A quick review of some previous blog posts saw me find once again this post about government moves to place the blogosphere on a fairer level.
^
It was meant to be funny, I'm not laughing much anymore - it's not exactly what has happened, but the parallels...
16 January 2008
15 January 2008
Helengrad is a word
However, the debate about its origins has to continue. I don't know when I first came across it, I am suspecting an issue of The Free Radical, or an utterance on talkback radio - so it may be up to PC to do some research. It is pleasing that the term is in an Australian online dictionary according to Stuff. It has more popularity than "Clarkistan".
Nevertheless, this is bound to upset Labour's sycophants who never engage in attacks of personal abuse against politicians they oppose - oh never.
11 January 2008
Hopes for 2008
PC tagged me to place my eight wishes for 2008, so without referring to his list (which I largely agree with), here they are:
1. The 2008 New Zealand elections see Labour unable to form a government, and Helen Clark being ousted by the caucus as leader. Rodney Hide waking up and giving National a run for its money based on a consistently liberal platform, NZ First passing away like so many of its voters, the people of Wigram and Ohariu booting their ex.Labour MP one man bands from Parliament, and the Nats having to form a government with a genuinely liberal ACT (it has to be its last chance) with Rodney Hide supplying the testicles to do at least what the Nats promised in 2005. I don't hope for a National win, but I expect it and understand it as the likely consequence of a Labour loss.
2. The media holding the Green and Maori Parties to account for their appeasement of those who advocate political violence in a modern liberal democracy, and both parties' strong support for state endorsed racism, interventionist government in much business and personal life, surrender of individual freedom to collectivist goals decided, of course, by them and their mates, and a general rejection of modern western civilisation. The Green Party failing to reach 5% as a result (the Maori Party will continue to get support as the education system has brainwashed enough voters in the apartheid seats ideologically in favour of them).
3. Acknowledgement by those who should know better, especially feminists and so called “civil liberties” advocates of the left, that the growth of Islamism is a clear and present threat to life and liberty across the globe. It cripples the lives of so many in Africa and Asia, particularly women, it is threatening mass murder of peace loving people in countries rich and poor, and it cannot be appeased. It is time to advocate separation of all churches from all states worldwide.
4. Rational analysis and debate about responses to “environmental issues” that challenges the quasi-religious mantra that “recycling is good”, “road building is bad”, “energy consumption is bad”, “global warming is bad and must be fixed by microeconomic intervention”. Taking what Hayek said about economics and applying it to the environment would be a start. There is no way that governments can make the right choices for everyone (the most recent example being concern about the tens of thousands who are allergic to light from low energy lightbulbs, of course no bureaucrat could ever have thought of that).
5. The removal of Mahmud Ahmadinejad, Robert Mugabe, Bashar al-Assad, Fidel Castro, Than Shwe, Alexander Lukashenko, Kim Jong Il and Islam Karimov as leaders of their respective countries. Almost without exception preferably by assassination. The residents of their countries should be a safer place without them, and besides they all have the blood of thousands on their hands. All are far too powerful in their regimes and far too disturbing, their successors may not be angels, but they are more likely to assist in a transition towards better government.
6. The US Presidential primaries produce a clear two horse race between Hilary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Why? Obama is a charismatic flake, Hilary has less chance of winning, and Giuliani for his many many faults, is probably the candidate best placed to handle the foreign policy challenges around Iran and Islamism, and as a reasonably socially liberal Republican he can steer the party away from the religious conservatism that has kept too many in the dark ages. I hope the prospect of a Clinton win scares the "bejesus" out religious conservatives that they vote for Giuliani.
7. The British Conservative Party turns away from its environmentalist mantra, and pushes for major reform of education and welfare to lift standards and address the persistent underclass in UK society of virtually useless individuals destined at best to have sad lives with little hope, or at worst to be violent criminals who breed the same. It might even advocate that people generally know best how to run their lives, but I don't think they understand it.
