Bits and pieces

Well in traditional English winter style I am crook - hopefully I will be fine for flying back to NZ in a week's time! So just a few pieces of comment about what is going on:

^

1. Energy strategy. Well it isn't my one, could be a lot worse, but is populated by a few oddities like David Parker's comment on electric cars. Crusader Rabbit is right on this as is Kane Bunce. Let me place a bet on whoever wants to take it up - I will bet £100 (yes £ not $NZ) that there will be no more than one kerbside power point for electric cars in New Zealand (that one will be a demonstration), and that there will not be 100 electric cars in New Zealand (trolley buses don't count!). I have an alternative energy strategy:

^

- Remove all restrictions on energy lines companies entering in the generation market;

- Privatise the three generating SOEs with a combination of sale and distribution of shares;

- Reform the RMA to respect private property right as a first step towards full replacement of planning law with private property rights;

- Scrap EECA.

^

The price of electricity rising makes it profitable to invest in more supply, and more likely people will invest in energy efficiency measures, removing the RMA restrictions will make it easier to build supply.

^

2. Party pill regulation

^

Why don't they just fuck off? Seriously. Stop protecting people from their own idiocy, it enables them to breed and produce more idiots. Has cannabis prohibition increased or reduced its availability among young people? As Cactus Kate says, Jim Anderton is conflicted on this - his own conservative stance is due to family tragedy. Sorry Jim, lots of people ENJOY party pills harmlessly, like people enjoy drinking and enjoy being promiscuous and enjoy eating high fat sugary meals - You are NOT the nation's dad. Stop being such a bloody catholic killjoy wanting to stop people having fun you don't understand or participate in. Some fun is risky and dangerous to those who choose to enjoy it - but it is a damned sight safer than being an authoritarian politician. Why do New Zealanders so enjoy telling others what to do?

^

3. Telecom's property rights handed over to competitors

^

Frankly Don Brash's final shame is voting for this atrocious pandering to the lobbying of Telecom's competitors over Telecom's owners. Instead of buying Telecom themselves or investing in competing infrastructure, they got the government to make Telecom give it to them at a price they were willing to pay. The Alliance's telecommunications policy of 1999 has effectively been implemented, with support from the National Party. Under Brash, the Nats were going to at least consider a cost/benefit analysis of this proposal (it's not freedom, but at least economics might have given an objective assessment of its merits and risks), but that seemed to evaporate. David Farrar's sad betrayal of most of his principles on pragmatic grounds is notable, but what is not so transparent is the gigantic transfer of wealth from Telecom shareholders, from superannuation and insurance funds, to mums and dads - to the likes of big companies like Telstra. In Parliament only ACT stood up for private property rights, and the Maori Party showed themselves to be craven pork barrel driven racists wanting a slice of the Telecom pie - like little Hugo Chavez's ready to steal whatever isn't there's. One of the left's bitterest little feuds has been won - showing how little backbone most of the "right" in Parliament really has. I've written enough on this many times over, but what grates is how little opposition we really have. Glad you voted National now?

^

4. Brash's valedictory speech

As Not PC has said, Brash was never a good politician - not one the National Party and it simpering appeasers could stomach. The National Party that occasionally trots out freedom, but really believes that the future lies in statism and out doing Labour with statism. National which can never stand up for capitalism, free enterprise, celebrate success, decry envy politics and believe in principles - even when it nearly won an election. Not PC once again has said much of what I agree with, and no, Brash wont be joining ACT to become an MP again, but never has a National leader instilled such hatred and fear among the left. John Key warms them, in a way no National leader ever should. Remember Muldoon, for all of his vile statism and bigotry, never ever conceded that Labour had a point - he dismissed them as buffoons, and won three times in a row (please don't waste time with the tired FPP Labour got more votes argument, he won). Brash had none of the statism and bigotry of Muldoon, despite attempts by some advisors to taint him with the latter for some votes - but he made his opponents quiver. He also had some in the media out for his guts (such as TV3's Alliance voting/Green sympathising John Campbell) because of his popularity. It will be another generation before National gets a similar leader again, I suspect such a person is probably only in high school now, whoever she is.

