In a busy political week, the UK has seen another by-election. This time in Glenrothes, Scotland.
Labour held onto the seat, with a majority of 6,737. A smaller majority, but still a great victory for Gordon Brown personally and Labour. With the SNP having fought hard to win the seat, it shows a few things about politics in Scotland.
1. The SNP, now being the government in Scotland, finds it hard to blame others for the failings of government. Labour just says "well the SNP looks after internal Scottish matters".
2. Labour has pointed out that an independent Scotland couldn't embark on the large scale (socialist) bank nationalisations and bailouts that the UK government can manage.
3. Scotland absolutely drowns in dependency on the state and what the state can do for people. The third place result for the Conservatives that only got 1,381 votes speaks volumes, and the Conservatives are no party of small government, just less statist that the others.
So Gordon Brown will be smiling.
07 November 2008
Why Libertarianz and NOT Act
My reasons for 2005 are here, but since then National has moved to the left and ACT? Well it has changed too.
Those on the small government side of the spectrum are split between those who advocate voting for ACT, and those who say vote Libertarianz. The arguments on both sides are fairly short and sweet.
ACT advocates say:
1. A vote for ACT is a vote to move New Zealand towards less government, albeit at a far slower pace, degree and extent compared to Libertarianz.
2. ACT is almost guaranteed Parliamentary representation because Rodney Hide will almost certainly win Epsom.
So it comes down to ACT is pointing in the right direction and is in Parliament. However what does “the right direction mean”?
Being fair to ACT, the party looks better now than it has ever done. It has more policies to hinder the growth of the state than ever before, Rodney Hide has upped his game, and having Sir Roger Douglas on the ticket is notable, as he is light years ahead of any National MP in terms of courage and intellect.
ACT is better than National, but it didn’t need to work hard.
You see for me, I want to see six major changes in policies:
1. At least the option of opting out of state health and education.
2. Serious shrinkage of the welfare state
3. A significant reduction in the size of central and local government.
4. Significant reductions in tax consistent with the above.
5. Protection of private property rights.
6. Repeal of victimless crimes.
Obviously the Nats will do none of the above. How about ACT?
1. ACT policy is education vouchers, a step forward, and talks about an option for people to buy private healthcare. So, that gets a tick.
2. ACT would shift sickness beneficiaries towards an insurance based approach. Not exactly cutting the welfare state, but an improvement, so on balance the right direction.
3. ACT would cap central government to growing spending at the rate of inflation and population growth. That isn’t shrinking the state, it’s maintaining it at the same level as Labour. Standing still isn’t a direction. It would shrink local government, so why not central?
4. ACT’s tax policy sends mixed signals. It wouldn’t cut taxes until 2011. That is LESS than National. However, if you don’t shrink the state it is hardly a surprise. ACT also advocates a carbon tax. Yes you read right, it would replaced ETS with a carbon tax.
5. ACT would review the RMA so it would only supplement common law principles, but it doesn’t mention private property rights, except in terms of “where private property is taken or regulated for public good purposes.” So where are private property rights again? Why is it afraid of saying it?
6. Victimless crimes? ACT never discusses them, never touches them. It is tough on crime, but that doesn’t include reviewing criminal law. It has a “national security policy”
So with ACT I get something positive on health, education and welfare, I get the government of the same size as what Labour has left us with, and no tax cut for two years (but might get a carbon tax). I get the RMA reformed, but with no mention of private property rights, and of course ACT is silent on victimless crimes.
How, honestly, can a libertarian say that is worth voting for? I want tax cuts, I want the state to shrink. I don’t believe New Zealanders should have to put up with government as big as Labour has left us with and no tax cuts for two years. I want private property rights protected, I want a government that knows the difference between real crimes, like murder and theft, and victimless crimes, like bans on cigar magazines, smoking cannabis and allowing smoking inside your bar.
A vote for ACT is saying none of those things matter enough. To me they do. So vote ACT if you wish, but to do so you are accepting compromises with those who don’t want tax cuts, those who don’t want to protect private property rights from the RMA, those who believe zero tolerance should apply to all crimes, whether there is a victim or not.
I voted some days ago for Libertarianz, because I want to make a statement with my single vote, that the government shouldn’t own my life. Some Al Gore supporters in 2000 complained that those Americans who voted for Ralph Nader took Democrat votes off of Gore. They didn’t, they voted for what they wanted.
Your vote is a tiny indicator of what YOU believe in. It is nothing more than that. It isn't a veto - after all, it takes tens of thousands of votes to shift a single MP from one party to another.
