Think of what politics is

Why do people get into politics? It is a truly filthy sport. It is about trying to convince the greatest number of heads that what you and your party want to do to them is the right thing.

Most who enter politics claim to do so out of "service". You heard that a lot in the US campaign, both Obama and McCain talked about serving their country. I don't mean the military, I mean politics.

However what IS politics? It is the pursuit of power - power to make laws, power to take money from people and spend it on what you think is best for them. Take it from me, the people who do this are no better than most of you - they are mostly average - most are not particularly clever or bright - yet so many of you trust them.

The power they wield is enormous. Passing laws means that if people go against them, they could be fined or imprisoned. That is not something you can do to people, it is called using force.

Politicians seek the power to use force, to use violence.

If your business or charity or other voluntary organisation wants money, it has to earn it, persuade people to buy your services or persuade them to donate money.

Politicians don't do that, they can make you pay for what they want - not only do they do that, but they have made it so you're guilty till proven innocent if you get it wrong. Taxes are the tool of the politician. Statists say it is the price of a civilised society, as if it is civilised to make people pay for that which you cannot convince them of.

Across the spectrum they have plans for you and your money, the things they don't want you to do, the things they want you to pay for - for your own good.

The Greens for example have a long list of things they want to ban, subsidise and compel. They are control freaks par excellence. Labour isn't far behind, it believes it knows best to buy you health care, control your children's education and to save for your retirement. It buys you a railway that you didn't want to buy. The Maori Party also believes it knows best.

National will do less, but it wont reverse anything. Most disturbingly it wants the state to maintain a database of DNA of everyone arrested of certain offences, whether guilty or not. The state shouldn't be spying on you if you've not broken the law. National also thinks it can pick winners in spending your money on infrastructure whether or not you will use it. It offers nothing more than a better version of Labour - beyond the Electoral Finance Act, National will repeal nothing of substance that Labour has done.

I would like politics to be peripheral. Government is essential. The state provides for law and order, to protect us from those who will do violence to us, who will defraud us. That is a given and the priority. However, beyond that government is incompetent. I know it will take a long time for people to take responsibility, for their healthcare, for their kids education, to consider charity instead of welfare, and to stop thinking the government can fix problems they can't solve.

Politicians who promise they can change and fix things by spending your money and making people do what they want are shysters. Your only chance to say no to this advance auction of stolen goods is to vote for less of it.

Helen Clark and the Greens participate in it, gloriously and argue strongly that it is the only way things should be.

National participates in it, somewhat reluctantly, unable and unwilling to say no. Unable to say - sorry the government can't fix this, but it can get out of the way of those who might have a chance.

The government you get after the election tomorrow will be different, it could be John Key leading a semi-fresh team, of which he is probably the best person in it. I honestly wish him well, and I hope that all of the vote gathering is style not substance, and Key will change New Zealand for the better by getting the government out of the way and changing the culture of dependency on the state. Sadly I see little to prove to me that he will, even if a handful of ACT MPs push him a little further.

If Helen Clark and the Greens and Maori Party get elected then you'll see change, and it wont be pretty. However you can watch the next three years like I have watched the last 9, and see National unwilling to reverse almost everything Labour did.

Politics you see, is a nasty game. A game of surrendering principle, of kissing babies and promising to people that you'll give them things, without being honest about what you're taking from them. It is about kidding the vast masses of people that you can make their lives better, when the truth is people can really only do this themselves.

The election is about counting heads, not what was in them, but I hope you too will enjoy at least the sight of many politicians losing power, the sight of Helen Clark probably no longer being able to claim to be a victim of her own success as a popular and competent Prime Minister.

However as you do so, remember these people only have the power you have granted them. That is power you granted through your vote. I voted Libertarianz as the only power I want the state to have is to protect me. What power have you said you want the state to have over your life?

Gordon Brown has cause to cheer

In a busy political week, the UK has seen another by-election. This time in Glenrothes, Scotland.

Labour held onto the seat, with a majority of 6,737. A smaller majority, but still a great victory for Gordon Brown personally and Labour. With the SNP having fought hard to win the seat, it shows a few things about politics in Scotland.

1. The SNP, now being the government in Scotland, finds it hard to blame others for the failings of government. Labour just says "well the SNP looks after internal Scottish matters".
2. Labour has pointed out that an independent Scotland couldn't embark on the large scale (socialist) bank nationalisations and bailouts that the UK government can manage.
3. Scotland absolutely drowns in dependency on the state and what the state can do for people. The third place result for the Conservatives that only got 1,381 votes speaks volumes, and the Conservatives are no party of small government, just less statist that the others.

So Gordon Brown will be smiling.

Why Libertarianz and NOT Act

My reasons for 2005 are here, but since then National has moved to the left and ACT? Well it has changed too.

Those on the small government side of the spectrum are split between those who advocate voting for ACT, and those who say vote Libertarianz. The arguments on both sides are fairly short and sweet.

ACT advocates say:
1. A vote for ACT is a vote to move New Zealand towards less government, albeit at a far slower pace, degree and extent compared to Libertarianz.
2. ACT is almost guaranteed Parliamentary representation because Rodney Hide will almost certainly win Epsom.

So it comes down to ACT is pointing in the right direction and is in Parliament. However what does “the right direction mean”?