Drink “a descent scent of a Korean soil floats in a mouth”

Not PC’s excellent beer o’clock posts collectively are quite a mini-wiki of different beers you can choose, but you haven’t had alcohol until you’ve drunk north Korean liquor.
^
Alexei Sayle’s “song” “Didn’t you kill my brother” was number one for weeks in 1985 and included the line “I like North Korean sherry”. Now it is good stuff, and I am sure it keeps army boots polished, but if you want a really good review of North Korean liquor try this.
^
My favourite is “Pulrosul. Adder liquor. Contains actual snake. Alcohol 60%. "Tastes a bit fishy for its high alcohol concentration. Some find it unpleasant” as it was on sale at a North Korean trade exhibition in Wellington a few years ago for $100, which is extortion. However I understand they sold out, as students found them “cool”.
^
Sacha Baron Cohen could probably do a film about North Korean peculiarities, except the North Korean secret police do abduct and assassinate. The authoritarian Kazakh regime was risky enough to poke fun at methinks. However it is far more appropriate to simply watch the 1984 movies, there is only so much laughing one can do when 100,000 men, women and children are starving working 18 hour days 7 days a week in gulags.

Ahmadinejad hosts holocaust denial conference

What a prick, so blinded by his hatred of Israel, that he is prepared to ignore the mountains of historical evidence, the testimony of those who were there, those who found the concentration camps. The Holocaust was perhaps the most orchestrated, deliberate, coldly calculated systematic slaughter of a people ever undertaken in world history. There have been brutal genocides, and brutal regimes, but the rounding up, transporting, concentrating and executing Jews en masse as deliberate state policy is difficult to parallel. To question it is like questioning whether a nuclear weapon went off at Hiroshima, whether Pearl Harbour was bombed or whether there were political prisoners in the Warsaw Pact. Ahmadinejad is a buffoon, I just think he is stupid and crazy, but a stupid crazy man pursuing nuclear weapons. His regime is despicable and evil, spreading nonsense from hate filled fools.

^

His conference includes the likes of David Duke, former KKK Imperial Wizard and onetime Lousiana State Representative. David Duke has endorsed a black homeland for African Americans to all be moved to, and blames Israel for 9/11 and founded the National Association for the Advancement of White People. Nice, I wonder if Persians count in his world? They do if they can kill Jews I guess.

^

Another bizarre figure going to Ahmadinejad's sick joke conference is Michele Renouf. Australia's most disgraceful ex. beauty contestant (though what did it take to win Miss Newcastle 1968), married briefly to Sir Frank Renouf (who divorced her when he discovered she lied about her heritage, and she got nothing from the divorce). Michele Renouf is anti-semitic, a friend of David Irving. Stupid evil bitch.

^

Besides it being a sideshow, it is telling that Ahmadinejad thinks it is appropriate to hold a conference like this. The Iranian Foreign Minister is quoted as saying " the aim is neither to "confirm nor deny" but to "create an opportunity for thinkers who cannot express their views freely in Europe" about the Jewish experience under Nazi occupation". The thinkers are discredited bigots. Although I disagree with laws restricting the free speech of hate filled charlatans like David Irving, the idea that Iran believes in free speech is without credibility. It is one of the most censorship driven governments in the world. Ahmadinejad's call for freedom is hypocrisy par excellence. His government censors Youtube of all things.

^

The Daily Telegraph comment that "What should surely be occurring to any responsible observer of this appalling conference, which has gathered together notoriously anti-Semitic figures from all over the world, is that Iran under its present leadership is a dangerously hateful and malevolent force whose intentions in the Middle East can never be other than malign and destabilising." is quite true.

^

Imagine if apartheid era South Africa held a conference on eugenics and racial superiority. This is the same. It should provoke protests, burning of Iranian flags and official condemnations from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Iranian Ambassador.

^

Shouldn't it?

^

and a bullet to the head of Ahmadinejad wouldn't go amiss either. If you met any holocaust survivors you would understand why.

