Why freedom?

I get asked from time to time why I am a libertarian, why I believe in a lot less government, why I criticise those who believe laws, subsidies and taxes are the answers to problems. Those on the left criticise that it is "uncaring", as if the only way to care is for the state to do it, those on the right criticise it as being "naive", as if you can't trust people to make the right decisions for themselves.

^

The simplest answer as to why I believe in freedom, is that I have a brain, a consciousness and the ability to make the best decisions for my body, life and property. I respect the rights of others to do the same, and I believe that is way everyone should be. I'm an adult, and I resent other adults thinking they know what is best for me.

^

So when the state takes between a third and a half of what I earn, I expect either what it does to be done to a high standard (after all I can't switch to a competitor easily, unless you mean other countries and most of them aren't much better). I expect the law enforcement system to work, to focus on people who do harm, keep them from doing harm to others, and ignore those that don't. I expect the services I am forced to pay for to be first class, and to meet my needs, otherwise why bother?

^
I do believe state welfare should be phased out, but that is hardly heartless. State welfare has provided a bridge for some, but for many it has sapped their will to do better. Worse, it has become a tool for electoral bribes, with Working for Families being the latest example of trying to bind most families to the state. It is far better for the state to not take any tax from those on low incomes and have a flat tax of every dollar earnt about a threshold of, say, $10000. Voluntary charity is far more caring, moral and effective. I don't believe there is a right to a living paid for by everyone else, what if everyone claimed that right?
^
I don't believe that the state does a good job as a health or education provider, or that all children should have similar education. Children are as diverse as their parents, and parents generally know best what education their kids should have, as most parents love their children more than anyone or anything. Education should truly impart a spectrum of philosophies, a respect and appreciation for success - something that our current youth culture appears to denigrate especially amongst boys, especially amongst Maori boys. It is a damning indictment on post-modernist education that schools look to accommodate the tall poppy syndrome by catering for the average, instead of nurturing the tall poppies. I'm not interested in the average, very little of the difference between life today and life one thousand years ago is because of people being average.
^
Health care is also diverse, and the system should incentivise people to live healthily, not through taxes or health campaigns that treat people like children.
^
Most of all I oppose people who think they have the right to the property of others, unearnt, without choice. It could be those calling for unbundling Telecom's local loop, or any lobbyist wanting money from the government for their pet project.
^
The fundamental measure of civilisation is the extent to which human beings are allowed to make choices, to use their minds to decide for themselves, on everything. As long as one human being does not initiate force against another, then they are civilised. Violence is the tool of the caveman. Using the state to apply the violence for you is no more civilised, it is the velvet glove over the fist. Ask yourself next time when you wish the government would do something (other than law and order and defence), whether you'd do it yourself, or whether you'd like the government to do it to you too.

How the US views political freedom today

GW Bush is undoubtedly one of the most international loathed figures, it is trendy in many circles to despise him, consider him stupid. He is not above criticism, I would strongly condemn him on many quarters, not least his own promotion of an evangelical agenda. However, his recent speech in Prague deserves a 9.5 out of 10. Nitpickers may pick, but there is little to criticise in this. (hat tip Lindsay Perigo).

^

Take some highlights:

^

"The communists had an imperial ideology that claimed to know the directions of history. But in the end, it was overpowered by ordinary people who wanted to live their lives, and worship their God, and speak the truth to their children. The communists had the harsh rule of Brezhnev, and Honecker, and Ceausescu. But in the end, it was no match for the vision of Walesa and Havel, the defiance of Sakharov and Sharansky, the resolve of Reagan and Thatcher, and fearless witness of John Paul. From this experience, a clear lesson has emerged: Freedom can be resisted, and freedom can be delayed, but freedom cannot be denied."

