr Thomson.

Virtually everyone knows smoking is bad for you. All children are taught it can cause lung cancer, emphysema and contribute to heart disease and many other cancers. It's no secret.

Virtually everyone knows alcohol is bad for you. Being drunk makes you less risk averse, excessive drinking kills your brain cells, causes cirrhosis and exacerbates some circulatory complaints and cancers.

Virtually everyone knows eating sweets, chocolate, snack food, deep fried takeaways and the like can make you fat, give you heart disease, diabetes, contribute to bowel and stomach cancers and other conditions.

Yet people do it. Why? Some because they like it, some because they are going through enormous stresses and strains, and getting drunk or gorging on ice cream can help you feel better.

The idea that people are naively being conned into eating, drinking and smoking is patronising and wrong - unless Dr Thomson can point out places where people don't know any better.

He thinks that the term nanny state comes from the industries selling these products:

“The increased use of these terms appears to be driven by industries that are afraid of increased control over the marketing of unhealthy products"

No it's not Dr Thomson, it is as much by individuals afraid of you controlling our choices in our lives. You don't get this, it is called freedom. Many people, fully aware of the risks, don't want to be told how to live their lives by do gooders.

He continues "There’s a need to reframe public health activity as stewardship that protects people. Governments are expected to balance the public good against the interests of big business, and to care for the vulnerable in society. We need to create the language to reflect this, which looks behind slogans and the stereotyping of opposition to unhealthy products"

The vulnerable? He means everyone. You can't target one without controlling all adults. More simply. I don't mind getting information about food, drink and other products for consumption, about the health effects, as long as I am not forced to pay for it.

However, I don't WANT your protection Dr Thomson. I'm an intelligent grownup who can make my own decisions.

He continues down a more disturbingly anti-business refrain "there’s a need to reframe and analyse businesses that inflict health damage to people, as leeches on society".

Ah so the pleasures people get from these products are worth nothing to you. They are not leeches, they are supplying products people want, that they choose to buy and enjoy. However, you're paid for by the taxpayer, forcibly, in other words people pay for you whether they want to or not. Who is the leech then?

He finally shows he true Orwellian hatred for freedom, by demanding the most intrusive nanny state possible by implication from this statement "Governments that allow damage to the general public are creating the ninny state, and are following corporate welfare policies, rather than the public good".

The government should protect us all from ourselves! We mere children, the state knows best, fortunately there are intelligent grownups to tell us what to do, for the "public good".

Dr Thomson, please kindly fuck off, feel free to spend your own money on promoting health living as much as you like, but when you force people to comply you're crossing a line. THAT is what Nanny State is about.

It's about freedom. Freedom to eat, drink, smoke whatever I want, as long as I am responsible for my actions. You see that is what differs us from the joyless drones who live in the likes of North Korea - where your message undoubtedly would be warmly embraced.

OECD report IS a wake up call

Tariana Turia and Annette King both think the OECD report "Doing Better for Children" is a wake up call. Sadly the people who most need to wake up, spend too much time sleeping and ignoring their kids as it is.

Tariana Turia thinks it is a wake up call to the government and you. Yes you! It’s up to you to fix these problems and you should be forced to do so, through taxes.

The response has been tragically asinine:

- Labour is calling for more fiscal child abuse to subsidise errant families;
- Jigsaw family services is calling for the same;
- Idiot Savant continues his state worshipping;
- The perpetually inert Child Poverty (in)Action Group wants to pilfer more money from successful families to increase welfare benefits (whilst CPAG itself does nothing material to help children).

Lindsay Mitchell by contrast points out that the OECD report contains a damning indictment on welfare for single parent families. She quotes "Some countries spend considerable amounts on long-duration single-parent benefits. There is little or no evidence that these benefits positively influence child well-being. Durations could be reduced and resources concentrated on improving family income during the early part of the life cycle for those children".

In other words, the OECD doesn't support the blind "more welfare" approach at all, and denies that such benefits are good for children. Ironic, when so many want to use this report to promote more welfarism, they deftly avoided that.

