That's what Steven Joyce is advocating with new "targets for rural broadband".
Apparently if you locate your business and home where the square metre of land is cheap, where there is no traffic congestion, where you don't pay for parking, where it is quiet and the air is clean, and you have ample space to do, well most things, you don't have enough advantages over major cities. No. You should get communication networks akin to them, without paying the full cost.
Given rural local road networks are already effectively subsidised by urban ratepayers and state highway users, it's not surprising of course. Fair? No.
"Over 80% of rural households will have access to broadband with speeds of at least 5Mbps, with the remainder to achieve speeds of at least 1Mbps"
You might ask why this is special? If it is for business purposes, I'd expect it to be a cost of business, and so treated as such. After all, businesses in cities have costs that rural businesses don't have (far more expensive land, parking for example), but do not expect those to be cross subsidised by rural businesses.
If it is for private use then why again? High speed internet is fun for looking at pictures, watching Youtube, listening to internet radio, downloading music, multiplayer games or whatever. So why should rural folk, again with far bigger opportunities for a wide range of outdoor activities, get these subsidised?
"Mr Joyce says he expects the rural policy to cost around $300 million". That's just over $210 per household in tax across the country. This is to reach 25% of the population, so if that is pro-rata that means the subsidised households get $857 each from this scheme. Take away the $210 per household and it is $647 each.
You'd think if it was THAT special, they might all pay that.
It's not though. You see, I bet they'd rather spend that on something else. I bet you'd rather pay that for something else too.
11 September 2009
10 September 2009
She believed it was ok
NZ Herald reports:
"A woman accused of inflicting head injuries which nearly caused the death of her four-year-old son has been found guilty of wounding with intent to injure.
Itupa Julie Mikaio, 40, of Blockhouse Bay, Auckland, was also found guilty of neglecting to provide the necessaries of life to the boy."
"She had admitted a charge of injuring with intent, causing injuries to his body by striking him with a shoe,...said her actions after Benjamin became injured were appropriate for what she understood."
As we know, this is now a legitimate mitigating defence in New Zealand. Your violent actions and subsequent gross negligence towards your victim is "ok" as long as you thought it was the right thing to do.
The case is quite nasty, as a 9yo witnessing the events gave evidence "She said Miakaio "chucked his head down and smacked it. She pushes it to the floor". She said Benjamin's head went on to the lounge floor "hard" and he fainted afterwards. When asked why she did this, the witness said it was because he wet his pants and his bed. She also described seeing Mikaio hit Benjamin with a shoe and part of a vacuum cleaner.
Quite the liar she is too. No doubt have frightened her daughter into lying to protect them.
Of course the law against smacking means this isnow STILL illegal, but lets wait and see the sentence one can get, for permanently disabling a small child under your care. Surely it must be less than drowning and torturing a woman to death to remove a demon you believe possessing her?
I presume Sue Bradford's solution for this sort of case is to give the mother more of your money, then she might be preoccupied with spending it rather than being vile towards her children. It certainly is John Minto's answer.
"A woman accused of inflicting head injuries which nearly caused the death of her four-year-old son has been found guilty of wounding with intent to injure.
Itupa Julie Mikaio, 40, of Blockhouse Bay, Auckland, was also found guilty of neglecting to provide the necessaries of life to the boy."
"She had admitted a charge of injuring with intent, causing injuries to his body by striking him with a shoe,...said her actions after Benjamin became injured were appropriate for what she understood."
As we know, this is now a legitimate mitigating defence in New Zealand. Your violent actions and subsequent gross negligence towards your victim is "ok" as long as you thought it was the right thing to do.
The case is quite nasty, as a 9yo witnessing the events gave evidence "She said Miakaio "chucked his head down and smacked it. She pushes it to the floor". She said Benjamin's head went on to the lounge floor "hard" and he fainted afterwards. When asked why she did this, the witness said it was because he wet his pants and his bed. She also described seeing Mikaio hit Benjamin with a shoe and part of a vacuum cleaner.
Quite the liar she is too. No doubt have frightened her daughter into lying to protect them.
Of course the law against smacking means this is
I presume Sue Bradford's solution for this sort of case is to give the mother more of your money, then she might be preoccupied with spending it rather than being vile towards her children. It certainly is John Minto's answer.
