Grab the Green sick bag file

"With the Green Party vote spread across the country, only a proportional system of representation will see the future of our children and the planet represented in Parliament at all" says Jeanette Fitzsimons

Whose children? They are not yours, not the state's, not the Green Party's.

and most parents look after the future of their children rather well, without you.

So kindly stop talking about "our children", they are not yours, and more than 9 out of 10 New Zealanders don't want them to be either.

Greens share National Front perspective

Oh dear, the Green Party’s agricultural policy continues the theme of “do as we say”.

It wants 15% of farms organic by 2015 and half of all production organic by 2020. The Greens don’t intend to do this by promotion or market demand. Indeed, they want food self sufficiency. Like Japan, like North Korea, like many dictatorships, like fascists. It smells so much of a centrally controlled state, with an attitude to both imports and foreigners that stinks of xenophobia. Clearly if you hate foreigners and foreign muck, vote Green – somehow I think most Green supporters wouldn’t really like the range of imported foods being banned because they don’t meet the strict standards they demand.

However if you vote Green you are voting to ban things – it’s compulsory or it’s illegal.

According to Stuff the policy includes:
- Sovkhoz (State farms) (ok I used that word) modelling the example of organic farming to other farmers, through Landcorp. Yes comrade farmer, learn from the state farm. Buy your organic produce from state farm number 13675;
- “Regional councils could advise farmers on cost-effective options, and land and water management plans such as nutrient budgets and stocking rate limits” Yes now the regional council is the State Farming Advisory Authority. Turn to your council for advice on how to run your own farm!
- “Landowners would be offered incentives for appropriate land use” Read landowners would be offered YOUR money taken from you to pay for what is appropriate. Don’t want to use your own land “inappropriately now do we”?
- “there should be incentives for maintaining or enhancing the environment, such as riparian plantings or preventing soil erosion and nutrient run-off” Earth to Greens, these already exist it is called “protecting the value of your property”. However that P word is one you just can’t grasp right?
- “cut pesticide use by 50 per cent in five years, and it says landowners using sprays should be responsible for chemical trespass when pesticides affect areas outside their property” Well how will you cut this use? However, amazingly suddenly property matters – and yes, landowners should be responsible, if damage is caused of course. It is basic tort law (just when you thought they didn’t understand);
- “Aerial spraying would only be permitted when it was the safest, least toxic, most effective method of control” Yes zee state wont allow it otherwise (couldn’t just make trespass the issue surely?);
- “levy vessels, passengers and freight entering the country to better fund biosecurity services” ah more taxes on trade and tourism, though the problem isn’t exactly defined. Keeps those foreigners out though from stealing “our jobs”;
- “prevent people buying land here unless they were residents or held New Zealand citizenship” Yes those foreigners, dirty little bastards, let’s decimate the value of existing farms instead. True loyal patriotic kiwi farmers will welcome this. Ka Pai.;
- “farmers should not have to face unfair competition at home from cheap imported food and agricultural products produced with lower environmental, health and safety standards, such as garlic from China and imported pork” No of course not, consumers should never be able to choose from filthy foreign muck. If the dirty foreigners wont let us export there, who cares – our people happily will be self sufficient, and paying a lot more for the satisfaction of food sovereignty;
- “Importers should have to show their products meet minimum environmental, labour, health and safety standards, and country of origin labelling for all single-ingredient agricultural products should be mandatory” Yes those filthy foreigners from poor countries try to undercut us at every moment, because they don’t understand how to run a fair society. We do, we are proud of it, so when you want to buy foreign muck it better meet our standards or else!

Oh that’s enough. I mean take this “Urban sprawl should be limited to stop prime agricultural land being taken for housing, lifestyle blocks and commercial developments”. Taken? Taken from whom by who? Taking is what the state does. It takes your money, you didn’t choose to do that.
Buying is what individuals do. They use their own money and buy from a voluntary seller.

You don’t know the damned difference. You also want “affordable housing”, but want to forcibly limit the amount of land available to it – so you can effectively force housing to be high density London type high rise next to your beloved railway stations.

The Greens are, once again, proving their addiction to big Nanny State, addiction to telling people what to do and not do, banning, regulating and subsidising. It is socialism, but the agricultural policy is far more sinister. It has so much that is “anti-foreign” that the National Front would have little to disapprove of.

Why do you trust them?

It's a simple point. One I have made before.

How much trust, belief and even faith does the average person put in the average MP?

How much trust, belief and faith does the average person put in the average bureaucrat?

So why would you choose to give up between 30 and 50% of what you earn/spend so such people can buy your:
- Healthcare;
- Childrens' education;
- Retirement income;
- Accident insurance;
- Income protection insurance.

Would you own shares in an airline, railway, logistics company, power company, bank, coal company, if you knew those choosing the directors faced no financial risk in getting it wrong?

So why do you vote for this?

At this election a vote for National (let alone Labour, NZ First, Greens etc etc) is a vote for the status quo - it is a vote for state funded and controlled education, health care and retirement income. It is a vote for MORE welfare. It is a vote for maybe getting competition into ACC employer accounts. Does that get you excited?

