The faces of violent bigotry - debating

Gerry Adams, supporter of the IRA and Ian Paisley, supporter of British rule in Northern Ireland - both men to have supported and sympathised towards the violence each side dealt out to the other are clashing.... in the Stormont Assembly in Belfast.

^

To think how little time it was ago when the IRA was on its bloody murderous rampage in Britain, supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran and a whole wing of the east coast US Democratic Party. No, I'm not picking sides - the stupid inane bigotry of Catholics vs Protestants is stoneage. The nonsense that Northern Ireland should be united with the Irish Republic, or that Northern Ireland should treat Catholics as second class citizens has faded away, thanks in part to the war on terror drying up funds for the IRA, but also the EU. Far too many people either side of the Irish border travel, work and play with those on the other side and elsewhere in Europe for this to continue to make sense.

^

and Belfast is apparently starting to see an increase in tourism...

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.