Many New Zealand families function reasonably well, and don’t have suicidal children or children in poverty. The people who should be waking up are as follows:

1. Everyone who breeds without the means to look after their kids: Why would you do that? Why would you produce children in poverty? The reason your kids are living in poverty is you. Yes, you.

2. Parents who abuse their kids: Apparently most of you were abused yourselves, which is hardly an excuse to repeat the behaviour. You are vile, you don’t deserve to have children, and you should be in prison and denied ever having custody of kids again. Just because Sue Bradford made it look like most parents are like you, they are not.

3. Parents who ignore their kids: Yes it isn’t a crime to always go to the pub instead of staying home and playing with or helping your kids, to never read to your children, to take little interest in what they do, to tell them that a lack of schooling never did you any harm, to be more interested in picking up men that picking up your kids’ homework or to regard your kids as a nuisance. However, you’re pretty useless as parents.

4. Politicians who insist on forcing everyone to pay for categories 1-3 above: Why are you penalising good families by subsidising bad ones? Why do you want to continue treating children as a welfare gravy train for indolent nobodies? Why wont you confront the disincentive the status quo is for good behaviour? Why do you create virtually useless agencies like the Ministry of Youth Affairs or the malignant (nobody is to blame) Office of the Childrens’ Commissioner? Wouldn’t children be better off if their parents didn’t need to work so much to make a living because you weren’t strong arming so much tax from them?

5. Staff of the Office of the Childrens’ Commissioner, and Ministry of Youth Affairs: You have failed, time to resign. 5x the suicide rate of the UK? Double the suicide rate of Australia and the US? Time to ease the budget deficit back a bit and shut those entities down.

Quite simple, if you can't afford to have kids, don't have them. If you have them, make sure you love them and dedicate a good part of your life to giving them the attention they deserve and need. Beyond that, either close your legs, take the pill, wear a condom and stop producing children you wont love or can't care for - and stop electing politicians who encourage it.

Then, people who can afford to have kids, might have more, and besides - those who think human beings are a blot on the environment ought to support people breeding less.

70 years on

It is the anniversary of the German invasion of Poland, an invasion facilitated by the Soviet Union, which saw the belated start to World War 2. A war that should have started long before, when Hitler was expanding his way through what is now the Czech Republic. According to Wiki, 6 million Poles were killed in World War 2.

Poland is now frustrated that Russia doesn't acknowledge its disgraceful role in appeasing Nazi Germany, and of course keeping Poland under 40 years of Stalinist tyranny (how many Western academics talk of Soviet imperialism?). Russia is claiming Poland conspired with the Nazis. Of course Russia now whitewashes over its own history in the Katyn Massacre.

Poland was truly one of the worst victims of the war, and the biggest losers afterwards.

Minto the socialist hypocrite

Plenty have commented on this nonsense, but my point is more simple.

If John Minto cares so much about the poor, why isn't he letting such people use his ample home for free?

He is one of New Zealand's loudest under achievers. He fought against apartheid, but largely keeps his mouth shut about the theft and corruption of his former mates at the ANC - as if it is any surprise that a bunch of African Marxists wouldn't also be kleptocrats.

He makes Matt Robson look centrist by comparison, but at least there is now a benchmark for hardline Marxist columnists in New Zealand (Robson and Trotter being the other obvious ones). The prick has openly promoted the communist Workers Party (sic)and the hysterical conspiracy theorist driven Residents Action Movement (sic) (which couldn't even convince all its members to vote last election, getting less votes than the minimum number of members to be a registered political party). Both parties so stupid they can't even use apostrophes in their names because their own members would be incapable of knowing how to use them.

RAM supports George Galloway, great friend of Syrian Dictator Balshar al-Assad, and Islamist terrorist groups working in Iraq.

The Workers Party is communist, supporting Castro, Che Guevara, the growing authoritarian rule of Hugo Chavez and is sympathetic to communists in Korea.