^

"In truth, 9/11 was evidence of a much broader danger -- an international movement of violent Islamic extremists that threatens free people everywhere. The extremists' ambition is to build a totalitarian empire that spans all current and former Muslim lands, including parts of Europe. Their strategy to achieve that goal is to frighten the world into surrender through a ruthless campaign of terrorist murder...Like the Cold War, it's an ideological struggle between two fundamentally different visions of humanity. On one side are the extremists, who promise paradise, but deliver a life of public beatings and repression of women and suicide bombings.On the other side are huge numbers of moderate men and women -- including millions in the Muslim world -- who believe that every human life has dignity and value that no power on Earth can take away. "

^

"Expanding freedom is more than a moral imperative -- it is the only realistic way to protect our people in the long run. Years ago, Andrei Sakharov warned that a country that does not respect the rights of its own people will not respond to the rights of its neighbors. History proves him right. Governments accountable to their people do not attack each other. Democracies address problems through the political process, instead of blaming outside scapegoats. Young people who can disagree openly with their leaders are less likely to adopt violent ideologies. And nations that commit to freedom for their people will not support extremists -- they will join in defeating them."

^

"America calls on every nation that stifles dissent to end its repression, to trust its people, and to grant its citizens the freedom they deserve.

^

"There are many dissidents who couldn't join us because they are being unjustly imprisoned or held under house arrest. I look forward to the day when a conference like this one include Alexander Kozulin of Belarus, Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma, Oscar Elias Biscet of Cuba, Father Nguyen Van Ly of Vietnam, Ayman Nour of Egypt."

^

"We recently created a Human Rights Defenders Fund, which provides grants for the legal defense and medical expenses of activists arrested or beaten by repressive governments. I strongly support the Prague Document that your conference plans to issue, which states that "the protection of human rights is critical to international peace and security." And in keeping with the goals of that declaration, I have asked Secretary Rice to send a directive to every U.S. ambassador in an un-free nation: Seek out and meet with activists for democracy. Seek out those who demand human rights."

^

"People living in tyranny need to know they are not forgotten. North Koreans live in a closed society where dissent is brutally suppressed, and they are cut off from their brothers and sisters to the south. The Iranians are a great people who deserve to chart their own future, but they are denied their liberty by a handful of extremists whose pursuit of nuclear weapons prevents their country from taking its rightful place amongst the thriving. The Cubans are desperate for freedom -- and as that nation enters a period of transition, we must insist on free elections and free speech and free assembly. And in Sudan, freedom is denied and basic human rights are violated by a government that pursues genocide against its own citizens. My message to all those who suffer under tyranny is this: We will never excuse your oppressors. We will always stand for your freedom"

^

"The United States is also using our influence to urge valued partners like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to move toward freedom. These nations have taken brave stands and strong action to confront extremists, along with some steps to expand liberty and transparency. Yet they have a great distance still to travel. The United States will continue to press nations like these to open up their political systems, and give greater voice to their people. Inevitably, this creates tension. But our relationships with these countries are broad enough and deep enough to bear it. As our relationships with South Korea and Taiwan during the Cold War prove, America can maintain a friendship and push a nation toward democracy at the same time.

^

"We're also applying that lesson to our relationships with Russia and China. The United States has strong working relationships with these countries. Our friendship with them is complex. In the areas where we share mutual interests, we work together. In other areas, we have strong disagreements. China's leaders believe that they can continue to open the nation's economy without opening its political system. We disagree. In Russia, reforms that were once promised to empower citizens have been derailed, with troubling implications for democratic development. Part of a good relationship is the ability to talk openly about our disagreements. So the United States will continue to build our relationships with these countries -- and we will do it without abandoning our principles or our values"

^

"Some say that ending tyranny means "imposing our values" on people who do not share them, or that people live in parts of the world where freedom cannot take hold. That is refuted by the fact that every time people are given a choice, they choose freedom. We saw that when the people of Latin America turned dictatorships into democracies, and the people of South Africa replaced apartheid with a free society, and the people of Indonesia ended their long authoritarian rule. We saw it when Ukrainians in orange scarves demanded that their ballots be counted. We saw it when millions of Afghans and Iraqis defied the terrorists to elect free governments. At a polling station in Baghdad, I was struck by the words of an Iraqi -- he had one leg -- and he told a reporter, "I would have crawled here if I had to." Was democracy -- I ask the critics, was democracy imposed on that man? Was freedom a value he did not share? The truth is that the only ones who have to impose their values are the extremists and the radicals and the tyrants. "

^

I'd like to think the next US President could speak of the same and believe in the same.