8. Ken Livingstone to be ousted as Mayor of London. While I hesitate in fully endorsing Boris Johnson, Livingstone’s appeasement of Islamists, filthy deal with Hugo Chavez for cheap diesel for London buses, Stalinist empire building over housing and transport (he now controls the central government budget for public housing in London, and wants to renationalise all local train services) is a drain on London’s dynamism and is a complete embarrassment. At a time of recession London needs someone managing the till who isn’t trying to mould London in the style of Michael Foot.
1. The 2008 New Zealand elections see Labour unable to form a government, and Helen Clark being ousted by the caucus as leader. Rodney Hide waking up and giving National a run for its money based on a consistently liberal platform, NZ First passing away like so many of its voters, the people of Wigram and Ohariu booting their ex.Labour MP one man bands from Parliament, and the Nats having to form a government with a genuinely liberal ACT (it has to be its last chance) with Rodney Hide supplying the testicles to do at least what the Nats promised in 2005. I don't hope for a National win, but I expect it and understand it as the likely consequence of a Labour loss.
2. The media holding the Green and Maori Parties to account for their appeasement of those who advocate political violence in a modern liberal democracy, and both parties' strong support for state endorsed racism, interventionist government in much business and personal life, surrender of individual freedom to collectivist goals decided, of course, by them and their mates, and a general rejection of modern western civilisation. The Green Party failing to reach 5% as a result (the Maori Party will continue to get support as the education system has brainwashed enough voters in the apartheid seats ideologically in favour of them).
3. Acknowledgement by those who should know better, especially feminists and so called “civil liberties” advocates of the left, that the growth of Islamism is a clear and present threat to life and liberty across the globe. It cripples the lives of so many in Africa and Asia, particularly women, it is threatening mass murder of peace loving people in countries rich and poor, and it cannot be appeased. It is time to advocate separation of all churches from all states worldwide.
4. Rational analysis and debate about responses to “environmental issues” that challenges the quasi-religious mantra that “recycling is good”, “road building is bad”, “energy consumption is bad”, “global warming is bad and must be fixed by microeconomic intervention”. Taking what Hayek said about economics and applying it to the environment would be a start. There is no way that governments can make the right choices for everyone (the most recent example being concern about the tens of thousands who are allergic to light from low energy lightbulbs, of course no bureaucrat could ever have thought of that).
5. The removal of Mahmud Ahmadinejad, Robert Mugabe, Bashar al-Assad, Fidel Castro, Than Shwe, Alexander Lukashenko, Kim Jong Il and Islam Karimov as leaders of their respective countries. Almost without exception preferably by assassination. The residents of their countries should be a safer place without them, and besides they all have the blood of thousands on their hands. All are far too powerful in their regimes and far too disturbing, their successors may not be angels, but they are more likely to assist in a transition towards better government.
6. The US Presidential primaries produce a clear two horse race between Hilary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Why? Obama is a charismatic flake, Hilary has less chance of winning, and Giuliani for his many many faults, is probably the candidate best placed to handle the foreign policy challenges around Iran and Islamism, and as a reasonably socially liberal Republican he can steer the party away from the religious conservatism that has kept too many in the dark ages. I hope the prospect of a Clinton win scares the "bejesus" out religious conservatives that they vote for Giuliani.
7. The British Conservative Party turns away from its environmentalist mantra, and pushes for major reform of education and welfare to lift standards and address the persistent underclass in UK society of virtually useless individuals destined at best to have sad lives with little hope, or at worst to be violent criminals who breed the same. It might even advocate that people generally know best how to run their lives, but I don't think they understand it.
8. Ken Livingstone to be ousted as Mayor of London. While I hesitate in fully endorsing Boris Johnson, Livingstone’s appeasement of Islamists, filthy deal with Hugo Chavez for cheap diesel for London buses, Stalinist empire building over housing and transport (he now controls the central government budget for public housing in London, and wants to renationalise all local train services) is a drain on London’s dynamism and is a complete embarrassment. At a time of recession London needs someone managing the till who isn’t trying to mould London in the style of Michael Foot.
10 January 2008
John Minto – Marxist bully
John Minto, has written that property rights mean little to the poor. He says this because ideologically he is very keen on the state interfering with property rights in order to fit his own socialist agenda – you see he doesn’t really think you should own what you earn from non-coercive means. He wants to justify state sponsored theft without using the word, so he dismisses property rights as being “ there to benefit the wealthy and the middle class”.