So you can see how much of a friend to human rights and freedom Minto is. He is a friend to those who embrace dictatorship, mass murder and totalitarianism.

John Minto, wants the state to be a thief on his behalf, and loves those who sympathise with killers. Nice.

Britain's newest friend - Libya

and look at the friend. After setting a convicted terrorist home free, Libya welcomed him as a hero.

Now as reported by the Daily Telegraph, Libya is celebrating 40 years of tyranny under Muammar Gaddafi. Half a billion pounds has apparently been spent on these celebrations:

"It was according to a German guest something that the Nazi Henrich Himmler would have been proud to produce.

Pictures of the 27-year-old colonel declaring the new regime were followed by highly partial renditions of his greatest achievements.

The leader's unique philosophy took centre stage.

The Great Universal Theory built on the theory that democracy can be perfected without representation and economics without the constraints of budgeting in an oil rich state.

Libya's involvement in funding and orchestrating terrorism and liberation struggles was extolled without a mention of the ravages to its reputation caused by implication in deadly incidents across four continents."

After all, having bombed two airliners, having bombed a nightclub, having armed and funded the IRA, having praised and hosted the murdering thugs Robert Mugabe and Omar Bashir, one can hardly be surprised.

Gaddafi is a ridiculous caricature of a dictator, in the mould of Kim Jong Il, except the latter doesn't have oil money and still sabre rattles.

By the way it is worth remembering the New Zealand links to Gaddafi. Trevor Loudon reported on how the late Syd Jackson himself admitted links to the Gaddafi regime, no doubt because Gaddafi was into supporting any revolutionaries who presented themselves. It is further worth noting how much Jeanette Fitzsimons, Sue Bradford, Metiria Turei, Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples glorified New Zealand's most well known friend of Gaddafi.

Human Rights Watch has its own disturbing view of Libya given the anniversary.

"The continued arrests and incarceration of political prisoners, some of them “disappeared”; the torture of detainees; the absence of a free press; the ban on independent organizations; and violations of women’s and foreigners’ rights plague the country as it tries to reintegrate with the international community. The country is dominated by one leader, who tolerates nounsanctioned criticism of his rule or Libya’s unique political system."

is one part of this summary report.

Wonder how many UK Labour MPs like their new buddy and friend?

Success of UK rail privatisation

Half hearted though it has been, as Network Rail, the private infrastructure owner, has been operating in recent years under government guarantee (and subsidies remain ridiculously high for some franchises), this article in the Daily Telegraph notes two of the successes of the UK's privatised railway operations:

- 60% more passengers than when British Rail ran everything, with higher patronage than at any time under state ownership (since 1948);
- Highest reliability since statistics have been taken.

In other words, people prefer privately run railways and they are taking people to where they want to go more reliably than the state owned one.

By contrast, very well paid RMT (rail union) head Bob Crow decries privatisation, because the rail companies make money, and because poor contractual accountability led to failures causing an accident some years ago. Apparently he hates the train companies making money, yet while they do so, they carry more people than ever before.

Methinks of course if rail passengers had to pay the real cost of services (which on some routes like rural Scottish and Welsh services, the West Coast Main Line and some commuter services), patronage wouldn't be so high, nor would overcrowding, but patronage is also due to the chronic profiteering of the UK government from fuel tax. Fuel tax went up 2p/l on 1 September, with it now being 5x the amount spent on roads in the UK. Imagine any other network utility that would be allowed to charge its customers 500% over its operating costs and investment. However, in the UK it is called the government. Perhaps if expenditure on roads more closely matched revenue collected from them, and rail fares matched cost, it may be a different story.

New Zealand motorists can at least take heart that all motoring tax money is at least spent on transport, even if 14% is spent on public transport, walking, cycling, sea and rail freight, and encouraging you to not drive at all. In the UK it is 80% spent on railways, social welfare, the NHS, schools, prisons, defence and debt servicing.