The Economist on how ethical food isn't

Local food, organic food and fairtrade food. They all sound good don't they? They are part of the mantra of the Greens. The idea behind each of them is:

^

Local food is "better for the environment" because transport is "bad" for the environment, and it also appeals to the inherent positive communitarianism of the Greens, and the socialist xenophobia;

^

Organic food is "better for the environment" and "healthier" for you because it doesn't involve "artificial chemicals" (because, apparently, natural ones are benign, you know, like snake venom) and it is better for the environment because of it; and

^

Fairtrade products are "better for society" because you are paying a lot more for a commodity, ensuring the producers in developing countries get more money and be wealthier. In other words, it is about paying people on very low incomes more for what you buy off them.

^

In the childlike world of simple platitudes this all sounds very good and plausible. In fact, as the Economist reports this week with its cover article, most of this is about feeling good, rather than doing something constructive. When examined more closely, applying any one of the "local food, organic food, fairtrade" labels to something may either be a waste of money, or worse, counterproductive to what you actually want to achieve.

^

The local food argument has already been blown out of the water by the Lincoln University study and a separate report by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which also says that there is less environmental impact importing tomatoes from Spain during winter, than growing them in heated greenhouses in Britain, and that half of the UK food vehicle miles are consumers driving to and from shops. This means it is better for food to be distributed from large supermarkets than people driving further to multiple smaller retailers. The NZ Greens have thankfully taken these finding and have written to their UK counterparts. So the local food argument is extremely dodgy, not helped by the massive protectionism for European agriculture under the Common Agricultural Policy. Removing this distortion would do far more for the environment (and lower food costs, and taxes in Europe) than any campaign for food miles, which is actually counter productive. Quite simply, the local food argument is a combination of misguided environmentalists and old fashioned trade protectionists. The UK farm lobby is in favour of it for old fashioned reasons, it helps them keep their prices up because people think they are helping the environment, when, much of the time, they are doing the opposite. You see, transport costs are only a small proportion of the energy used in food production.

^

However, while the NZ Greens appreciate this, they remain wedded to the latest money making enterprise of the food industry - organic food. The Economist quotes a number of researchers who counter claims that organic food is better for the environment. These come down to:

^

- Organic farming produces lower yields and requires much more land to be cultivated to produce the same amount of food. Dr. Norman Borlaug, an agricultural scientist, argues that environmentalists argue from the comfort of living in prosperity and is quoted saying "If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things". He points to how global cereal production tripled between 1950 and 2000, but the land used increased by only 10%;

- Anthony Trewavas of Edinburgh University argues that organic farming uses more energy, because instead of fertiliser and pesticides, weeds are kept at bay by frequent ploughing and other energy intensive techniques;

- There is no evidence that organic foods are healthier or non-organic are less healthy.

^

Organic food may, at best, be a good choice on the basis of taste and quality. Certain foods may be tastier and more enjoyable because of how they are produced. However, this is not simply an organic matter. Indeed there are big differences between non-organic food produced in Europe and that produced in Australia and New Zealand in some cases, if simply because subsidies in Europe encourage far greater use of fertilisers and pesticides than down under. Nevertheless, it is also clear that the word "organic" has become a useful tool for food sellers wanting to put a premium on their products based on perception rather than reality.

^

Fairtrade food is a bigger con. While sometimes local food may make sense, and sometimes organic food may be more enjoyable, fair trade is entirely counterproductive.

^

The concern is that low prices are "unfair". Well they are not. Low prices exist because not enough of a product is being sold compared to what is being produced. They are a signal to stop production and move to something more profitable. Fairtrade buyers guarantee price floors for producers and pay a guaranteed premium over the market price with the benevolent notion of encouraging producers to develop their families and communities. Unfortunately it also perpetuates production and may increase production of commodities that are already oversupplied. If Fairtrade coffee demand increases, more will be produced, reducing the price for the rest of the coffee market making those producers poorer. The fundamental problem is that too much coffee is being grown - paying more for it EXACERBATES that. It is basic economics. Some argue that the high price enables them to fund diversification, but the Economist points out that there is hardly much incentive to diversify away from something paying you such a premium!

