An answer for Fiji

For starters (setting aside the libertarian arguments against state aid), New Zealand should cease all aid to Fiji which is filtered through the Fijian government. Secondly, New Zealand should refuse to recognise the new government, and make it plain that bilateral official relations with the military led government will not occur. Australia should do the same.
^
Fiji will ultimately emerge from military government and Australia and New Zealand should do a deal with the interim administration which goes like this:
^
- Set up a constitutional liberal democracy that puts limits on the powers of government and separates government into executive, legislative and judicial branches;
- Provide Fiji with a security guarantee against external invasion with both Australian and New Zealand armed forces;
- Abolish the Fijian armed forces, replace them with a strengthened Police and civil defence unit (useful for natural disaster relief).
^
Refusal to abolish the armed forces should be met with a threat to end all aid.
^
Fiji does not need armed forces, it faces no quantifiable threat from outside (internally it needs more effective policing), and it is incapable of contributing towards collective security efforts. It is clear that the Fijian military threatens its own population more than protects it. If it wants a military, let it be self sufficient, it clearly does not need any aid if it can fritter money away on arms.

Bestiality, oopss

Hat tip Not PC on the Aussie woman caught naked with a horse presumably fondling its genitals in some manner. She faces criminal charges, so the question is really, should she?

^

As a libertarian the answer is - "not enough information". would need to know:

1. Whose horse is it? If it is hers or she had the permission of the owner, then there isn't an issue regarding the horse.

2. Whose paddock is it? If it is hers or she had the permission of the owner to be there, with the horse, doing what she was doing, then there isn't an issue regarding the paddock.

^

Oh the sexual act? Well, there is no victim. So setting aside the property rights issues, the horse does not have a right to not to be touched by its owner. It isn't cruelty, after all it is fine to milk animals for their semen for breeding purposes, how different is it to...? After all, you probably think it is ok to kill animals for their meat and hides, so is it worse to fondle a horse's dick?

^

Yes it probably disgusts you, but the law doesn't exist to protect you from being offended. Plenty of people do things that disgust you, but don't interfere with anyone's rights - and do not inflict pain or cruelty. (WARNING NSFW link) Coprophagia is legal, for example - if you don't know what it is, then really don't go looking for it. It is legal to eat rotten food, it is legal to slaughter your own animal and eat it for your own consumption, it is legal to eat flies. Get the picture? The law does not and cannot exist to protect people from doing things that others find repulsive. Remember, homosexuality is repulsive to a lot of people, quite a few find masturbation repulsive too.

^

So yes, a libertarian should argue for the legalisation of bestiality. According to wiki. ..it is legal in Hungary, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Russia, Finland, Belgium, Cambodia and Mexico. The fundamental point is that the animal does not have rights. Since it is legal to kill the animal, farm and hold the animal as property, having sex with it is no different. The Dutch prohibit cruelty to animals, in that deliberate sadistic conduct or cruel neglect of an animal you own is illegal - but do not prohibit bestiality, but acts of bestiality that are cruel are prohibited because they are cruel, not because of the sexual dimension.

^

Having said that the law should have no place here, except in terms of private property rights, and (I would argue) laws prohibiting sadistic treatment of animals, this does not mean I am positively endorsing bestiality as a choice.

^

Yes, go on, fondle your horse if you like - but really, it is sad if you can find animals more arousing than people.

Government success releasing ghosts

Stuff reports "A police-led initiative of spraying water on state highways to release the trapped spirits of those killed in motor crashes has been declared a success. "

^

Oh please! So the spirits went did they? What will the government do to encourage the tooth fairy to be fairer, or Santa to give presents to all of the good kids?

^

I don't give a damn whether people believe in mysticism or not, whatever religion, spirit, goblin, ghost, apparation or whatever, it is your personal choice. However, I do not want to pay for government staff to pander to it. Yes, that includes Christianity as well.

^

I find it astounding the Iwi liaison officer is quoted as saying the exercise was non-religious, even though it includes prayers. Sorry? Isn't a prayer a calling to a supernatural being? You may as well say a meal doesn't include meat, even though the first course includes ham. Unfortunately the final quote in this article doesn't paint the Police in a smart light at all:

^

Waikato road policing manager Inspector Leo Tooman had no problems with the initiative.
"Anything that helps is worthwhile, isn't it?"

^

Anything that helps what?? The victims??

^

However, I don't expect the defenders of secular government to stand up against this. Conservatives will say it is wrong because it isn't Christian, but objectivists oppose this because the state should not be involved in anything religious. Those who so vehemently are against Christianity being reflected in the state should also oppose this.

^

I have no problem with the local iwi spraying water that it collects and "releasing spirits" by whatever legal means it wishes. It is irrelevant to me how people practice their religions, as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others - but the state should not be involved, at all.

Rod Eddington on British transport

As my profession includes transport, it is worth noting a major report just released about British transport written by Sir Rod Eddington, former CE of British Airways.