Analysis, nanny state and being economical

The OECD (far more reputable than any UN organisation) report today on young people highlights a few stats to get people excited. Within OECD (as in mostly developed) countries:
- UK teens drink the most (hardly surprising);
- Turkish teens are the most bullied but love school the most;
- Finnish teens have the best educational results (it's about keeping bad teachers out of the system and paying good teachers a lot to teach large classes);
- NZ teens have the highest suicide rate (time to scrap the obviously useless Ministry of Youth Affairs), but in the UK it is a fifth of that in NZ (does alcohol help?);
- Swiss teens have the least exercise (too much cheap public transport methinks, hehe)

Here is the report. It also says NZ average family incomes are low (so ask anyone wanting more taxes why that is a good thing). Time to read some more.

Today if you import incandescent light bulbs into the EU, you are breaking the law. So Germans are hoarding them. Another example of nanny state telling everyone what's good for them, something the EU is especially good at doing, will create a black market in light bulbs some people actually want to buy. Like children who don't know how to manage money, European residents are being told they must save energy for their own good - perhaps removing layers of subsidy and restrictions on what power companies can charge consumers (and raise prices), might be a better way of allowing people to decide how they want to save power, if at all?

The Drinking Water Subsidy Scheme is on hold. Essentially this is where taxpayers are forced to bail out the appalling mismanagement of local authorities that left local water supplies to go to rot through lack of maintenance, so that in some places water doesn't meet national standards. Good. The local people concerned should ask the local authority what happened to the rates it has been pilfering for decades, ask why it can't manage "public assets" (we hear so often how government can manage such things better than the "evil profit seeking" private sector) properly, why it hasn't heard of depreciation. Maybe they should haul some of the current and former councillors over the coals, and local authority managers. Maybe the voters should look to themselves as to why they trusted local government to supply water in the first place. In any case, it is NOT the fault of central government or taxpayers across the country to bail out such mismanagement. If people in some local authorities want better water, maybe they should just privatise what is left and - wait for it - pay for it. If not that, then set it up as a Council Controlled Organisation and, yes, pay for it. Oh and if Brendon Burns, ex. Labour spindoctor, is so concerned about the communities affected, he can go help lay new pipelines or cough up his own money - after all, what's stopping him besides his socialist principles?

The government isn't going to bail out investors in the failed Kingston Flyer tourist steam train operation. Good. It isn't a "cop out" it is treating them the same as everyone else. If you don't like it, you go down there and put your own money into it. Don't get the state to put its hands into everyone else's pockets for you. It is laudable that Kiwirail wont buy it back either. It is no more special than the umpteen other heritage railways in the country.

Give up the aspirin if you're healthy

It does more harm than good, according to a study by the Wolfson Unit for Prevention of Peripheral Vascular Disease in Edinburgh, according to the Sunday Telegraph.

"More than 3,000 men were randomly assigned to receive a daily dose of aspirin or a dummy pill and were followed up for an average of eight years.

There was no difference in the rate of heart attacks or stroke between the two groups and deaths from any cause were similar.

However there were 34 major bleeds in people taking aspirin, or two per cent, compared with 20 or 1.2 per cent of those on the placebo."

So aspirin is for headaches or prescription.... that's it...

UPDATE: Yes bollocks to my grammatical error, that I would give other people hell for... thank you Opinionated Mummy.

Japanese voters create history

Japan has spent almost all of its post war history governed by the Liberal Democrat Party (LDP). For many year it ensured stability and importantly, during the Cold War, resisted the early communism of post-war Japan. The almost continuous improvement in prosperity and living standards, including environmental clean ups in the 1960s-1980s, were under the LDP. The then Socialist Party frightened some, because of Japan's proximity to the USSR and North Korea, besides why change when everything was going so well?

Don't forget Japan has the world's second largest economy, with China only now rivalling that.

However, the LDP has long been beholden to many special interests. Japan's agricultural sector has long been the most heavily subsidised and protected. The construction sector in particular has benefited from ongoing massive state spending on roads, bridges, dams and other infrastructure, so much so that Japan has many grossly underused roads and railways. In addition, the state sector has remained immune from restructuring, and a regulatory environment that is supportive of incumbents, putting significant barriers in the way of new entrepreneurs who seek to challenge.