The sneering nature of that comment speaks much about what he thinks about those who produce. By implication the wealthy don’t deserve wealth, presumably the fact that people have chosen to pay the wealthy what they own is irrelevant, Minto thinks that is unfair. The middle classes too, those ones who he especially despises (as they don’t ever vote for sufficiently left wing governments as they are too concerned with such disgusting activities as looking after themselves and their families so they don’t get into poverty), are not loved by Minto.
However, setting aside his own bigotry against those who have money (as if it has been dished out by a god), his own thesis that property rights are not important to the poor is complete nonsense.
He claims that because there are property rights in the US and New Zealand that it has done nothing for the poor in those countries – yet how dare he even compare poverty in the US to that of say Sudan or Bangladesh. To be poor in the likes of Sudan is to not have shelter, to not have food, to not have any access to education or healthcare of any kind. To be poor in the US typically does mean having shelter, it very rarely means starvation (and in plenty of cases quite the opposite), it does not mean lack of access to education and does not mean complete absence of healthcare.
Having property rights is fundamental to human survival – it is about owning what you produce, and keeping it. Whether it be land to live on or even farm, clothing, commodities or products to trade, it is the necessities of life. If there is no right to protect what you produce or earn, then you will be defined by poverty or at the will of a feudal lord, or dictator. Try owning land in many countries in Africa and protecting it from demands from corrupt officials or criminal gangs. The idea that property rights are not important to the poor only stands up if you believe the only way the poor should survive is from stealing from others – because, you see, Minto thinks everyone is owed a living from those who produce a living. Notice, of course, how he doesn’t live the life of a destitute to give more to others who haven’t earned it – socialists are like that - “everyone should, but me”.
He advocates “true democracy”, defined as decision making in all parts of people’s lives. Interesting choice of words of course. I don’t know what decisions Minto doesn’t think he has in his life, who forces him to live where he is, who forces him to eat what he eats, who forces him to get out of bed in the morning? What, on the surface, he advocates for is individual freedom. It isn’t democracy, unless he wants the decision making to be collective. Get it? So everyone gets to make decisions about all parts of people’s lives – so your neighbour might vote as to whether you should have a new car, or a holiday in Australia, or eat fish and chips, or buy incandescent light bulbs, or what sort of education your children get, or what newspapers should publish, or what programmes should be on TV, or whether you should cut that tree down on yOUR land, or whether you should have that heart bypass operation, or whether everyone should burn the US flag in protest for it harassing the peace loving Iranian regime.
I have a vision of what Minto sees as “true democracy”, it means once a week you and others in your community (he’ll define that as being those who live near each other) meet and discuss community issues, like what you do with the street, the park, the hospital, the school, what shops open and for what hours, what they sell, what the prices should be, whether more people should be hired by the local light engineering workshop, what times the buses should run, what newspapers should be sold at the newsagent, what movies should show in the cinema, what anti-social activities others in the community have done, what campaigns the kids at school are getting animated about. Of course under this, if you are outvoted you can’t complain – it is “true democracy”, the majority rules, so if the majority say your kids should learn Marxist economics and can only go to the local school, you can’t complain – it is democracy. If the majority say that because you are “middle class” you should allow a poor family to use one of the rooms in your house, then you can’t complain – it is democracy. If the majority say that advertising should be banned in newspapers sold locally, then… you get the picture. What happens if you campaign AGAINST the decisions of local democracy? Well, how could you? You’re a traitor at best, insane at worst – how can you go against the will of the people, the will of the majority? Why aren’t you working with your community, instead of pursuing greedy self interest?
Minto has a vision about how to achieve this when he says disturbingly “It's worth remembering that democratic rights, to the extent we have them, were never granted freely to anyone. People have only gained civil and political rights after bitter, violent struggles.”
Nevermind, there is a country that echoes Minto’s vision of virtually no property rights, and the sort of true democracy I was talking about – its capital is Pyongyang. Global Peace and Justice is the euphemism for Global Revolution and Socialism.