^

All the details are here, and Eddington has done a pretty good job in my view. His conclusions are sensible, he doesn't pander to the motoring lobby nor the ecologists, although he does talk about green taxes which make no sense (why should the government benefit from you doing something "bad"). Here are some of his key conclusions:

^

- Without action, congestion will add £10 billion a year in costs to the economy, and another £12 billion is lost time to households;

- The main business trends in transport will be more home working, more working while travelling, more e-commerce (deliveries rather than shopping), increased logistics and more international travel;

- If half of commuters worked at home one day a week it would be more effective in reducing congestion than a 5% mode shift from cars to public transport;

- The benefits from road pricing are tremendous, particularly in reducing congestion and enabling better targeting of road spending - but road pricing should also be used to fund new roads. Such pricing could also have enormous environmental benefits because of reduced congestion;

- There are more benefits from certain road investments (mainly targeted junction/capacity improvements) than rail investments. Road improvements can deliver major benefits in urban areas, although this is often neglected by councils;

- Better pricing should also apply to public transport especially rail, after it has been introduced for roads;

- Buses can deliver most of what light rail does at a fraction of the price;

- Decisions on funding road and rail projects should not be made politically, but made by independent agencies required to meet certain objectives;

- Competition law should no longer limit bus companies colluding and co-ordinating in ways that will enhance their ability to provide services;

- Barriers to private sector investment in new capacity should be removed;

^

No this isn't a libertarian vision, but it is a step forward. He rejects big increases in subsidies for transport, he supports economically efficient pricing and more private sector involvement, and for changes in how roads are managed. The key thing for me is that he supports providing more capacity where users are willing to pay, but that the biggest change is to get rid of bureaucratically based pricing - moving towards pricing based on getting best use out of infrastructure - market oriented pricing as is applied everywhere else.

^

It's not rocket science - roads are the most pervasive form of economic socialism today - no wonder they are managed so poorly.

Castro's hopefully dead...

With Fidel Castro unable to attend his 80th birthday celebrations, it is apparent that his death is near, and like other dictators, I wont be shedding a tear for him.
^
Castro is still a favourite for those on the left. They are seduced by a country which, unlike the bleak grey Orwellian states of eastern Europe, is full of Latin culture, a quaintness of the 1950s frozen (how many people “marvel” at old American cars still plodding along patched together repeatedly) and official socio-economic statistics that put Cuba among the best of those in Latin America.
^
With Castro ever defiant against the US, this automatically appealed to those who are anti-capitalist, anti-American and looking for a hero. The very same people of course were supporting a man who was allowing the USSR to locate nuclear weapons on Cuban soil to target the USA. Yes, very peace loving.
^
Those who admire Castro tend to ignore that his promised elections never eventuated. They also ignore how difficult it is for Cubans to leave, always a good test of a government.
^
The Castro regime has executed thousands of political prisoners. The numbers range from 3,000 to 18,000, but why quarrel over numbers – the simple fact is the Castro regime murders its opponents, as has done so with impunity. Those it doesn’t murder, it imprisons, including classifying them as insane and sending them to psychiatric institutions. You see Marxist-Leninists often thought people were insane if they didn’t feel lucky to be under a people’s government or questioned it.
^
After all Article 53 of the Cuban constitution prohibits any independent media of any kind:
^
“the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at exclusive service of the working people and in the interests of society. The law regulated the exercise of those freedoms”
^
In other words, no freedom of speech at all.
^
On top of that in Cuba you need permission to move home because, you see, you hold no property rights over your home, including the rights one has with a lease.
^
Of course none of this matters to the likes of Matt Robson, who sticks his political tongue up the arse of Castro – who turns his back on political prisoners and who ignores the complete denial of free speech in Cuba. The moral equivalency he grants Cuba compared to the US is despicable, he ignores how Americans can be anti-Bush without any consequences, but that uttering words against Castro can be very dangerous. That’s ok, he got to leave, he gets to criticise whoever he wants – prick!
^
The left will bemoan Pinochet’s eventual death as he is unlikely to be punished for the authoritarian brutality he inflicted upon Chile – yet Pinochet voluntarily surrendered power peacefully to a liberal democratic government. Castro has maintained a 48 year long authoritarian dictatorship, but the left fawns over him and ignores human rights abuses by blaming the US.
^
Some on the left will say the Batista regime that preceded Castro was worse. That justifies continuing to be brutal and suppressing dissent does it?
^
Had Castro had his way, I wouldn’t be blogging, in fact there would be no alternative point of view allowed anywhere in the world. He’d have cheered had the USSR launched nuclear missiles into the USA, and cheered when the last bastion of freedom had been snuffed out for socialism.
^
I hope the bastard is dead by the time you read this, I hope his brother doesn’t last and the Cuban government announces reforms to free political prisoners, allow freedom of speech, independent media and genuine open elections. Most of all I hope it allows Cubans to own their lives, to own their property and to live in dignity, not live in a slave state. It is time Cubans did have freedom, the right to not only elect their government, but to vote out their government, to criticise it, to hold it to account, but most of all to live their lives without it interfering in every aspect of it.
^
It is for this reason that I will be popping open the champagne when Castro dies – it will be a great day for freedom, and a great opportunity for the scum who have licked their way up the slippery pole of Cuban politics to redeem themselves.