The Green Party has released its policy on the "community and voluntary sector", which by definition is a sector which, from a libertarian perspective, exists because people choose to participate in it and pay for it (notwithstanding that some in that sector are hardened statists).
The policy, in essence, is about forcing you to pay to support that sector. Phrases like "larger budget allocation", "Enhance mechanisms and resourcing to allow policy input from community organizations", "Fund a sector-led, independent group or group of groups to work with Government".
Then it wants to force you to fund a NEW competitor to Kiwibank "Provide the starting capital for a community owned banking network..."
Remember every time the Greens say "support" they mean to do it by putting their hand in your wallet one way or another.
How is it then a "voluntary sector"?
If you are part of this sector, maybe a car club, or promote free trade, or promote laissez-faire capitalism, or private property rights, or even of a religion, you think you'd get part of this booty?
Takes the Greens to nationalise the non-state sector doesn't it?
11 August 2008
Forgotten Posts from the past: Christopher Hitchens on Solzhenitsyn
"Every now and then it happens. The state or the system encounters an individual who, bafflingly, maddeningly, absurdly, cannot be broken. Should they manage to survive, such heroes have a good chance of outliving the state or the system that so grossly underestimated them. Examples are rather precious and relatively few, and they include Nelson Mandela refusing an offer to be released from jail (unless and until all other political detainees were also freed) and Alexander Solzhenitsyn having to be deported from his country of birth against his will, even though he had become—and had been before—a prisoner there....
To have fought his way into Hitler's East Prussia as a proud Red Army soldier in the harshest war on record, to have been arrested and incarcerated for a chance indiscretion, to have served a full sentence of servitude and been released on the very day that Stalin died, and then to have developed cancer and known the whole rigor and misery of a Soviet-era isolation hospital—what could you fear after that?...
As time went by, he metamorphosed more and more into a classic Russian Orthodox chauvinist, whose work became more wordy and propagandistic and—shall we be polite?—idiosyncratic with every passing year.
more in Slate, about the man who helped expose the death and despair of the Soviet system, who later became a supporter of the post-Soviet authoritarian system that now grips Russia in its cold, dark, strangle of fiction and fear.
08 August 2008
Big ego small man
Who are you going to believe?
Professor Richard Dawkins: BSc Zoology, MA and D.Phil, D.Sc all of Oxford. Fellow of the Royal Society, Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and five honorary doctorates. Author of 9 books
Christopher Hitchens: BA Philosophy, Politics and Economics, Oxford, contributing editor to Vanity Fair, writer for Slate Author of 17 books and co-author/editor of 9 others.
or Ian Wishart, New Zealand talkback radio host, author of numerous books of limited NZ circulation.
Yes I'm afraid I had to laugh when I saw that Wishart had written a book called "The Divinity Code" in a vain attempt to confront both Dawkins and Hitchens. I wont buy it yet, as I am sure I'll be able to pick it up in a bargain book sale somewhere in NZ next time I'm there.
Dawkins and Hitchens wont be losing sleep, indeed I doubt they will even give Wishart the dignity of bothering to read his book, if they know the man exists at all.
Wishart's website says it all about his credibility, with the hard hitting publications he has endorsing it:
Professor Richard Dawkins: BSc Zoology, MA and D.Phil, D.Sc all of Oxford. Fellow of the Royal Society, Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and five honorary doctorates. Author of 9 books
Christopher Hitchens: BA Philosophy, Politics and Economics, Oxford, contributing editor to Vanity Fair, writer for Slate Author of 17 books and co-author/editor of 9 others.
or Ian Wishart, New Zealand talkback radio host, author of numerous books of limited NZ circulation.
Yes I'm afraid I had to laugh when I saw that Wishart had written a book called "The Divinity Code" in a vain attempt to confront both Dawkins and Hitchens. I wont buy it yet, as I am sure I'll be able to pick it up in a bargain book sale somewhere in NZ next time I'm there.
Dawkins and Hitchens wont be losing sleep, indeed I doubt they will even give Wishart the dignity of bothering to read his book, if they know the man exists at all.
Wishart's website says it all about his credibility, with the hard hitting publications he has endorsing it:
"A Critically-Acclaimed Writer:
”The closest thing to a John Grisham novel, but it is the real thing” - Waikato Times
A writer who is prepared to tackle the difficult subjects...well researched
and very compelling” - The Advocate
“Wishart..is exceptionally thorough...skillfully blends [an] informative picture” - Evening Standard
“His research is deep and thorough” - Wairarapa Times Age"
Yep, the Waikato Times, Wairarapa Times-Age, global authorities on... the Waikato and Wairarapa. "The Advocate" which surely isn't the gay magazine from the USA. When I type in the phrase to Google I just get "Wishart's quote" hmmm. Could it be the newspaper from Burnie, Tasmania? Could it be the Northern Advocate from Whangarei? Yes probably.