^

Fairtrade certification also often is available to small co-operative producers, not family owned firms or plantations because the certifiers can't guarantee the workers get the premium. In other words, it is also about changing the corporate form of producers, which may shut out many workers who cannot afford to get into a co-operative (the most poor).

^

However, the biggest argument is that it is wasteful. Fairtrade retailers see buyers as premium purchasers prepared to pay extra, when one economist calculates that 10% of the premium paid for Fairtrade coffee gets to the producer, as everyone else in the chain gets their cut. People pay more for it so those selling take advantage of it - meaning, of course, there is less money available for people to spend on other goods and services.

^

There is room to do more research on this, but it is clear that the words "organic" and "fairtrade" are potentially a major ripoff of consumers that does little for what is claimed. They are not necessarily healthier and does not benefit the environment, or producers in poor countries - as it encourages them to produce more of what people don't want. It is economics rubbing against good intentions, and as is almost always the case, non-evidence based slogans might make you feel good, but they wont do you, your wallet, the environment or the world any good.

Pinochet's dead..

As Not PC says, don't mourn him. His free market policies and overthrowing an authoritarian socialist pinup (Allende) do not justify suppression of free speech, murdering, torturing and imprisoning opponents. Margaret Thatcher's support for him has been her biggest mistake and the biggest black mark against her name in my book. I understand why she did it (Falklands and his free market policies), but it never excused his oppression of Chilean freedom.

^

Chile is doing very well thank you as a free open democracy, WITH the free market policies Pinochet implemented, but in spite of the dark period of oppression.

^

I'm glad Pinochet has gone, and look forward to seeing Castro drop dead next, but as you'll soon see, I don't expect the leftwing blogs to celebrate both their deaths equally. I hope they prove me and PC wrong.

Sell the damned post offices!

So the Royal Mail wants to close around half of all post offices. The Daily Telegraph has a ridiculous campaign to force taxpayers to pay to keep them open. Uneconomic post offices cost everyone else £150 million a year in subsidies, but as I have written before, they are so "core" to communities, that I apparently have to subsidise them.

^

My answer is simple. The Royal Mail should sell all of the post offices it does not believe it can run profitably. If some are franchises, then the current owners should renegotiate their terms or face closure, and perhaps run a competing service (competition has been allowed for the Royal Mail since the beginning of the year, finally!). Otherwise, they should close. Why? Well what is a post office? It is a stamp shop, an envelope shop, a delivery shop. It's a friggin' shop!

^

People don't demand the government do something about grocers, bookshops, shoe shops, so why post offices? It tugs at the strings of the elderly in particular, when the government did so much more, and when transport was poor and more expensive than it is today.

^

Post offices are unprofitable either because they are inefficiently run or not enough people use it. So either have someone else run it, or face use it or lose it. Don't expect taxpayers to pay for something that is so important to your community, that you're not prepared to use it enough to pay for its cost. Frankly, if it isn't important enough for YOU to pay for it, don't expect me to.

You're airline cabin crew what would YOU do?

Rather than be a bureaucrat living off of money taken from others by the state, imagine you work for an airline. You're chief cabin attendant on an international flight, the passengers have boarded and you notice one passenger who had boarded is no longer to be found:

^

- The passenger was wearing full Muslim religious garb;

- The passenger was noticed having gone to the bathroom before takeoff (a practice generally not permitted by most airlines for safety reasons);

- The passenger is in there for a whole 10 minutes and crew are concerned that he is not in the bathroom relieving himself, but is unresponsive;

- The passenger manifest indicates the passenger is travelling on a foreign passport;

- You are responsible for the safety of well over 100 other passengers, at best the passenger is acting unconventionally and delaying the flight departing the gate (passengers are told to be seated), at worst the passenger could be threatening the entire flight.

^

So you decide, faced with a passenger who is acting against strangely, you decide for security reasons to escort him from the aircraft.

^

Then you're accused of being "anti-Muslim". Frankly, if any passenger is found to be acting strangely, and disobeying crew commands then it is up to the crew to act against that passenger. The airline replaced his ticket, compensated him and apologised, and gave staff training on these matters. The Human Wrongs Commissariat, like school prefects, tell off the airline. How about THIS as an alternative?