Good news for UK libertarians
A Liberal Democrat councillor in Stoke on Trent has defected to the Libertarian Party UK according to Old Holborn.
Yes, a very small step, but positive nonetheless.
Although it is important to bear in mind that the LPUK is very mild, in fact I've seen more radical policies from ACT. Just goes to show how damnably statist UK politics is.
Perhaps time for some likeminded proper libertarians to try to inject some ideas there?
Yes, a very small step, but positive nonetheless.
Although it is important to bear in mind that the LPUK is very mild, in fact I've seen more radical policies from ACT. Just goes to show how damnably statist UK politics is.
Perhaps time for some likeminded proper libertarians to try to inject some ideas there?
If the Greens just handed out condoms
it would apparently be far more effective per dollar spent to reduce CO2 emissions than the current panoply of subsidise what we like (solar energy, wind power, railways) and ban or tax what we hate (aviation, road transport, coal fired power stations) policies that the Greens and their friends embrace with such enthusiasm, so says the London School of Economics according to the Daily Telegraph.
"Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says"...."If these basic family planning needs were met, 34 gigatons (billion tonnes) of CO2 would be saved – equivalent to nearly 6 times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total"
In other words, address contraception and it will address the CO2 concerns that many have.
By contrast, of course, the Greens embrace subsidising breeding through the welfare state. So while they continue their adolescent approach to policy (car bad, train good, gas powered electricity bad, solar energy good), wouldn't everyone be a lot happier if the Greens, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth (not people) etc raised money to pay for targeted contraception campaigns globally? Meanwhile, if they stopped supporting welfare programmes that reward breeding, it might help a little too? Consistent with freedom and reducing CO2 emissions.
Yes it would upset the Catholic Church, but you wouldn't be forced to use contraception, like you shouldn't be forced to breed.
However, I'm talking about people who believe in a certain catastrophe convincing people to act to reduce the risk - not about initiating force. I think that confuses far too many in the environmental movement (which is, perhaps, why my comments on Frogblog get moderated now?).
"Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says"...."If these basic family planning needs were met, 34 gigatons (billion tonnes) of CO2 would be saved – equivalent to nearly 6 times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total"
In other words, address contraception and it will address the CO2 concerns that many have.
By contrast, of course, the Greens embrace subsidising breeding through the welfare state. So while they continue their adolescent approach to policy (car bad, train good, gas powered electricity bad, solar energy good), wouldn't everyone be a lot happier if the Greens, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth (not people) etc raised money to pay for targeted contraception campaigns globally? Meanwhile, if they stopped supporting welfare programmes that reward breeding, it might help a little too? Consistent with freedom and reducing CO2 emissions.
Yes it would upset the Catholic Church, but you wouldn't be forced to use contraception, like you shouldn't be forced to breed.
However, I'm talking about people who believe in a certain catastrophe convincing people to act to reduce the risk - not about initiating force. I think that confuses far too many in the environmental movement (which is, perhaps, why my comments on Frogblog get moderated now?).
09 September 2009
Whose tree?
Well it is still not yours, this doesn't make your property YOUR property.
However, at least we know where Labour stands on this. Thieving pricks. The Nats may be gutless wonders for only rolling the law back a notch, but Lynne Pillay and Silent T have shown themselves to be pilfering petty little busybodies. They'll be wanting half your income and to tell you how your kids should be educated next, what to eat and... um
If you like the tree on someone else's property, it's simple. Attempt to persuade the owner to do what YOU want with it OR buy it.
No need to resort to violence.
More importantly, no right to resort to violence.
However, for most politicians using violence is part of what they embrace isn't it?
However, at least we know where Labour stands on this. Thieving pricks. The Nats may be gutless wonders for only rolling the law back a notch, but Lynne Pillay and Silent T have shown themselves to be pilfering petty little busybodies. They'll be wanting half your income and to tell you how your kids should be educated next, what to eat and... um
If you like the tree on someone else's property, it's simple. Attempt to persuade the owner to do what YOU want with it OR buy it.
No need to resort to violence.
More importantly, no right to resort to violence.
However, for most politicians using violence is part of what they embrace isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)