There was a brief period of 11 months in 1993 when the LDP lost power, as two factions brokeaway from the party and formed a short lived coalition. However, beyond that it has held on. Junichiro Koizumi helped revitalise the party briefly, and ensured the party's re-election in 2005, but since then it has gone through 3 leaders and so its reputation is in tatters. Constantly borrowing and spending money on infrastructure has failed to revitalise the stagnant Japanese economy. Japanese voters know they have not had it so bad for decades.

So now the former socialists, the Democratic Party have won 308 out of 440 seats in the House of Representatives. It will likely form a coalition with the leftwing SDP and the liberal centrist People's New Party. It's policy agenda is mixed, including cuts to the public sector, increases in some subsidies, cuts in fuel and sales taxes, hiking the minimum wage. However, I suspect it will be able to confront some of Japan's big economic demons - and will have little choice but to slash spending and confront the massive state debt.

Japan's economic is tied up in all sorts of regulation and discriminatory treatment of businesses based on favours and preferences. For example, Japan is one of the few countries left which Air NZ needs explicit approval for any new airfares it wants to set for flights from it.

Some on the left are encouraged by the socialist origins of the DP, as it talks of being less beholden to US foreign policy, and international capitalism, but I am not convinced it will make a material difference in those areas. It will learn very quickly how little it can change, how little room there is to move.

Japan is a country that is always difficult for outsiders to read, being one of the most insular societies in the world - but it is one of the economic powerhouses, and has long needed to break away from the monopoly of political power the LDP has increasingly mishandled.

Let's hope the DP takes a chance to be brave and make some tough decisions - Japan badly needs it.

Miscellaneous kiwi news bits

Compulsorily funded Radio NZ is bemoaning budget cuts. Oh dear how sad, even though private broadcasters have faced cuts due to advertising, the stations you all have to pay for, whether you listen to them or not, doesn't like facing getting less of the money you are forced to pay to it. Of course nothing stops people donating to RNZ. Funnily enough I notice Culture & Heritage commissioned a study into RNZ by KPMG, which as anyone who has dealt with the big 4 knows, is going to give you pretty much the result you wanted. Ever since broadcasting policy left MED and went to Culture and Heritage, it has become about how the state can do more, not less.

Of course my answer to Radio NZ is simple - start attracting donations, sponsorship, and learn to ask people for money.

Tukuroirangi Morgan, one of the most high profile parasites on the public tit in recent years thinks his opinion deserves some respect. He talks bollocks about denying Maori a voice on the Auckland council, when he means "denying people like me who need a separate Maori seat to get a job because I can't do it on my own merits". This supercilious nobody will forever be remembered as the man who claimed expenses for luxurious underwear, and was a one term wonder. He was defeated by Nanaia Mahuta (and a NZ First candidate, having defected to tough man Tau's Mauri Pacific party) in the 1999 election. Of course the Mauri Pacific party has the record of getting less party votes than Libertarianz in 1999. He is sad that even with Maori seats, he so disgraced himself few wanted him to represent them. Of course, it's been a while since he had a job that wasn't about his race - but just about his skills and abilities.

Paul Holmes thinks we can learn a lot from wild animals. He is of course dreaming when he is talking about species which engage in rational reactions for their own survival, that of the tribe and offspring. There's nothing special about it, except some animals get anthropomorphised by people who think they are cute. The thing is, animals are driven largely by instinct, not reason, and compassion is linked to reproduction and pack instincts for survival. He can romanticise as much as he likes, but I would've thought he could learn more from reading than from animals.

Jeanette's economic illiteracy

Unsurprisingly, the Green Party doesn't understand why the government has abandoned setting minimum fuel efficiency standards for imported vehicles. Quite simply, it would be counterproductive.