^

The passenger could have requested the crew whether he could use a bathroom for religious purposes, the crew could have decided whether it was a safe practice or not, or asked him to refrain until the plane had taken off. No, it is the airline's fault. When I fly I follow the rules of the airline, after all, it is not my plane and the airline essentially has the right to exclude me if I may pose a threat to crew or passengers. No, Rosslyn Noonan, who has not actually worked in the productive sector in recent history, can judge how airlines best apply security measures.

^

Of course the Human Wrongs Commissariat is also a great defender of free speech, the same Herald report gives this example:

^

"Numerous complaints were lodged after newspapers published the Mohammed cartoons, linking Islam to terrorism. A meeting was held between the Race Relations Commissioner, Muslim groups and members of the press. The Press and Dominion Post newspapers apologised for any offence caused and promised not to publish the cartoons again. "

^

So, simply because the Human Wrongs Commissariat has NO right to bully any media to not print something because it offends people, here is a link to the cartoons. Am I anti-Muslim? No, Muslims have every right to believe what they wish, and peacefully express their opinions, and I have every right to criticise or ridicule their beliefs, any religious beliefs or any political beliefs. Religion is a choice.

France 24 is launched - more than just anti-American

Good job we didn’t have to wait till the French government got its act together for global news channels. CNN International was the first, and entirely the creation of a leftwing entrepreneur, Ted Turner. Its ubiquity was sealed in the Gulf War that repelled Saddam’s Iraq from Kuwait. This was followed by an entirely commercially funded BBC World. NBC established its global business news channel CNBC commercially, and since then Al Jazeera has also entered the global TV news market, again privately funded. The German government has quietly fully funded Deutsche Welle, which broadcasts news and cultural/current affairs programmes in German and English around the clock. I need not also mention Foxnews, Bloomberg business news, MSNBC etc.
^
However, the French government, ever looking for a way to prove how utterly unresponsive government is to what people actually are willing to pay for, has funded and launched France 24, a global TV news channel in French and English. The concern has been that the other channels reflect an Anglo-Saxon view of the world. Well, had the French government not taxed and regulated its own broadcasters into submission, this could have happened spontaneously, but France and entrepreneurial flair are words that don’t go together often. However, it is clear that France 24 can't be accused of simply being anti-American.

^

The Guardian reports:

"Guillaume Parmentier, director of the French Centre on the United States, said: "It's not an anti-American operation. It's more than that."
^
Of course another reason for France 24 is basically to assuage French speakers about the fact that French is not the most universal global language. It is undoubtedly more beautiful than English, as I experience daily hearing English butchered by native speakers. However, France 24 is in French and English, as France has clearly figured out that a French only channel is only preaching to the choir so to speak. However, I doubt France 24 will have much influence, except perhaps beyond Francophone African opinion makers. You see even the website doesn't help when you click "how to watch". The incentives around a state run channel! I assume it will be on Sky and cable networks in the UK, but it is not yet distributed via satellite to the South Pacific.

God exists does it?