The sneering nature of that comment speaks much about what he thinks about those who produce. By implication the wealthy don’t deserve wealth, presumably the fact that people have chosen to pay the wealthy what they own is irrelevant, Minto thinks that is unfair. The middle classes too, those ones who he especially despises (as they don’t ever vote for sufficiently left wing governments as they are too concerned with such disgusting activities as looking after themselves and their families so they don’t get into poverty), are not loved by Minto.
However, setting aside his own bigotry against those who have money (as if it has been dished out by a god), his own thesis that property rights are not important to the poor is complete nonsense.
He claims that because there are property rights in the US and New Zealand that it has done nothing for the poor in those countries – yet how dare he even compare poverty in the US to that of say Sudan or Bangladesh. To be poor in the likes of Sudan is to not have shelter, to not have food, to not have any access to education or healthcare of any kind. To be poor in the US typically does mean having shelter, it very rarely means starvation (and in plenty of cases quite the opposite), it does not mean lack of access to education and does not mean complete absence of healthcare.
Having property rights is fundamental to human survival – it is about owning what you produce, and keeping it. Whether it be land to live on or even farm, clothing, commodities or products to trade, it is the necessities of life. If there is no right to protect what you produce or earn, then you will be defined by poverty or at the will of a feudal lord, or dictator. Try owning land in many countries in Africa and protecting it from demands from corrupt officials or criminal gangs. The idea that property rights are not important to the poor only stands up if you believe the only way the poor should survive is from stealing from others – because, you see, Minto thinks everyone is owed a living from those who produce a living. Notice, of course, how he doesn’t live the life of a destitute to give more to others who haven’t earned it – socialists are like that - “everyone should, but me”.
He advocates “true democracy”, defined as decision making in all parts of people’s lives. Interesting choice of words of course. I don’t know what decisions Minto doesn’t think he has in his life, who forces him to live where he is, who forces him to eat what he eats, who forces him to get out of bed in the morning? What, on the surface, he advocates for is individual freedom. It isn’t democracy, unless he wants the decision making to be collective. Get it? So everyone gets to make decisions about all parts of people’s lives – so your neighbour might vote as to whether you should have a new car, or a holiday in Australia, or eat fish and chips, or buy incandescent light bulbs, or what sort of education your children get, or what newspapers should publish, or what programmes should be on TV, or whether you should cut that tree down on yOUR land, or whether you should have that heart bypass operation, or whether everyone should burn the US flag in protest for it harassing the peace loving Iranian regime.
I have a vision of what Minto sees as “true democracy”, it means once a week you and others in your community (he’ll define that as being those who live near each other) meet and discuss community issues, like what you do with the street, the park, the hospital, the school, what shops open and for what hours, what they sell, what the prices should be, whether more people should be hired by the local light engineering workshop, what times the buses should run, what newspapers should be sold at the newsagent, what movies should show in the cinema, what anti-social activities others in the community have done, what campaigns the kids at school are getting animated about. Of course under this, if you are outvoted you can’t complain – it is “true democracy”, the majority rules, so if the majority say your kids should learn Marxist economics and can only go to the local school, you can’t complain – it is democracy. If the majority say that because you are “middle class” you should allow a poor family to use one of the rooms in your house, then you can’t complain – it is democracy. If the majority say that advertising should be banned in newspapers sold locally, then… you get the picture. What happens if you campaign AGAINST the decisions of local democracy? Well, how could you? You’re a traitor at best, insane at worst – how can you go against the will of the people, the will of the majority? Why aren’t you working with your community, instead of pursuing greedy self interest?
Minto has a vision about how to achieve this when he says disturbingly “It's worth remembering that democratic rights, to the extent we have them, were never granted freely to anyone. People have only gained civil and political rights after bitter, violent struggles.”
Nevermind, there is a country that echoes Minto’s vision of virtually no property rights, and the sort of true democracy I was talking about – its capital is Pyongyang. Global Peace and Justice is the euphemism for Global Revolution and Socialism.
09 January 2008
Changeling for what?
Yes well Happy New Year, I've been travelling mostly, but had a very sore neck for the last 2 weeks so could hardly concentrate to do an end of year/new year post. Nevertheless, given today is the New Hampshire primaries I just had to write what has been concerning me about the US Presidential elections for the last year or so - it is Barack Obama.
