Why voting for Libertarianz can make a difference

It's rather straightforward. Assuming the Nats don't completely drop the ball and Labour can't be Santa Claus, the Nats will be the largest party in Parliament after the next election, by a reasonable margin. I'm expecting the 56% or so in the polls to be more like 45-46% on election night. Anyway, National wont need your vote to do this, hundreds of thousands of people know only that to get rid of Labour they vote National.
.
So National will be looking to coalesce with who? Like Labour it will prefer to go to the centre, like NZ First, United Future and, dare I say it, the Maori Party. That's what you face, none of that will scare the electorate at all.
.
ACT is proposing 20 changes in policy that are frankly no more radical than the sort of policies that were around in the late 80s, early 90s, IF that. A tax free threshold almost double that of NZ First, dropping the top tax rate (was National policy in 2000). Education vouchers was National policy in 1987 and more market oriented health care from 1990 to 1993 (but got seriously curtailed by lack of courage). ACC competition in 1999. Labour market freedom was 1991. Privatisation was policy from 1987 to 1999. The ONLY Act policy that is a shift beyond that is to shift social welfare to an insurance based model.
.
So what happens if ACT gets a sizeable vote, and National needs ACT to stay in power. Well ACT's policies get compromised. You get a smaller tax cut, you probably don't get education vouchers (but get bulk funding), you get ACC competition, but not insurance based welfare. You get RMA reform, but nothing too serious. In other words, you get what is already not that ambitious being less ambitious. Now if ACT pushed the 20 policies I suggested a few days ago instead, then you might get the compromise looking like ACT's CURRENT 20.
.
Ah, some may say a more moderate position gives ACT more room to say its policies are reasonable. Well shifting the goalposts to the left means the destination point remains closer to the left too. Rather unambitious for a party putting up the man who pioneered privatisation, proposed flat tax and shifting the entire social sector to insurance based models.

.
So how about Libertarianz? Ah your first point is "it's a wasted vote". Well let's just see how important your vote is. Don't forget, for all the hype your head is being counted along with a lot of others - it is a tiny influence, National isn't winning a seat just because of you, neither is anyone. What it SHOULD be is an extension of what you want. If you worry about what other people vote then you're making the influence of others important on your own decision.
.
Then you might say "well the policies are lunatic or too extreme". That's your judgment, but let's assume you want a lot less government and want some serious tax cuts and reform. Who is more likely to send the signal that there should be? The party calling for abolition of GST, the first $50,000 tax free and a flat tax, or the one calling for $10,000 tax free and getting rid of the 39% rate. The party wanting an end to state welfare, health and education or the one wanting to reform it with insurance or vouchers? The one wanting to cut it to core functions of law and order and defence, or the one wanting to cut it to - the level of Australia?

.
Imagine if there were 6 MPs who always voted no to more government spending on non-core activities and no to higher taxes and no to more regulation of people's day to day lives. Would you rather them or some National MPs? Even if Libertarianz fail to get 5%, imagine if 2% of the vote was for freedom. Other parties would start wondering why they didn't get the 2-3 seats those votes would entitle them too. ACT would certainly be more bold, and the next election more would notice they could vote for freedom too.

Look at the Greens. They influence government and policy considerably, with a core 5% of the vote on the hard left, and they certainly wield influence beyond that number. Shouldn't they be countered by a party of principle on freedom? ACT has had a chance to show it could be as radical as its founder once was, and as radical as it was in 1994. It doesn't seem to want to do that, although if the polls continue to show little change, it may change tactics closer to the election.

So voting for Libertarianz can make a difference, it wouldn't mean Libertarianz would be in government, and it might not mean it is in Parliament, but it does mean you've voted for individual sovereignty over your life, body and property, and for the state to exist to protect not to initiate force. So many people believe that, many vote for second best, and many more vote for third (?) best.
.
As the election campaign rolls on, we will see how all the parties perform and for now, I wont be making a final judgment, as much can happen. It is time to be bold politically and stand up for beliefs and philosophies, not pander to fears and prejudices. Your vote is a very small influence, so it should be one that says what you believe in - and that should be more than simply "I want rid of Helen Clark".