God either does not exist, is sadistic or hardly worthy of the title “God”
^
I don’t know who once said it, but the point came to me reading about Josie Grove in The Times.
^
She is:
- 16 years old;
- A champion swimmer and apparently talented artist;
- Has leukaemia;
- Has endured two unsuccessful bone marrow transplants and a course of anti-cancer drugs. One transplant from her 8 year old brother.
- Has decided that since the cancer is terminal, she would rather not undergo further treatment that means she spends long periods in hospital feeling sick. She’d rather spend what little time she has with her family.
^
So go on, defend that god followers. PROVE how much love and compassion your God has, how much mercy that God gives to a talented happy young woman that she has to endure invasive surgery and drugs, to have to die. Defend it by saying how much “good” she brought her family and friends, and how much “hope” she offers with her bravery – in other words, defend her sacrifice. Defend it by saying that, despite her suffering, her short life, the short time she spends with people who love her, despite her parents and siblings going through this, it is all fucking worthwhile, because there is “heaven”, though you can’t really say anything about this except it’s “really really good” and I should just “believe” this, even though there is not a shred of evidence for it. There is just a desperate hope that there should be “heaven” because if there isn’t, then surely it proves that God is weak or sadistic for letting this young woman go through hell.
^
It is rather simple you see either:
- God does not exist, meaning this is a tragedy, but all the best of science and technology has been applied to extend this young woman’s life and help her enjoy what time she has; or
- God does exist, but does not have the power to change anything on earth – but somehow created it, life etc. This is entirely contradictory. God by definition is all powerful, after all if God created the universe (except himself which means God created less than the universe), it is illogical for God to be unable to destroy cancer cells in one person, or indeed all people. You can start creating new theories as to why this may not be, but they are not consistent with any religion; or
- God does exist and is all powerful, but chooses not to intervene. This is either because God likes human beings suffering (which is immoral) or is nonchalant towards human beings suffering (which is also immoral), and likes holding out, through some ancient texts and the utterings of large numbers of questionable people, some hope of “heaven” without directly presenting the opportunity to those who are suffering (and those who are not), In short, God has a perverted sense of morality. The same sense of morality of those who get pleasure out of punishment, a God who hates human beings and plays them as toys. If true, then the universe is bleak and those who follow God do so out of fear, not out of an objective belief in the morality of God.
^
So which one is it? Methink non-existence is the most logical.

Gordon Brown's pathetic pre-budget legacy

With Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer and possibly soon to be Prime Minister, I actually wish for Dr Michael Cullen. Besides being a wittier debater, he has, despite massive increases in spending, not put the NZ government into deficit (though he didn’t pull it from deficit, that was Bill Birch in the 1990s). Cullen also has not increased taxes so brazenly as Brown or so regularly. This is not a ringing endorsement of Cullen. Bloody ‘ell I’m a libertarian, and he has increased state spending many times over – but it is an appreciation of how much more advanced fiscal policy is in NZ.
^
Gordon Brown’s pre-budget statement highlights were:
^
- A doubling in air passenger duty (to between £10 and £80) ostensibly to respond to climate change. Given he hasn’t cut other taxes, given this will make virtually no difference to air travel (Will £5 put chavs off their trip to Prague or will £80 put Madonna off of her first class flight to LA? Hardly), it’s about revenue. A BA spokesman said that aviation is the only transport sector in the UK that pays for all of its own infrastructure directly. He is right. It’s also worth nothing that the fuel consumption of the latest aircraft, per passenger km is remarkably low. Lufthansa reports that the latest Boeing 747-8 series, which is has just ordered, burns 3.5 litres of fuel per passenger every 100km. 30km a litre isn’t bad fuel economy for travelling at 90% of the speed of sound. NZ air passenger levies are about paying for security/border control, not the UK.

^
- Inflation indexing fuel taxes once more (increasing petrol by 1.25p/l). Given that no fuel tax in the UK is dedicated to roads or indeed, any transport, this is all about revenue as well. It will have virtually no effect on demand. Now yes, Dr Cullen inflation indexes petrol tax as well, but the indexed amount DOES get dedicated to the National Land Transport Fund, most of which goes on roads. Given around 60% of petrol tax (100% of LPG tax and road user charges) is dedicated to the National Land Transport Fund, and Dr Cullen spends all of the rest on land transport as well, NZers have little to complain about.

^
- A new welfare benefit giving pregnant women £200 in the final weeks of their pregnancy. That’s nice, it is saying “aren’t you clever? You had sex and want the baby. Here’s some money we took off of everyone else to show you how clever you were getting knocked up”. He could have cut taxes, but no – that just means people get more of what they truly earn. It is unlikely to be enough to encourage middle class couples to have children, but £200 to an inert chav is “well good init?” Sadly Gordon Brown doesn’t mix enough with the rest of the world to know how important it really is to adopt a policy of disincentivising chavs breeding, partly to improve Britain’s reputation in the world.

^
- Zero stamp duty for new “carbon-neutral” homes. Well that’s not a bad thing, except there should be zero stamp duty full stop. Of course there are no "carbon neutral" homes in the UK, so it costs nothing. What does a home changing ownership cost the state?