Yes I'm a libertarian, and any Democratic Party candidate is about as inspiring as TV3 News, but is there ANYTHING behind this man, other than the fawning almost uncritical worshipping of him by the media? Do you ever see anyone substantively criticising him, besides Hilary Clinton?
Once you have a drink, calm down and stop cheering that he bet Hilary Clinton (yes yes, she's cold calculated and an evil statist), you find the vacuous nothing that represents what he is about. It's not even that being black is why he is popular, he is popular because he sounds charismatic even though he is saying next to nothing. Ignoring the specious irrelevancies about having the middle name Hussein and spending four years as a child in Indonesia (where he went to a Muslim school), what really disturbs me is that his campaign is about "real change".
What the hell is that about?
I could come to your home and say "give me the right to run your life and finances for three years and I'll show you real change". I could make your life better, or make you bankrupt, or just make it different, but it means nothing. So for the want of any information about what the hell he believes in, I went to wikipedia.
He says nothing interesting on economic policy, but rejects individual social security accounts - hmmm so he's a bit of a leftie. He promoted a law requiring companies to hold non binding votes on executive pay (so he like fiddling with businesses he doesn't own). He opposes education vouchers, clearly preferring the state monopoly on compulsorily funded education. He supports subsidising biofuels, and import tariffs on foreign biofuels - so he is as much a porkbarrel protectionist as any senator. He supports universal healthcare, although it is unclear how he would achieve this without regulation or higher taxes - nothing new there.
On foreign policy he is all over the place, wanting a bigger army and more presence in Afghanistan, but withdrawal from Iraq and the right to bomb Pakistan if it doesnt confront Al Qaeda. He didn't support the vote for Al Quds of Iran to be classified as a terrorist organisation - even though it trains terrorists.
So change. Really? He isn't some sort of hardcore socialist, he'll try to do something with healthcare but fail - a bit like Bill Clinton. He wont raise taxes, he wont cut spending, he wont deregulate or significantly regulate. In short he wont change anything substantial.
but here's another test, how does he fair against the three biggest philosophical threats to modern Western civilisation today? These are:
1. Islamist terrorism.
2. Environmentalism.
3. Christian fundamentalism.
On Islamist terror, he is mixed. He would cut and run from Iraq, but do more in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This sounds like policy on the fly frankly, so not a lot of great thinking there. Maybe gets a 3 out of 10 for showing some interest, but not a lot of depth.
On environmentalism, he believes in action on climate change including international commitments. He picks solutions like biofuels, although is also not opposed to nuclear power. However, in short there is little evidence he is willing to confront environmental issues rationally. He could be worse, he's not Jeanette Fitzsimons, but a bit like most issues it is hard to know what he really thinks. I'll give him 2 out of 10 for this too, because he isn't opposed to nuclear power and gets a point for not saying too much that is stupid - but then, he's not saying much at all.
On Christian fundamentalism, well he isn't one of those - which you should usually take for granted as a Democrat. He supports gay civil unions, wont ban abortion and the like, so he can get 7 out of 10 for that. However, as Huckabee and Romney are both unlikely to be the Republican candidates, this doesn't matter much.
So Obama at best will do very little, might maintain the war on terror, surrender a little of the US to the climate change agenda and fiddle at the edges. At the worst he will wimp out on the war on terror, signs up the US to subsidising and regulating all the latest environmental fetishes and continue the growth of the federal government.
In short, the change he promises is show business - a charismatic speaker who is less negative than Hilary, less calculating, but more vacuous.
Don't get me wrong, I would loathe a Hilary Clinton presidency. She not only is a statist collectivist through and through, but she quite clearly is willing to sacrifice her own dignity and self respect for the prospect of power over others - why else explain the tolerance of loose willie as her husband?
As for the Republicans? Huckabee has had his day, and John McCain is no great shrinker of the state - but he will fight Islamist terror. However the real primary battle has yet to occur. Remember those who cheer Obama because he beats Hilary - the truth is he is more likely to beat a Republican than Hilary is. While none of them are inspiring, be careful for what you wish for.