20 years nuclear free and no better off

The long and sorry tale of the fourth Labour government's eventual prohibition on nuclear arms and nuclear powered vessels says a lot about the internal tensions in that government at the time. David Lange capitulated to the far left of the Labour party, which for reasons partly of hysteria, but mostly the insidious anti-Americanism infecting their minds, saw nuclear powered ships banned and even a banning of conventionally powered ships that the US did not categorically deny had nuclear weapons.

The background to this is something the left today is in denial about. The USS Buchanan was conventionally powered, had no means to deploy nuclear weapons, so the likelihood it would carry nuclear weapons was fairly obviously nil. Nevertheless, the US had a broad "neither confirm nor deny" policy, for obvious strategic reasons. However, the shrill harpies of the left (and it was Margaret Wilson, Helen Clark, Ann Hercus and others) didn't think that was good enough - they cared next to nothing about relations with the US. This implied a moral equivalency between the US and the USSR, which is nothing short of disgusting.

Some see it as a coming of age, and believe there was some sort of broad support by "that generation" for the nuclear ban. In fact, it split the nation and I wasn't supportive of it. Even though the Cold War saw many actions by the West that were difficult to defend morally (support for fascist dictators against communist ones), the fundamental point was that the Soviet Union and its empire was expansionist and evil. Only by denying how evil it was, how utterly oppressive, life destroying, authoritarian and anti-reason that system was, could someone see that deterring its military aggression was immoral. Most of those who now live in the EU, but who until recently were part of the Warsaw Pact see this. The supposed liberal credentials of some on the left who turned a blind eye to this must be questioned.

^

The Green Party press release on this shows clearly how anti-Western the anti-nuclear movement is. Keith Locke said:

^

"In fact, George W Bush is escalating the arms race with the Star Wars weapons programme and his nuclear missile shield, while the British government is spending billions on a new generation of Trident nuclear submarines. Nuclear Free New Zealand shouldn't shrink from criticising existing nuclear states for further developing their nuclear arsenals and delivery systems"

^

What about India and Pakistan Keith? What about Iran refusing to accept IAEA inspections? What about North Korea, a brutal dictatorship dedicated to wiping out the South Korean government, now holding nuclear weapons? What about China, itself an authoritarian one-party state?

^

The truth is that the anti-nuclear campaigners wanted the West to disarm unilaterally. Some thought naively that in some sort of John Lennon moment, the USSR and China would also lay down their arms (even though they were more than willing to execute citizens who disagreed with them), but others didn't really give a damn.

^

Without nuclear deterrence, there is little doubt that North Korea would have sparked a second Korean War (it did start the first). There is also little doubt that the USSR would have been more aggressively expansionist (think it wasn't? Remember Afghanistan).

^

As ACT's Heather Roy has pointed out, the ban on nuclear propulsion was largely motivated by dangers that are imagined rather than real. Indeed, the Somers Report (dismissed wholeheartedly by Labour) points out how the US naval fleet emits less radiation than Auckland hospital does in a year. The nuclear propulsion ban is irrational and childish. Rational debate on this is almost impossible, as many on the left don't want it, and take an approach to risk management that the Greens love - prove it is safe. Well, on that basis nobody should ever use motorised transport, or eat almost anything.

^

Phil Goff's naive press release (honestly does he believe this crap? He's smarter than that) calls for worldwide nuclear disarmament. The simple truths are:

- Some countries will not disarm, even if others will. It would be foolish for our allies (US, UK and France) to disarm unilaterally, while other states that are not allies wont (China, Russia, North Korea).

- Verification of nuclear disarmament is impossible with dictatorial regimes, so any commitments cannot be confirmed independently. In other words, while Russia, China and Iran are authoritarian and non-transparent regimes, any agreement to disarm cannot be trusted.

- The ability to manufacture nuclear weapons will never go away.