So I am not “robbing ACT or National” of “their” vote. It is my vote. I voted for more freedom, less government – I invite you to do the same.
Those on the small government side of the spectrum are split between those who advocate voting for ACT, and those who say vote Libertarianz. The arguments on both sides are fairly short and sweet.
ACT advocates say:
1. A vote for ACT is a vote to move New Zealand towards less government, albeit at a far slower pace, degree and extent compared to Libertarianz.
2. ACT is almost guaranteed Parliamentary representation because Rodney Hide will almost certainly win Epsom.
So it comes down to ACT is pointing in the right direction and is in Parliament. However what does “the right direction mean”?
Being fair to ACT, the party looks better now than it has ever done. It has more policies to hinder the growth of the state than ever before, Rodney Hide has upped his game, and having Sir Roger Douglas on the ticket is notable, as he is light years ahead of any National MP in terms of courage and intellect.
ACT is better than National, but it didn’t need to work hard.
You see for me, I want to see six major changes in policies:
1. At least the option of opting out of state health and education.
2. Serious shrinkage of the welfare state
3. A significant reduction in the size of central and local government.
4. Significant reductions in tax consistent with the above.
5. Protection of private property rights.
6. Repeal of victimless crimes.
Obviously the Nats will do none of the above. How about ACT?
1. ACT policy is education vouchers, a step forward, and talks about an option for people to buy private healthcare. So, that gets a tick.
2. ACT would shift sickness beneficiaries towards an insurance based approach. Not exactly cutting the welfare state, but an improvement, so on balance the right direction.
3. ACT would cap central government to growing spending at the rate of inflation and population growth. That isn’t shrinking the state, it’s maintaining it at the same level as Labour. Standing still isn’t a direction. It would shrink local government, so why not central?
4. ACT’s tax policy sends mixed signals. It wouldn’t cut taxes until 2011. That is LESS than National. However, if you don’t shrink the state it is hardly a surprise. ACT also advocates a carbon tax. Yes you read right, it would replaced ETS with a carbon tax.
5. ACT would review the RMA so it would only supplement common law principles, but it doesn’t mention private property rights, except in terms of “where private property is taken or regulated for public good purposes.” So where are private property rights again? Why is it afraid of saying it?
6. Victimless crimes? ACT never discusses them, never touches them. It is tough on crime, but that doesn’t include reviewing criminal law. It has a “national security policy”
So with ACT I get something positive on health, education and welfare, I get the government of the same size as what Labour has left us with, and no tax cut for two years (but might get a carbon tax). I get the RMA reformed, but with no mention of private property rights, and of course ACT is silent on victimless crimes.
How, honestly, can a libertarian say that is worth voting for? I want tax cuts, I want the state to shrink. I don’t believe New Zealanders should have to put up with government as big as Labour has left us with and no tax cuts for two years. I want private property rights protected, I want a government that knows the difference between real crimes, like murder and theft, and victimless crimes, like bans on cigar magazines, smoking cannabis and allowing smoking inside your bar.
A vote for ACT is saying none of those things matter enough. To me they do. So vote ACT if you wish, but to do so you are accepting compromises with those who don’t want tax cuts, those who don’t want to protect private property rights from the RMA, those who believe zero tolerance should apply to all crimes, whether there is a victim or not.
I voted some days ago for Libertarianz, because I want to make a statement with my single vote, that the government shouldn’t own my life. Some Al Gore supporters in 2000 complained that those Americans who voted for Ralph Nader took Democrat votes off of Gore. They didn’t, they voted for what they wanted.
Your vote is a tiny indicator of what YOU believe in. It is nothing more than that. It isn't a veto - after all, it takes tens of thousands of votes to shift a single MP from one party to another.
So I am not “robbing ACT or National” of “their” vote. It is my vote. I voted for more freedom, less government – I invite you to do the same.
Legalise Cannabis?
Well if you believe adults should be able to peacefully consume cannabis on their own property, then your choice is rather simple.
The Green Party has abandoned pursuing this, partly because Nandor Tanczos has gone on to do other things, but also because it didn't really fit the ban/regulate/compel agenda of the party, and more importantly talking about it frightened middle class voters who thought the Greens approved of smoking cannabis. A vote for the Greens to get cannabis decriminalised or legalised is a wasted vote.
The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party has been on a long path to nowhere. It is completely dormant between elections. In 1996, it got 1.66% of the vote, in 1999 1.1%, in 2002 0.64% and in 2005 0.25%. As a one issue party it will never cross the 5% threshold, and has frittered away its support year after year. It also doesn't care about responsibility, doesn't care about healthcare or the right to ban cannabis users from private property. Ticking the leaf will mean nothing other than you only care about cannabis.