Yes I'm a libertarian, and any Democratic Party candidate is about as inspiring as TV3 News, but is there ANYTHING behind this man, other than the fawning almost uncritical worshipping of him by the media? Do you ever see anyone substantively criticising him, besides Hilary Clinton?
Once you have a drink, calm down and stop cheering that he bet Hilary Clinton (yes yes, she's cold calculated and an evil statist), you find the vacuous nothing that represents what he is about. It's not even that being black is why he is popular, he is popular because he sounds charismatic even though he is saying next to nothing. Ignoring the specious irrelevancies about having the middle name Hussein and spending four years as a child in Indonesia (where he went to a Muslim school), what really disturbs me is that his campaign is about "real change".
What the hell is that about?
I could come to your home and say "give me the right to run your life and finances for three years and I'll show you real change". I could make your life better, or make you bankrupt, or just make it different, but it means nothing. So for the want of any information about what the hell he believes in, I went to wikipedia.
He says nothing interesting on economic policy, but rejects individual social security accounts - hmmm so he's a bit of a leftie. He promoted a law requiring companies to hold non binding votes on executive pay (so he like fiddling with businesses he doesn't own). He opposes education vouchers, clearly preferring the state monopoly on compulsorily funded education. He supports subsidising biofuels, and import tariffs on foreign biofuels - so he is as much a porkbarrel protectionist as any senator. He supports universal healthcare, although it is unclear how he would achieve this without regulation or higher taxes - nothing new there.
On foreign policy he is all over the place, wanting a bigger army and more presence in Afghanistan, but withdrawal from Iraq and the right to bomb Pakistan if it doesnt confront Al Qaeda. He didn't support the vote for Al Quds of Iran to be classified as a terrorist organisation - even though it trains terrorists.
So change. Really? He isn't some sort of hardcore socialist, he'll try to do something with healthcare but fail - a bit like Bill Clinton. He wont raise taxes, he wont cut spending, he wont deregulate or significantly regulate. In short he wont change anything substantial.
but here's another test, how does he fair against the three biggest philosophical threats to modern Western civilisation today? These are:
1. Islamist terrorism.
2. Environmentalism.
3. Christian fundamentalism.
On Islamist terror, he is mixed. He would cut and run from Iraq, but do more in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This sounds like policy on the fly frankly, so not a lot of great thinking there. Maybe gets a 3 out of 10 for showing some interest, but not a lot of depth.
On environmentalism, he believes in action on climate change including international commitments. He picks solutions like biofuels, although is also not opposed to nuclear power. However, in short there is little evidence he is willing to confront environmental issues rationally. He could be worse, he's not Jeanette Fitzsimons, but a bit like most issues it is hard to know what he really thinks. I'll give him 2 out of 10 for this too, because he isn't opposed to nuclear power and gets a point for not saying too much that is stupid - but then, he's not saying much at all.
On Christian fundamentalism, well he isn't one of those - which you should usually take for granted as a Democrat. He supports gay civil unions, wont ban abortion and the like, so he can get 7 out of 10 for that. However, as Huckabee and Romney are both unlikely to be the Republican candidates, this doesn't matter much.
So Obama at best will do very little, might maintain the war on terror, surrender a little of the US to the climate change agenda and fiddle at the edges. At the worst he will wimp out on the war on terror, signs up the US to subsidising and regulating all the latest environmental fetishes and continue the growth of the federal government.
In short, the change he promises is show business - a charismatic speaker who is less negative than Hilary, less calculating, but more vacuous.
Don't get me wrong, I would loathe a Hilary Clinton presidency. She not only is a statist collectivist through and through, but she quite clearly is willing to sacrifice her own dignity and self respect for the prospect of power over others - why else explain the tolerance of loose willie as her husband?
As for the Republicans? Huckabee has had his day, and John McCain is no great shrinker of the state - but he will fight Islamist terror. However the real primary battle has yet to occur. Remember those who cheer Obama because he beats Hilary - the truth is he is more likely to beat a Republican than Hilary is. While none of them are inspiring, be careful for what you wish for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)