Such standards will restrict new and used vehicle imports - that puts up the price of buying a car. So people with existing old less efficient cars would pay up to $1,500 more if such fuel efficiency standards existed than if not. So it is better to just let people pay the market price, then they are more likely to get more efficient vehicles.

This goes way over the head of Jeanette Fitzsimons who clearly thinks "if we regulate so people can only buy fuel efficient cars, they will". Not thinking that reducing the supply of a good puts up the price. It isn't the EU Jeanette, this isn't a huge market and in fact New Zealand remains so poor that a large number of imported vehicles are secondhand.

So take it slowly Jeanette:
1. There is pretty much a free market today for vehicle imports. This means demand and supply are at equilibrium keeping pressure on prices.
2. Imported vehicles are typically newer and more fuel efficient than the ones they replace.
3. Restricting the imports to only vehicles of a certain standard bans certain ones from entering the market, restricting the ability of some to buy a replacement vehicle (which while not meeting your standard is bound to be an improvement). So such people keep older vehicles for longer.
4. The remaining vehicles imported face demand but less supply, so retailers can put the price up.

The analysis demonstrated your policy was wrong.

A new low on Kennedy

Mary Jo Kopechne might have thought her death by drowning was "worth it", given the career of Ted Kennedy.

So says Melissa Lafsky in the Huffington Post.

Given she said "Disabled? Poor? A member of any minority group? Then chances are your life is at least somewhat better because of Ted Kennedy." Yes, you all owe him so much, because he wanted to take more of your taxes and regulate the world so people like you had a chance, because without the services of a wealthy morally bankrupt politician, your life wouldn't have been so good.

Is it not so disgustingly evil to think you might speak on behalf of a dead woman to say her death at the hands of a drunken lech was worth it because of what he did with his life?

Should Melissa now offer herself on the altar of some politician so she can be left to die somewhere and someone else speak on her behalf and say "never mind, she'll think it was worth it given what the guy who left her to die did with his life".

Beyond smacking

Sadly, the terms of the debate on this issue have been very binary focused. One side arguing against the state interfering in how parents raise children, another said saying it needs laws on the use of force to stop horrendous cases of abuse. Neither particularly enlightens about how to raise children. Some will be aware of debate and disagreement among some objectivists about this issue.

I've written here, here, here, here, and here about my hesitancy about both sides on this issue. I despise Sue Bradford's desire to nationalise parenting, as epitomised by her embrace of Cindy Kiro's Orwellian proposals, but also despise the minority in the "pro-smacking" camp who embraced corporal punishment. Notwithstanding that, I believe most parents don't like smacking kids, but also they want to have the option without the Police treating them as abusers. Most parents would do virtually anything for their kids - it is the ones who treat their kids as a nuisance that are the problem.

So what ARE good parenting techniques? Not PC has lifted the debate, and produced an excellent post with many links (and comments) which is worthy of a read by any parent or prospective parent.

So if you don't think the best way to raise kids is to fill them with shivering fear of your violent punishment of them, OR that kids should be allowed to do whatever they like with no boundaries or guidance (except Nanny State), then go have a good read. It's called taking an issue beyond the banality of politics.

James Murdoch: libertarian hero?

Authoritarianism

That's how he describes the British broadcasting regulatory environment in the MacTaggart lecture he gave to the British television industry.

and he's right. A system that coerces all people with a TV set to pay up under threat of prosecution to fund a non-commercial broadcaster that is ever expanding its TV channels and radio stations, and which pays enormous salaries to attract popular stars from going to commercial TV - but thinks it is special and always demands to force the public to give it more money. The BBC. He decries the "land grab" this compulsorily funded state broadcaster has made to be everything to everyone, whilst the private broadcasting sector has strained to compete. Indeed, the decline of regional news on commercial TV whilst the BBC well funds its own equivalent is telling. Meanwhile, many do not know that Lonely Planet is now owned by the BBC - at what point should the state own a travel publishing operation?

Meanwhile, commercial broadcasting is heavily regulated as to the amount and types of advertising, so much that one channel cannot show an Indian show because of product placement of a company that doesn't operate in the UK.