^
- On the bright side, Brown is pushing for an efficiency campaign in the public service. He is pushing for 5% cuts in admin budgets each year between 2008 and 2011. This is expected to save around £26 billion over that time. The British public service has a long history of obfuscating accountability for expenditure, but the unions are unhappy – which surely must mean Brown is doing something right.

^
- Expenditure on a new literacy campaign. This wont ever be enough, because one in six boys at age 16 are functionally illiterate. The money to subsidise pregnancies wont help.

^
- £9 billion budget deficit by 2010/11, borrowing an extra £1 billion in current financial year over previous forecasts.
^
Gordon Brown has been credited for running a reasonably positive British economy, but as the Times has commented, it is only positive when you compare it to past long term performance (which has been stagnant) and the “sclerotic” economies in continental Europe. 2.75% growth forecast isn’t bad, but it is hardly stuff of wonders. It should also be noted that, despite massive transfers in the form of subsidies to the north and Scotland, Britain’s growth is concentrated in London and the south-east, and much is driven by the City. If London was not such a successful centre for the service sector, Britain would be a sclerotic economy. It is not a message that Brown, Blair or David Cameron mention enough.

National Socialists

So the Nats support electoral law changes to prohibit third parties from criticising political parties.

^

Seriously, the phrase National Socialists used in jest to criticise the Nats when they have socialist leanings now has another meaning. This is such a fundamental attack on freedom of speech the Nats deserve to be hoisted on their own petard. Labour's craven attempt to spin its way out of its own overspending is one thing, and who turns to Labour for freedom anyway, but when the main party in (is it opposition? I haven't noticed) supports it, you're fucked.
^
This is about stopping the right of any private organisation criticising political parties during elections. How can any individual with a modicum of belief in a free and open democracy support this? This is not about business backed trusts, the Exclusive Brethren or unions, although the debate will be about this because they are particular examples that upset some people. This is about freedom.
^
I know most people are not libertarians and many disagree with many libertarian policies, but this is fundamental. It is the right for you as an individual, or your club, association, political organisation or lobby group to criticise a political party. Greenpeace could not lay into the National Party. Anti-GE groups could not criticise Labour. Rationalists could not criticise Destiny NZ. Think of every single major political issue in recent history, and this would effectively ban any group from lobbying against a party. Environmental groups could not rank the political parties, neither could business groups.
^
David Farrar is obviously concerned and rightly so.
^
If the Nats go through with this then fuck them, Neville Chamberlain hasn’t got a thing on English and Key. I wont say any more because I’m so utterly enraged with how the National Party has got out its constitution and micturated on it en masse, clapping all the way.

^

Bernard Darnton has also written lucidly about this on his free speech blog, including how Bill English has backtracked on what he thought about this before.

^

PLEASE prove me wrong Key and English. Please. If you don't, you deserve to spend the rest of your lives in Opposition, because New Zealand may as well be governed by Labour than by a socialist National Party that will sell out its principles for the baubles of power. I don't expect you to be objectivists, libertarians or even consistently frigging classically liberal - I do expect you to believe in free speech at election time. If you don't, you're a threat to us all.

The further back on the plane - the stupider you are?

Air Tahiti Nui has an interactive inflight game system, enabling you to play games with your fellow passengers. The guy who took this photo was in first class (seat 1A it says) winning "inflight trivia challenge" against someone in 19G who isn't far behind, and some thicko in 40D.

^

Clearly the guy in first class is smartest, following by the guy near the front of economy (possible frequent flyer, so aspiring to be nearer the front) and then the no hoper in the back. Of course the flipside is that if no hoper gets pissed off, he will storm his way to the front (and be annoyed that no only are you winning, but having good food and a nice seat).

Overlander goes 7 days a week, but have the Greens used it?

Remember all of this? Remember when Toll Rail was trying to convince the government to make you pay for this train? The rail union, the Greens, the Mayor of Ruapehu and a National MP all wanted to make you pay as well.

^

Well the government called Toll Rail's bluff, the ensuing publicity saw Toll give the train some respite, and it has even been refurbished with an upgraded interior.

