Helen Clark is always her own person says Germaine Greer

That's what Germaine Greer said in the Sydney Morning Herald as follows:

"Professor Greer's ideal female leader was New Zealand's Prime Minister, Helen Clark. "She's always her own person," she said."

Oh sure, absolutely, no doubt about that AT all - complete integrity there. Of course, then again which MPs are always their own person?

Why drugs matter?

Some comments on the DPF blog have accused me and Libertarianz of going against the cause of overthrowing socialism because we want ACT to support legalisation of cannabis. This arises from Richard Worth’s rather pathetic attempt to attack Rodney Hide for being a supporter of legalising drugs (where, to be fair, it is never clear whether he is or isn’t). I think Worth is completely misguided, there are far bigger fish to fry for National in terms of attacking Labour – but he can’t get past Hide winning the seat off of him. It is petty, vindictive and utterly useless for National to attack ACT, since it virtually cannabilised most of its vote at the election anyway.

.

However, I did say that Hide brought it on himself by not expressing a clear view one way or the other on this. I want Rodney to support legalising cannabis, even if, for a start, for medical use on prescription. I think, deep down, this is what he truly believes. He wont even say that. It is critical to being a liberal party to believe adults have the right to decide what they do with their own bodies – The Economist two years ago advocated legalising drugs – so it is far from being a radical non-mainstream view.

However, this is what I got in return…

“You're a lefty pretending to be something else. Have to be. Nothing would make Helen Klark happier and be more likely to ensure her e-election than advocation of drug legalisation by ACT or the Nats. From a strategic point of view, its just an incredibly dumb idea. Success in politics and most things is down to timing.”

Well really? How would the Greens react? How many young urban voters would think ACT or National are perhaps no longer the reactionary party of conservatism? So politics are just about what the voters want, rather than challenging the status quo and questioning why the status quo doesn’t work?

.

Russell Brown got it in one though:

“Seems like a fairly standard National tactic: try and scare the horses by accusing your opponent of being soft on (a) drugs, (b) crime, (c) whatever. What I find a bit odd is the belief that Act conducts itself according to the principles of classical liberalism anyway. It would be a much more interesting party if it did.”

.

Indeed it would be. I would support ACT if it was consistent on freedom and liberty. This is not a matter of degree, whether tax is 10% or 20%, but whether or not adults own their own bodies and can control what they ingest. No freedom is more important than that.

You can get your taxes back, run your business how you want, but get arrested for taking a puff of cannabis. ACT would probably gain support if it came out in favour of legalising cannabis - Lindsay Perigo did get several thousand votes in Epsom when he stood in 1996 - on that platform. National wont run with it, but it could be supported by an ACT party that took votes from the liberal left to the liberal right.

That, of course, is not as important as the debate - why does the state own your body?

The Evil Empire

Yes, today is the day President Ronald Reagan called a spade a spade, and said in 1983:
.
“Let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, predict its eventual domination of all peoples of the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.”
.
He was right, of course, Reagan also put the boot into moral relativists in saying:
.
“I urge you to beware the temptation of pride - the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.”
.
Why was he right? Unfortunately too many nowadays need reminding of a system that prohibited you from leaving the country, that prohibited any publications not approved by the state, prohibited meetings not approved by the state, suppressed information that could be seen as critical of the system (e.g. the Chernobyl accident) and aided and abetted satellite regimes that were equally as brutal in suppressing dissent. The Soviet Union was an empire bent on dishonesty, bent on denial and built on the ever present violence of state totalitarianism. A cold brutal corrupt bureaucracy acting on whim, acting on command to push people about, deport, arrest, execute and bully. It lost because it could not compete materially or ethically – and it was only two years before Mikhail Gorbachev opened up the USSR, and reformed it to its ultimate disintegration.

.

and why is it relevant? Well check out Not PC's post. Why don't you spend $1 million of YOUR money, seeking permission to build with your own property and your own money, a marina - go through the legal system, take FOURTEEN BLOODY YEARS to get permission from the courts - and a tinpot little wanker called Chris Carter - who never EARNT $1 million from productive activity in his life - says "fuck off, you've pissed all your time and money down a hole". The people of Te Atatu elected a little despot.

.

The founders of the Soviet Union hated initiative, entrepreneurship and money. To quote Ayn Rand:

.

"Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion—when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality."

.
Chris Carter produces nothing - even if you accept the nonsense of spending a decade and a half and $1 million to just get permission - he vetoed a court decision, and our own Union of Soviet Socialist Fascists are cheering him on. I sincerely hope the Whangamata Marina Society gets a judicial review of this decision. I hope the society wins and wipes their arses on the faces of the smug little power-lusting vermin who would make Brezhnev proud!

Waikato wants more roads money

Well of course it does - you see moving from a benefit/cost funding approach for roads to a more "strategic" or politically defined funding framework has meant Auckland has gained and Waikato has lost. Many Waikato projects are relatively low cost compared to Auckland projects, and have quite high benefits, but the government decided votes were in Auckland - and granted $900 million of Crown funding for Auckland transport over 10 years. Wellington has been granted $480 million so far, with another $405 to come if there is agreement on the Western Corridor roading option.
.
The answer? Well the Nats have half of it - instead of granting sums of taxpayers money to fund regional transport on an adhoc basis, shift petrol tax from the Crown account to the National Land Transport Fund, and insist that Land Transport NZ fund projects on a benefit/cost priority basis, with no projects below a threshold of 2.0. Shifting 9c/l immediately would have no net fiscal effect if you use it to replace the special Crown funding for transport in Auckland, Wellington, Bay of Plenty and for state highways. The remaining 9.8c/l could be moved over in a four year period, to avoid fueling more inflation.

.

and some Waikato projects aren't worth doing in the next ten years - a Hamilton eastern bypass? There already is a western one, which the region wants around $250 million spent on (and it is worthwhile)- the benefit/cost ratio of the eastern one is no higher than 1:1 at best. It is time to stop this Think Big approach to roads - most of the projects worth doing are relatively small and fix blackspots and pinchpoints. They don't get much publicity, but every year they save more lives and reduce delays for far more bang for your buck than most really big projects.

John Cleese upsets Palmerston North

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that John Cleese has upset some people in Palmy by calling it New Zealand’s “suicide capital”.
.
He said:
.
"If you wish to kill yourself but lack the courage to, I think a visit to Palmerston North will do the trick,"
.
The full story is here. Of course the Mayor is upset and the local tourism office reckons he didn’t spent enough time there. Oh come on!! I’ve spent two nights in Palmy, and well, it really is just a place where people get drunk, shag and race cars down the four main streets.
.
It isn’t the suicide capital of New Zealand though, I think that there are plenty more nominations for that, such as Tokoroa, Kaikohe and Levin. Of course, this is the best publicity Palmy has had in ages and according to the Manawatu Evening Standard the local Chamber of Commerce agrees and wants to exploit it!

.

Shannon isn't on the list because it has Owlcatraz, which is up for sale.