Libertarianz would legalise cannabis, and other drugs safer than alcohol, for sale and adult consumption on private property. It would also ensure users of such drugs would be responsible for paying for their own private health consequences, and while such consumption would be a right, it would be the right of private property owners to ban it on their own property, and for employers to insist employees do not enter their premises under the influence of the drug. Legalisation does not mean approval or disapproval, it is simply not the business of the state to tell you what you must or must not ingest.
So I urge those who regard the cannabis laws to be oppressive, those who see the current laws as being an abject failure, and those who believe they should choose what they ingest (but also be responsible for the consequences of consumption), to vote Libertarianz. Odds are that Libertarianz will beat the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party this time round, given the trends of both parties, and a vote for the Greens on this point will be wasted. The Greens failed to make a change in the past 9 years of government that they effectively endorsed.
The Green Party has abandoned pursuing this, partly because Nandor Tanczos has gone on to do other things, but also because it didn't really fit the ban/regulate/compel agenda of the party, and more importantly talking about it frightened middle class voters who thought the Greens approved of smoking cannabis. A vote for the Greens to get cannabis decriminalised or legalised is a wasted vote.
The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party has been on a long path to nowhere. It is completely dormant between elections. In 1996, it got 1.66% of the vote, in 1999 1.1%, in 2002 0.64% and in 2005 0.25%. As a one issue party it will never cross the 5% threshold, and has frittered away its support year after year. It also doesn't care about responsibility, doesn't care about healthcare or the right to ban cannabis users from private property. Ticking the leaf will mean nothing other than you only care about cannabis.
Libertarianz would legalise cannabis, and other drugs safer than alcohol, for sale and adult consumption on private property. It would also ensure users of such drugs would be responsible for paying for their own private health consequences, and while such consumption would be a right, it would be the right of private property owners to ban it on their own property, and for employers to insist employees do not enter their premises under the influence of the drug. Legalisation does not mean approval or disapproval, it is simply not the business of the state to tell you what you must or must not ingest.
So I urge those who regard the cannabis laws to be oppressive, those who see the current laws as being an abject failure, and those who believe they should choose what they ingest (but also be responsible for the consequences of consumption), to vote Libertarianz. Odds are that Libertarianz will beat the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party this time round, given the trends of both parties, and a vote for the Greens on this point will be wasted. The Greens failed to make a change in the past 9 years of government that they effectively endorsed.
You think the small government vote is split?
Forget ACT vs Libertarianz. If you really believe in really big government, then the two main ends of THAT spectrum, the Marxist and the conservative are all very split as below:
If you have a Christian bent to politics:
Kiwi Party- The Future part of United Future, divorced. It wants to raise the drinking age, criminalise buying sexual services, make drug laws on a par with murder, raise the minimum wage and use GST instead of road user charges to fund roads? Weird - a mix of all sorts of stuff. Shame Rebekah Clement hasn't left, she is brighter than Gordon Copeland.
Family Party – Destiny NZ with a new name. Tougher version of the Kiwi Party and little regard for separating church and state. The morality of Brian Tamaki and all that is about.
Pacific Party – Philip Field, and the morality attached to him.
Ah better than Christian Heritage right?
However, if you miss the Soviet Union, loathe capitalism, individualism, business and believe nothing would be better than to unite the workers so they’ll never be defeated by the beloved people’s government, and you think Helen Clark is a sellout to global capitalism. You can choose:
The Alliance – Yes, nationalise, keep those foreigners and their money out, make everything free and pine about Muldoon (quietly) and how Jim Anderton is a sellout.
RAM – Foaming at the mouth conspiracy theory led Marxists who think big money is running everything, and only when they control things through the state can they look after themselves, I mean you. This is where the really crazy Alliance people went, I know, I talked to one and I wondered where her straight jacket went.
Workers' Party – You can’t make an omelette without cracking a few eggs, so think of the firing squads, gulags, political prisons and the 100 million slaughtered by communism as a small price to pay to defeat capitalism. Workers' Marxist Leninist dictatorships have such a record of poverty, executions, torture and despair, but hey that was all cooked up by the American Zionist conspiracy - all those fake witnesses to murder in those workers' paradises. Not quite North Korean friendly, but wouldn’t have been distressed had North Korea won the Korean War.
Greens – Yes the Marxist party you have when you want to seem respectable. Policies on almost everything, science replaced with faith based ideologies, enthusiasm to regulate, ban, compel, tax and subsidise all they hate and love respectively, AND most of the MPs have Marxist backgrounds. Allegedly about the environment, but doesn't let reason, science and economics get in the way of a good bit of telling people what to do.