^

Now it is going to operate 7 days a week, instead of just 3. So it shows one thing, if people want it to stay and are prepared to pay to use it, it is the best chance of keeping it.

^

What I want to know is given all of the wailing, have any Green MPs used the Overlander since Toll Rail decided to keep the service? If so, I'll be thrilled and complimentary. If not, well... the word begins with H.

^

So go on all you Green supporters, spend some of your OWN money and book a return trip on the Overlander, even if it is just Wellington to Palmerston North or the like, to show you want the train. It is working so far, it's called the market.

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.

Government success releasing ghosts

Stuff reports "A police-led initiative of spraying water on state highways to release the trapped spirits of those killed in motor crashes has been declared a success. "

^

Oh please! So the spirits went did they? What will the government do to encourage the tooth fairy to be fairer, or Santa to give presents to all of the good kids?

^

I don't give a damn whether people believe in mysticism or not, whatever religion, spirit, goblin, ghost, apparation or whatever, it is your personal choice. However, I do not want to pay for government staff to pander to it. Yes, that includes Christianity as well.

^

I find it astounding the Iwi liaison officer is quoted as saying the exercise was non-religious, even though it includes prayers. Sorry? Isn't a prayer a calling to a supernatural being? You may as well say a meal doesn't include meat, even though the first course includes ham. Unfortunately the final quote in this article doesn't paint the Police in a smart light at all:

^

Waikato road policing manager Inspector Leo Tooman had no problems with the initiative.
"Anything that helps is worthwhile, isn't it?"

^

Anything that helps what?? The victims??

^

However, I don't expect the defenders of secular government to stand up against this. Conservatives will say it is wrong because it isn't Christian, but objectivists oppose this because the state should not be involved in anything religious. Those who so vehemently are against Christianity being reflected in the state should also oppose this.

^

I have no problem with the local iwi spraying water that it collects and "releasing spirits" by whatever legal means it wishes. It is irrelevant to me how people practice their religions, as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others - but the state should not be involved, at all.

Rod Eddington on British transport

As my profession includes transport, it is worth noting a major report just released about British transport written by Sir Rod Eddington, former CE of British Airways.

^

All the details are here, and Eddington has done a pretty good job in my view. His conclusions are sensible, he doesn't pander to the motoring lobby nor the ecologists, although he does talk about green taxes which make no sense (why should the government benefit from you doing something "bad"). Here are some of his key conclusions:

^

- Without action, congestion will add £10 billion a year in costs to the economy, and another £12 billion is lost time to households;

- The main business trends in transport will be more home working, more working while travelling, more e-commerce (deliveries rather than shopping), increased logistics and more international travel;

- If half of commuters worked at home one day a week it would be more effective in reducing congestion than a 5% mode shift from cars to public transport;

- The benefits from road pricing are tremendous, particularly in reducing congestion and enabling better targeting of road spending - but road pricing should also be used to fund new roads. Such pricing could also have enormous environmental benefits because of reduced congestion;

- There are more benefits from certain road investments (mainly targeted junction/capacity improvements) than rail investments. Road improvements can deliver major benefits in urban areas, although this is often neglected by councils;

- Better pricing should also apply to public transport especially rail, after it has been introduced for roads;

- Buses can deliver most of what light rail does at a fraction of the price;

- Decisions on funding road and rail projects should not be made politically, but made by independent agencies required to meet certain objectives;

- Competition law should no longer limit bus companies colluding and co-ordinating in ways that will enhance their ability to provide services;

- Barriers to private sector investment in new capacity should be removed;

^

No this isn't a libertarian vision, but it is a step forward. He rejects big increases in subsidies for transport, he supports economically efficient pricing and more private sector involvement, and for changes in how roads are managed. The key thing for me is that he supports providing more capacity where users are willing to pay, but that the biggest change is to get rid of bureaucratically based pricing - moving towards pricing based on getting best use out of infrastructure - market oriented pricing as is applied everywhere else.

^

It's not rocket science - roads are the most pervasive form of economic socialism today - no wonder they are managed so poorly.