^

In other words, until the End of History IS true, unilateral or multilateral disarmament by Western countries and Israel, of their nuclear deterrents is very unwise. If most countries co-existed peacefully without aggressive intent, without wanting to destroy other governments (like Iran, North Korea, Russia and China all do to greater or lesser extents), then nuclear weapons would be redundant. It wont happen because a peaceful country that threatens no one bans its allies from visiting with their vessels.

^

The number of nuclear weapons in the world declined significantly after New Zealand banned nuclear weapons/nuclear powered ships. You'd have to be mentally unhinged to believe the two events are linked. The reason it happened was because the USSR dismantled Marxism-Leninism, let go of its oppressive empire in eastern Europe and no longer threatened Western Europe, the USA and its Asian allies. Russia, the USA, France and the UK have all cut their arsenals. The USA and Russia by over half. It was Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev, Margaret Thatcher, George Bush senior, Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin that did most for reducing nuclear arsenals

^

New Zealand can claim not one iota of credit for that.

The abolition of sedition

Something to celebrate!

^

"The Government introduced a Bill to Parliament today to abolish New Zealand's sedition laws. The Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill was introduced by Justice Minister Mark Burton who also tabled the Government's response to the Law Commission's report eforming the Law of Sedition.

^
The Bill will repeal and not replace sections 81 to 85 of the Crimes Act 1961, which sets out the seditious offences.

^
"The sedition provisions infringe on the principle of freedom of expression and have the potential for abuse," Mark Burton said.
^
"The Government agrees with the Law Commission's finding that the present law of sedition attacks the democratic value of free speech for no adequate public reason.""

^

Wonderful stuff, repealing law and not replacing it. A (rare) step forward in individual freedom, and I hope all parties in Parliament support it.

The real cause of African poverty

The Ayn Rand Institute has an excellent press release describing the true moral status of the claims of those who want the G8 to bail out Africa's poverty. Africa is not poor because we made it so.

^

It says:

^

"Africa is poor because it is rife with bloody tribalism and superstition--ideas that in the Dark Ages kept the Western world as poor, if not poorer, than today's Africa. If aid advocates were genuinely concerned with helping Africans, they would campaign for political and economic freedom, for individualism, reason and capitalism, for the ideas necessary to achieve prosperity."

^

Indeed, but what happens when Tony Blair meets Thabo Mbeke, a practitioner of superstition and backer (by deed if not word) of the murdering destructive Robert Mugabe? He says very little. South Africa is slowly but surely sliding down the path that destroyed Zimbabwe and did little for the rest of Africa. Talk of promoting property rights, individual freedom and rights is seen as "culturally inappropriate", when it is fundamental to human development, growth and prosperity.

^

Reason will save Africa, superstition, ethnic squabbling and corrupt kleptocracies will continue to milk Western aid for the benefit of few, whilst the majority scratch out a living.

^

Similarly, removing barriers to free trade to and from Africa (which means the West opening up and Africa opening up) will greatly reduce costs of doing business in Africa and open markets to African goods and services.

^

Most of those who say they care for Africa only demand money, money and more money, ignoring the families of African politicians who jet into Heathrow to go shopping at Harrods, staying in 5 star hotels. Wiping debt, only for new debt to be borrowed. Why not? It will be wiped again. As the Ayn Rand Institute points out:

^

"advocates barrage wealthy nations with reproaches and accusations of stinginess. Such abuse is necessary to induce the unearned guilt which impels Western leaders to do penance by sacrificing billions more in aid."

^

There is nothing wrong with private aid, donations through voluntary agencies who do genuine benevolent good work in such things as disease prevention, installing wells, education programmes and the like - directly helping those in need. However, the agenda that should be pursued should be primarily:

- Liberalise trade. The West can open up markets and stop subsiding exports into other markets that African countries cannot compete with;

- Isolate brutal regimes. Don't supply intergovernmental aid to those that do not reform, treat them with contempt and starve them of aid, debt and arms, so they can no longer persecute their people or live the high life off of them;

- Promote friendly relations with those who do work towards less corruption, transparent and independent judicial systems, enforcement of property rights and the advancement of reason.