If you have a Christian bent to politics:
Kiwi Party- The Future part of United Future, divorced. It wants to raise the drinking age, criminalise buying sexual services, make drug laws on a par with murder, raise the minimum wage and use GST instead of road user charges to fund roads? Weird - a mix of all sorts of stuff. Shame Rebekah Clement hasn't left, she is brighter than Gordon Copeland.
Family Party – Destiny NZ with a new name. Tougher version of the Kiwi Party and little regard for separating church and state. The morality of Brian Tamaki and all that is about.
Pacific Party – Philip Field, and the morality attached to him.
Ah better than Christian Heritage right?
However, if you miss the Soviet Union, loathe capitalism, individualism, business and believe nothing would be better than to unite the workers so they’ll never be defeated by the beloved people’s government, and you think Helen Clark is a sellout to global capitalism. You can choose:
The Alliance – Yes, nationalise, keep those foreigners and their money out, make everything free and pine about Muldoon (quietly) and how Jim Anderton is a sellout.
RAM – Foaming at the mouth conspiracy theory led Marxists who think big money is running everything, and only when they control things through the state can they look after themselves, I mean you. This is where the really crazy Alliance people went, I know, I talked to one and I wondered where her straight jacket went.
Workers' Party – You can’t make an omelette without cracking a few eggs, so think of the firing squads, gulags, political prisons and the 100 million slaughtered by communism as a small price to pay to defeat capitalism. Workers' Marxist Leninist dictatorships have such a record of poverty, executions, torture and despair, but hey that was all cooked up by the American Zionist conspiracy - all those fake witnesses to murder in those workers' paradises. Not quite North Korean friendly, but wouldn’t have been distressed had North Korea won the Korean War.
Greens – Yes the Marxist party you have when you want to seem respectable. Policies on almost everything, science replaced with faith based ideologies, enthusiasm to regulate, ban, compel, tax and subsidise all they hate and love respectively, AND most of the MPs have Marxist backgrounds. Allegedly about the environment, but doesn't let reason, science and economics get in the way of a good bit of telling people what to do.
So why shouldn't you vote National?
Given I’ve already told you how to vote in your electorate, it’s time to think about your party vote.
I’ll make a few assumptions:
1. You want a change, not an Obama like bland “change” without saying to what, but you want rid of the Labour led government, you want a change in direction, you want...
2. Less government. Government that doesn't assume that government should regulate, compel, tax or subsidise – and that is in business and personal life.
So as a result you have to rule out Labour and all parties that would grant Labour confidence and supply. The Greens, Maori Party, Jim Anderton’s Progressive Party, United Future and NZ First are all in this vein. If you like the views I express here, but intend to vote for one of those parties then I can’t help you anymore.
So National?
National has swung to the left since 2005. It has policies that in principle and substance are no different from Labour – they are different forms of the same thing. National would cut taxes more than Labour, but its interest in controlling the size of the state is about efficiency, not abolishing departments, and not reducing the amount of legislation. National promises to spend a fortune of your money on infrastructure whether or not you use it, and to subsidise the telecommunications sector. It wont make a fundamental difference to health, education or the welfare state, in fact it will increase the welfare state. It promises to keep a DNA database for every person arrested of an imprisonable offence, whether guilty or not. National and freedom do not go together, it will trade off having “one law for all” and “colourblind state spending” for a coalition with the Maori Party.
What will it do?
- National will continue to make you pay for the state controlled queue rationed health system. You wont be able to opt out, or get your taxes back for using private healthcare.
- National will continue to make you pay for the centrally funded and controlled state education system, whether it suits you or your childrens' needs or not.
- National will maintain and grow the welfare state, and retain all of Labour's increases in it (Working for Families, income related state housing rentals).
- National will maintain and grow the state's role in the economy, including Kiwibank, Kiwirail, Air NZ and subsidise a state controlled broadband telecommunications network.
- National will amend the RMA toprotect private property rights and to accelerate state funded infrastructure projects.
- National will maintain the Maori seats and maintain state broadcasting in all its forms, Maori, Pacific Island, TVNZ and Radio NZ.
- National will, somehow, ban gangs, whilst building a DNA database for everyone arrested of a serious crime, whether found guilty or not.
- National will continue and strengthen the war on drugs.
- National will keep local government's powers of general competence and grow its role, by involving it in 20 year plans. It wont cap local government rates or spending.
- National will not abolish a single government agency, including the Families Commission.
