National's new policy free zone

John Key has slammed Labour for not doing enough on climate change. He has criticised the new thermal power generation installed since 1999, he said more trees are being cut down than being planted and that New Zealand greenhouse gas emissions are growing faster than Australia and the US. He says something needs to be done, but damns Labour’s goal of carbon neutrality.

^
What John? If you say you’ll repeal the RMA so that power companies can more easily build hydro plants or wind farms, ok. If you say you'll commercialise the road network like the Nats were going to do, so that roads are tolled and priced efficiently, instead of taxed, then ok. You see these things would be more efficient and have environmental benefits too.

^

However you say nothing. Climate Change Minister David Parker says Key has slogans and no policy. He's right. The shame is that it ought to be no policy for a good reason - there is no reason to do anything about climate change, except reforms that are good regardless, that improve economic efficiency and freedom.

^

Then National's Associate Spokesman for Small Business Chris Tremain is complaining about energy price increases, but not offering a solution. I can think of several, largely related to the state getting out of retail power, allowing lines companies to be generating companies and abolishing the RMA, but no, nothing.

^

Inspiring stuff isn't it? Nothing like an Opposition that just opposes.

Nats give Telecom zero

Maurice Williamson when he was Minister of Communications presided over the liberalisation of the international telecommunications market, refused to establish a telecommunications regulator (because the evidence was that it would see a shift from operators negotiating with each other to operators lobbying the regulator, which is exactly what has happened), supported infrastructure based competition in telecommunications (and the then Telstra Saturn was rolling out networks in Wellington and Christchurch, Vodafone bought BellSouth and expanded its network nationwide). He was a pretty good Minister, not from the point of view of the then Clear and Bellsouth. For the latter he delivered a pretty clear message to its US CEO that he couldn’t approach politicians and get his own way like he did in the US. The message was simple. Telecom was subject to general competition law and yes the Nats threatened to regulate if Telecom did not abide by its commitments at privatisation. However he did not swallow the complaints of competitors wholesale, because officials saw right through them.
^
How things have changed. National now supports legislation to require Telecom to split into three businesses. Maurice Williamson now is quoted by Stuff as saying “he believed the bill's cross-party support afforded Telecom certainty that policies would not change if different parties came to power.”
^
Well if I had been robbed by the government, I’d be so thrilled to know it can’t be reversed by a change in government. No wonder Telecom has stopped funding political parties, almost all of them are full of thieves.

^

Maurice, you’ve disappointed me. You could, at least, have said that National will repeal all legislation requiring Telecom to have a particular structure. You wont - why should Telecom shareholders vote National?

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.