Sky defends itself against state broadcaster's whining

Sky Television's Chief Executive John Fellet has mounted an excellent defence of his company up against TVNZ's bleeting moaning and whinging about losing sports rights because it couldn't bid enough for them. Fellet is reported in the Dominion Post saying:
.
"a TVNZ submission to the Culture and Heritage Ministry calling for Telecom-like reforms to be imposed on pay-TV was "so incredibly filled with misrepresentation" that Sky intended to file a cross-submission to "jog their memory"."
.
He claimed that forcing it out of the market for sports programming saying:
.
"All the major sporting codes would go bankrupt if the Government prevented Sky from buying exclusive rights to sporting events"
.
Probably not all going bankrupt, but they would lose more players to overseas teams and codes because they would lose a lot of money, then you'd wonder why people might want to watch. You see after all, pay TV is a way for people to see games they may otherwise visit if they lived near the venue (or may prefer to sit in their own homes than go out to a match).
.
And to TVNZ's claim of being outbid by a broadcaster that people choose to pay for:
.
"Sky had been outbid by TVNZ for television series made by Warner Bros and Disney and had dropped out of the bidding for those made by 20th Century Fox. "We haven't won anything, we keep getting outbid, and then they are complaining they are paying too much for it - I don't know what to do."
.
Well indeed. He also points out that TVNZ opposed Sky buying Prime TV because it wanted Prime, a free to air competitor, to fall over. TVNZ naturally will never fall over because it is government owned.
.
One of those entities that have enjoyed suckling off the state tit, the Screen Production and Development Association is also concerned about Sky. No doubt because Sky doesn't think it is worthwhile to pay for the overpriced programming that it produces, even though it benefits from state subsidies. That association has long lobbied for the government to force broadcasters to screen local content and lobbied for taxpayers to pay for more programmes they may not wish to watch.
.
I'm sure it isn't looking forward to the Labour party led gravytrain becoming a bit less generous under the Labour-lite party. (though to be honest, who knows what National policy is?).

The thing is you don't have to pay for Sky TV, you are forced to pay for some programming on TVNZ and you are the taxpayers underwriting the risk of the business (and its devaluation under Labour in recent years).

Now you're going to subsidise coastal shipping

Not satisfied with having paid over the odds for the right to run trains on its own network, and the rolling stock. Not satisfied with that including a coastal shipping service (the interisland ferries), the government now wants to spend your money to prop up, wait for it, the competitors to the railways and the ferries, the coastal shipping companies.
.
It's not much money, $10 million a year over the next three years. Why?
.
Coastal shipping has not been subsidised in New Zealand since the 1980s, when the fourth Labour government cut the subsidies to the Stewart Island ferry service (which was operated by the Ministry of Transport) and the Chatham Islands shipping service. Funnily enough both islands still have services of course. Before that the Kirk Labour government propped up the Wellington-Lyttelton overnight ferry run by the then Union Steamship Company with the ferry Rangatira. The subsidies ended by the Muldoon government because of poor patronage and because competing rail and air services were profitable.
.
So what's changed? Well for starters, NZ First's Peter Brown is a shipping fanatic, he thinks it is the answer to many of the nation's transport problems. Harry Duynhoven is into it as well. So personal political missions sound like a good reason to make a decision don't they? So hey, why not prop it up. The goal is to double the amount of freight going by coastal shipping, which is because it is more fuel efficient, but here's the rub.
.
You see other than the ferries, coastal shipping is about moving containers and trucks. It competes with rail because rail doesn't feed those ships, trucks do. So the government buys one mode on the pretence of the environment and fuel efficiency, while subsidising another on the same basis, but it also insists on running the roads on a non-commercial basis.
.
The irony is if the amount of freight on coastal shipping doubles it could be largely at the expense of rail. You can barely wonder at the brilliance of paying over the odds for a business that you then undermine by subsidising its major competitors. Can transport policy get more stupid?

UK debates abortion and fertility.

The House of Commons has debated and rejected a private members bill to reduce the 24 week limit for abortions to 20 weeks. It has briefly fired up the debate on abortion in the UK (it's permanently fired up in the USA). The BBC reports it was rejected 332 to 190, now the debate is about cutting it to 22 weeks.

.

Now as I tentatively dip my toe in this issue, libertarian views on this vary. Some take the feminist view that the foetus has no rights until it is born, others believe it has rights as an independent entity, my view is that abortion should not be allowed except to save the life of the mother, once a foetus is theoretically viable outside the womb, but also abortion should not be state funded (as it is wrong that those who are against it should be forced to pay for it).

On a related issue, the House of Commons has also decided that IVF clinics should not consider "the need for a father and mother" when granting women IVF treatment. The change is that they should only consider "supportive parenting", which according to the Guardian essentially opens for lesbian couples to have IVF treatment. Now as libertarian as I am on these things, in that I don't want the state being involved, I do firmly believe that IVF children have a right to know their genetic identity, unless the supplier of sperm or egg is explicit about blocking that information, and that one of the core problems for many young people today is not having a good father figure/male role model. How to deal with this? I don't know, but ignoring the issue is not the answer.

UK grants Iranian gay teen asylum

I blogged in March about Mehdi Kazemi "Mehdi Kazemi is Iranian, and came to London in 2004 to learn English. Mehdi Kazemi is gay. In April 2006 his boyfriend in Iran was executed. Under interrogation Kazemi's name was mentioned as a partner, as his father informed him by phone. Kazemi feared he too would be arrested, charged and executed - so he claimed asylum in the UK. He was refused in late 2007. As a result he fled to the Netherlands. He now faces a court in the Netherlands where he is also claiming asylum. If he fails, he will be deported to the UK - and there he faces almost certain deportation to Iran - to his certain persecution."

.

I pleased to note the BBC reporting that Mehdi has been granted asylum in the UK, according to the UK Border Agency "We keep cases under review where circumstances have changed and it has been decided that Mr Kazemi should be granted leave to remain in the UK based on the particular facts of this case." Anything else risked his certain death.