- National will continue to force you to pay into the worst pension scheme in the country, with no guaranteed returns, whilst forcing that scheme to invest 40% in New Zealand.
A vote for National is a vote to change heads, a vote for people who – in a quiet discreet moment – might agree with much of what I believe in, but haven’t the courage, skill or conviction to argue for it, or implement it. In which case, why be in politics if all you want is a different version of the status quo?
By ticking National you are saying that even going back to National's policies in 1999 is too radical, you're endorsing most of what Labour has done since 1999 since National will repeal so little. The best you can hope for is:
- Slightly bigger tax cuts than Labour.
- Less enthusiasm for more government than Labour.
- Repeal of the Electoral Finance Act.
- Tougher approach to law and order where it matters (but also victimless crimes too).
No. If you believe in less government, you can't tick National for your party vote. You will change the government by name and by people, but not in substance. Instead of moving left at pace, New Zealand will move left at a snail's pace. It's hardly surprising. Every National government, except 1990-1993, and even then it included the RMA, has at best just adopted Labour's past policies and changed little, at worst it went far far further into Nanny State (Rob Muldoon).
You can't expect the National Party to change anything - it exists for power, that is, to stop Labour having it.
So what about ACT then?
I’ll make a few assumptions:
1. You want a change, not an Obama like bland “change” without saying to what, but you want rid of the Labour led government, you want a change in direction, you want...
2. Less government. Government that doesn't assume that government should regulate, compel, tax or subsidise – and that is in business and personal life.
So as a result you have to rule out Labour and all parties that would grant Labour confidence and supply. The Greens, Maori Party, Jim Anderton’s Progressive Party, United Future and NZ First are all in this vein. If you like the views I express here, but intend to vote for one of those parties then I can’t help you anymore.
So National?
National has swung to the left since 2005. It has policies that in principle and substance are no different from Labour – they are different forms of the same thing. National would cut taxes more than Labour, but its interest in controlling the size of the state is about efficiency, not abolishing departments, and not reducing the amount of legislation. National promises to spend a fortune of your money on infrastructure whether or not you use it, and to subsidise the telecommunications sector. It wont make a fundamental difference to health, education or the welfare state, in fact it will increase the welfare state. It promises to keep a DNA database for every person arrested of an imprisonable offence, whether guilty or not. National and freedom do not go together, it will trade off having “one law for all” and “colourblind state spending” for a coalition with the Maori Party.
What will it do?
- National will continue to make you pay for the state controlled queue rationed health system. You wont be able to opt out, or get your taxes back for using private healthcare.
- National will continue to make you pay for the centrally funded and controlled state education system, whether it suits you or your childrens' needs or not.
- National will maintain and grow the welfare state, and retain all of Labour's increases in it (Working for Families, income related state housing rentals).
- National will maintain and grow the state's role in the economy, including Kiwibank, Kiwirail, Air NZ and subsidise a state controlled broadband telecommunications network.
- National will amend the RMA to
- National will maintain the Maori seats and maintain state broadcasting in all its forms, Maori, Pacific Island, TVNZ and Radio NZ.
- National will, somehow, ban gangs, whilst building a DNA database for everyone arrested of a serious crime, whether found guilty or not.
- National will continue and strengthen the war on drugs.
- National will keep local government's powers of general competence and grow its role, by involving it in 20 year plans. It wont cap local government rates or spending.
- National will not abolish a single government agency, including the Families Commission.
- National will continue to force you to pay into the worst pension scheme in the country, with no guaranteed returns, whilst forcing that scheme to invest 40% in New Zealand.
A vote for National is a vote to change heads, a vote for people who – in a quiet discreet moment – might agree with much of what I believe in, but haven’t the courage, skill or conviction to argue for it, or implement it. In which case, why be in politics if all you want is a different version of the status quo?
By ticking National you are saying that even going back to National's policies in 1999 is too radical, you're endorsing most of what Labour has done since 1999 since National will repeal so little. The best you can hope for is:
- Slightly bigger tax cuts than Labour.
- Less enthusiasm for more government than Labour.
- Repeal of the Electoral Finance Act.
- Tougher approach to law and order where it matters (but also victimless crimes too).
No. If you believe in less government, you can't tick National for your party vote. You will change the government by name and by people, but not in substance. Instead of moving left at pace, New Zealand will move left at a snail's pace. It's hardly surprising. Every National government, except 1990-1993, and even then it included the RMA, has at best just adopted Labour's past policies and changed little, at worst it went far far further into Nanny State (Rob Muldoon).
You can't expect the National Party to change anything - it exists for power, that is, to stop Labour having it.
So what about ACT then?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)