A vote for Libertarianz is a vote to say no to all of this. No to the fraud of National Superannuation, no to the fraud of state rationed health care and state dictated education. No to trusting people you wouldn't let do your grocery and clothes shopping from spending money you spent 2 days a week working for.

I know some on the less government end of the spectrum want to vote National. If this doesn't make you think again, what will? You already fear Labour could get in with less votes than National because of coalition deals with the Greens, Maori Party et al. Don't fear National getting less than Labour - because a National government that includes Peter Dunne - a man who created a new bureaucracy for families, and the Maori Party, a party full of Marxists and other collectivists who think in group speak and group responsibility, rather than individuals - will be nothing more than a different crew, same ship, same direction, slower speed.

Yes, I know, you're going to say what about ACT? Stay tuned.

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear

The New Zealand Police catch on quick. Given the report that the UK government is looking to ban anonymous prepaid cellphone accounts, they are looking to do the same thing according to the Dominion Post.

Yes, a government mandated national database of everyone using cellphones. Although it is remarkable that there isn't one to require everyone using internet messaging services to display IP addresses, or indeed one to require everyone with a PC to be registered, or every letter. How have the Police coped? As I said before, in communist Romania the Securitate required all typewriters to be licensed. In the former East Germany, the Stasi kept meticulous notes on everything suspects did, down to the minute. The film The Lives of Others, gives a chilling insight into this.

Of course, Detective Senior Sergeant Darrin Thomson has the classic response to those who might query it:

"I certainly don't think that this is a system to be implemented that would be abused - it's no different from you and I having a landline. People who are going about their lawful business, which is a great majority of the community, have got nothing to worry about".

Which of course is how the Police will justify any intrusion into your privacy. After all, you could let the Police search your home without warrant under that basis, open all your mail, tap your phone calls, read your emails.

Why fear the state?

The Police say it is no different from having a landline after all - except that the phone company HAS to know where you are since you are connecting fixed infrastructure. This is different. This is the state demanding that there be no anonymity when you do something that 9 times out of 10 is innocuous.

Of course criminals will all be caught through this. After all, none would use false or temporary addresses. This couldn't possibly increase the attractiveness of stealing phones. No. In fact, it wont cause a run on prepaid phones now will it? Then a legal market in prepaid SIM cards. No, the Police are totally switched onto this.

However, this is hardly surprising. Only an idiot or someone blind to history about police states would let the Police determine public policy. However, both Vodafone and Telecom are quite happy to do so, which begs the question, why the hell aren't you doing it now? If it makes sense to you, do it, don't want for the state to make you. Maybe it's because enough people WANT anonymity, maybe people want to be able to share a cellphone and as long as someone pays, who cares?

So people, which political party will oppose this? Labour? Hardly, it greatly enhanced the laws on telecommunications interception this term. National? Likewise, it is all about the war on crime - National has never been a secure believer in civil liberties. ACT? Well it is about zero tolerance as well now, but I'd like ACT to state its position - clearly. Given Australia already requires ID for purchasing cellphones, I'm not hopeful. The rest? Well United Future who knows, NZ First will happily go along with this, the Maori Party and the Greens will oppose it, because they fear their violence loving mates being caught.

So, which MP or candidate is the first who is going to trot out the Orwellian title to this post as the justification for this extra inch of Police state?

Aotearoa Central Television Pasifika

Yes, Labour is trying to bribe Pacific Islanders to voting for it, as according to Stuff it promises to force you to pay for a Pacific Islands television channel.

That would bring the number of state owned TV channels to 8 (One, Two, TVNZ 6, TVNZ 7, Maori Television, Te Reo, Parliament), one more and it will half the number the state runs in China. Of course in the UK the state owns more (BBC1, BBC2, BBC3/Cbeebies, BBC4/CBBC, News 24, BBC World, Channel 4, E4, More 4, Film4).

So go on, vote for a government friendly channel, that you have to pay for whether or not you watch it, all specialised at the Pacific Islander audience.

Mana MP Winnie Laban justifies it saying "We are committed to ensuring that Pacific voices and cultures are well represented on the airwaves". Why can't Pacific voices do it themselves, with their own money? Why aren't other cultures equally as important? What about libertarian, objectivist voices, what about Bahai, Chinese and Greek voices? Why must they be "ensured"? What about ensuring them in newspapers as well?

What does it take for the Labour Party to want to set up a TV channel for you? Ah, couldn't be votes could it. I mean, there isn't a state owned channel for Asian New Zealanders (although they are more numerous than Pacific Islanders).

It's simple identity politics. Labour wants Pacific peoples to see it as their saviour, and is bribing them with their own money, being the colonial mistress patronising them as if they can't organise themselves, set up their own radio station (they did of course, but the state effectively nationalised it by setting up a state funded network privately owned). It implies Pacific Islanders aren't up to the mark, that they need Nanny State to give them what they want. Don't ever expect state owned broadcasting to give much time to those who think there should be less government - how can they?

It's very simple, National should promise to not proceed with this. The state should NOT be involved in broadcasting. It should simply get out of the way. Government should not own radio or television stations.