Then the Evening Standard. Wow. A quote that is dotted too, so Googling it doesn't quite work. Must be the Evening Standard in London right? Or am I right in suspecting it is the Manawatu Evening Standard?
Now call me cynical, but I don't regard four provincial New Zealand newspapers to be authorities on a book, and able to tell me whether "research is deep and thorough". Not even the NZ Herald or the Dominion Post, let alone the Times (that's London), Guardian, New York Times or Daily Telegraph, or even the Age in Melbourne. Wishart can't get a good review (or a review?) from a newspaper from any city with a population of more than 200,000.
I know there are thinkers of a religious persuasion who can make cogent, well researched arguments for supernatural beliefs, even though I am unlikely to agree with them, but Wishart?
Save your money, wait till they are piled up like Mike Moore's and Jim Bolger's books have been, in bargain bins - and then have a good laugh.
Then the Evening Standard. Wow. A quote that is dotted too, so Googling it doesn't quite work. Must be the Evening Standard in London right? Or am I right in suspecting it is the Manawatu Evening Standard?
Now call me cynical, but I don't regard four provincial New Zealand newspapers to be authorities on a book, and able to tell me whether "research is deep and thorough". Not even the NZ Herald or the Dominion Post, let alone the Times (that's London), Guardian, New York Times or Daily Telegraph, or even the Age in Melbourne. Wishart can't get a good review (or a review?) from a newspaper from any city with a population of more than 200,000.
I know there are thinkers of a religious persuasion who can make cogent, well researched arguments for supernatural beliefs, even though I am unlikely to agree with them, but Wishart?
Save your money, wait till they are piled up like Mike Moore's and Jim Bolger's books have been, in bargain bins - and then have a good laugh.
Councils should have nothing to do with religion
Before anyone brands this as "Islamophobia", let's make it clear Islam and Muslims don't scare me in the slightest. My concern is simple.
In a secular state it is entirely inappropriate for central OR local government to fund, subsidise or otherwise provide any support, promotion or encouragement of any religion, of any kind. So it is from this that I condemn Wellington City Council for its role in what is described as "Islamic Awareness Week".
If Muslims in Wellington wish to promote such a week then fine - let them do so with their own funds, private property they own, rent or have permission to use and have fun.
However it is entirely wrong for non-Muslim Wellington City ratepayers to pay directly or indirectly for the promotion of the religion. It is an insult to those of other beliefs including atheists and agnostics who would prefer that Islam not be promoted or celebrated in any way. It would be the same if it were Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, or indeed atheism.
The right to freedom of religion as a private choice, and to express publicly as a form of free speech is fundamental to a free society. However, also fundamental is the right to freedom to criticise religion and to not be forced to subsidise the promotion of any such belief. The only appropriate role for any government in such circumstances is to stand separate - to protect the right of religions to be practised and promoted, within the boundaries of not initiating force or fraud against others, and the right of others to criticise and condemn religions and non-religious philosophies.
In a secular state it is entirely inappropriate for central OR local government to fund, subsidise or otherwise provide any support, promotion or encouragement of any religion, of any kind. So it is from this that I condemn Wellington City Council for its role in what is described as "Islamic Awareness Week".
If Muslims in Wellington wish to promote such a week then fine - let them do so with their own funds, private property they own, rent or have permission to use and have fun.
However it is entirely wrong for non-Muslim Wellington City ratepayers to pay directly or indirectly for the promotion of the religion. It is an insult to those of other beliefs including atheists and agnostics who would prefer that Islam not be promoted or celebrated in any way. It would be the same if it were Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, or indeed atheism.
The right to freedom of religion as a private choice, and to express publicly as a form of free speech is fundamental to a free society. However, also fundamental is the right to freedom to criticise religion and to not be forced to subsidise the promotion of any such belief. The only appropriate role for any government in such circumstances is to stand separate - to protect the right of religions to be practised and promoted, within the boundaries of not initiating force or fraud against others, and the right of others to criticise and condemn religions and non-religious philosophies.
Sarkozy insults many countries at once
According to the Daily Telegraph he has been quoted saying "Countries which share a common cultural heritage, such as Germany and Austria, Great Britain and Ireland or the Benelux countries could share a common Commissioner"
By that measure France and Italy should share one, both being near bankrupted economies clinging to socialism, but with a passion for wine, food and love. However, can you see Ireland being represented by an English person? Sarkozy has progressively been losing the plot, will to reform and being interesting in the past year. Disappointing really.
By that measure France and Italy should share one, both being near bankrupted economies clinging to socialism, but with a passion for wine, food and love. However, can you see Ireland being represented by an English person? Sarkozy has progressively been losing the plot, will to reform and being interesting in the past year. Disappointing really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)