In a brilliant speech he attacks OfCom, the UK's broadcasting and telecommunications regulator, effectively implying it is useless by deciding whether it is ok to describe Middlesbrough as the worst place to live in England, or this brilliant piece of sarcasm about how Ofcom published:

"the no doubt vital guide on ‘How to Download’, which teenagers across the land could barely have survived without."

He decries how the state is more concerned with throttling capitalism and spreads fear of its influence whilst "Nearly all local authorities already publish their own newspapers with flattering accounts of their doings. Over 60% of these pocket-Pravdas carry advertising, weakening the local presence of more critical voices". This, he argues, undermines independent journalism in towns and cities struggling to make a living which CAN impartially report on how local government operates.

He argues that people should be trusted to make good choices:

"People are very good at making choices: choices about what media to consume; whether to pay for it and how much; what they think is acceptable to watch, read and hear; and the result of their billions of choices is that good companies survive, prosper, and proliferate.

That is a great story and it has been powerfully positive for our society.

But we are not learning from that. Governments and regulators are wonderfully crafted machines for mission creep. For them, the abolition of media boundaries is a trumpet call to expansion: to do more, regulate more, control more"

Furthermore he decries the idea that independent balanced news comes from a state broadcaster:

"On the contrary, independence is characterised by the absence of the apparatus of supervision and dependency.

Independence of faction, industrial or political.

Independence of subsidy, gift and patronage.

Independence is sustained by true accountability – the accountability owed to customers. People who buy the newspapers, open the application, decide to take out the television subscription – people who deliberately and willingly choose a service which they value"

You see public broadcasters have only accountability to politicians who decide whether to force the public to fund them - that's it. It is time that there was a proper debate about the role of the state in broadcasting in the UK.

However, that debate rarely happens, and one reason is because the chief beneficiary of the status quo dominates the entire broadcasting sector - the BBC. The BBC can't be trusted to impartially engage a debate about its future, if it risks coming to the answer that the BBC is unnecessary, or should be a fraction of its current size. However, it is up to politicians and the rest of the media - the media that rises or falls on attracting audiences, customers and advertisers - to hold that debate.

For otherwise, the broadcaster that runs seven TV channels and ten national radio networks (plus numerous regional stations) will continue to say it is good for us, and please can it make us pay it more.

So James Murdoch is the libertarian hero of the day - confronting the authoritarian regulatory structure of broadcasting in the UK, which stifles the private sector, whilst allowing the BBC to be an ever growing leviathan of unaccountability. The BBC isn't good for us, just because it is convinced that it is, and makes us pay for the privilege of seeing and hearing it say so.

UPDATE: Amanda Andrews in the Sunday Telegraph says the BBC budget should be cut by a third. A good first step, I'd sell all BBC regional radio, BBC Asian Network. Radio 5 and 5xtra, Radio 1, 1 xtra, Radio 2 and CBBC. Cbeebies and BBC3.

For those want to "invest" in public transport

You believe the price of petrol is going to go sky high. As a result people will drive a lot less and want a cheaper alternative.

Really?

So here's a way you can do it, without force.

Take your savings, in fact set up a company, and speculate on oil futures. Buy as much as you can. It must be a safe investment, and watch your capital grow.

From the massive windfall profits you make from this, use it to invest (you always say invest) in public transport. Hybrid buses or indeed new trains. By then peak oil will be so obvious, that you could have borrowed from the bank to do so. People will be gagging for public transport so much, you'll get many investors willing to join you. New Zealand has a free market in public transport, just set up a bus company and go for it. In fact, the government may be happy for you to buy trains and run them on its track.

Run services, charging fares to cover costs (you're not into profits), so that people get the alternative you care so much about. Yes the trains may take longer, but surely with the empty roads you predict, the hybrid buses will operate with ease, quickly and efficiently, full of eager fare paying passengers.

Not willing to put your money where your mouths are? Well keep your hypocritical hands off of everyone else's.