Being fair to ACT, the party looks better now than it has ever done. It has more policies to hinder the growth of the state than ever before, Rodney Hide has upped his game, and having Sir Roger Douglas on the ticket is notable, as he is light years ahead of any National MP in terms of courage and intellect.

ACT is better than National, but it didn’t need to work hard.

You see for me, I want to see six major changes in policies:

1. At least the option of opting out of state health and education.
2. Serious shrinkage of the welfare state
3. A significant reduction in the size of central and local government.
4. Significant reductions in tax consistent with the above.
5. Protection of private property rights.
6. Repeal of victimless crimes.

Obviously the Nats will do none of the above. How about ACT?

1. ACT policy is education vouchers, a step forward, and talks about an option for people to buy private healthcare. So, that gets a tick.
2. ACT would shift sickness beneficiaries towards an insurance based approach. Not exactly cutting the welfare state, but an improvement, so on balance the right direction.
3. ACT would cap central government to growing spending at the rate of inflation and population growth. That isn’t shrinking the state, it’s maintaining it at the same level as Labour. Standing still isn’t a direction. It would shrink local government, so why not central?
4. ACT’s tax policy sends mixed signals. It wouldn’t cut taxes until 2011. That is LESS than National. However, if you don’t shrink the state it is hardly a surprise. ACT also advocates a carbon tax. Yes you read right, it would replaced ETS with a carbon tax.
5. ACT would review the RMA so it would only supplement common law principles, but it doesn’t mention private property rights, except in terms of “where private property is taken or regulated for public good purposes.” So where are private property rights again? Why is it afraid of saying it?
6. Victimless crimes? ACT never discusses them, never touches them. It is tough on crime, but that doesn’t include reviewing criminal law. It has a “national security policy”

So with ACT I get something positive on health, education and welfare, I get the government of the same size as what Labour has left us with, and no tax cut for two years (but might get a carbon tax). I get the RMA reformed, but with no mention of private property rights, and of course ACT is silent on victimless crimes.

How, honestly, can a libertarian say that is worth voting for? I want tax cuts, I want the state to shrink. I don’t believe New Zealanders should have to put up with government as big as Labour has left us with and no tax cuts for two years. I want private property rights protected, I want a government that knows the difference between real crimes, like murder and theft, and victimless crimes, like bans on cigar magazines, smoking cannabis and allowing smoking inside your bar.

A vote for ACT is saying none of those things matter enough. To me they do. So vote ACT if you wish, but to do so you are accepting compromises with those who don’t want tax cuts, those who don’t want to protect private property rights from the RMA, those who believe zero tolerance should apply to all crimes, whether there is a victim or not.

I voted some days ago for Libertarianz, because I want to make a statement with my single vote, that the government shouldn’t own my life. Some Al Gore supporters in 2000 complained that those Americans who voted for Ralph Nader took Democrat votes off of Gore. They didn’t, they voted for what they wanted.

Your vote is a tiny indicator of what YOU believe in. It is nothing more than that. It isn't a veto - after all, it takes tens of thousands of votes to shift a single MP from one party to another.

So I am not “robbing ACT or National” of “their” vote. It is my vote. I voted for more freedom, less government – I invite you to do the same.

Legalise Cannabis?

Well if you believe adults should be able to peacefully consume cannabis on their own property, then your choice is rather simple.

The Green Party has abandoned pursuing this, partly because Nandor Tanczos has gone on to do other things, but also because it didn't really fit the ban/regulate/compel agenda of the party, and more importantly talking about it frightened middle class voters who thought the Greens approved of smoking cannabis. A vote for the Greens to get cannabis decriminalised or legalised is a wasted vote.

The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party has been on a long path to nowhere. It is completely dormant between elections. In 1996, it got 1.66% of the vote, in 1999 1.1%, in 2002 0.64% and in 2005 0.25%. As a one issue party it will never cross the 5% threshold, and has frittered away its support year after year. It also doesn't care about responsibility, doesn't care about healthcare or the right to ban cannabis users from private property. Ticking the leaf will mean nothing other than you only care about cannabis.

Libertarianz would legalise cannabis, and other drugs safer than alcohol, for sale and adult consumption on private property. It would also ensure users of such drugs would be responsible for paying for their own private health consequences, and while such consumption would be a right, it would be the right of private property owners to ban it on their own property, and for employers to insist employees do not enter their premises under the influence of the drug. Legalisation does not mean approval or disapproval, it is simply not the business of the state to tell you what you must or must not ingest.

So I urge those who regard the cannabis laws to be oppressive, those who see the current laws as being an abject failure, and those who believe they should choose what they ingest (but also be responsible for the consequences of consumption), to vote Libertarianz. Odds are that Libertarianz will beat the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party this time round, given the trends of both parties, and a vote for the Greens on this point will be wasted. The Greens failed to make a change in the past 9 years of government that they effectively endorsed.

You think the small government vote is split?

Forget ACT vs Libertarianz. If you really believe in really big government, then the two main ends of THAT spectrum, the Marxist and the conservative are all very split as below:

If you have a Christian bent to politics:

Kiwi Party- The Future part of United Future, divorced. It wants to raise the drinking age, criminalise buying sexual services, make drug laws on a par with murder, raise the minimum wage and use GST instead of road user charges to fund roads? Weird - a mix of all sorts of stuff. Shame Rebekah Clement hasn't left, she is brighter than Gordon Copeland.

Family Party – Destiny NZ with a new name. Tougher version of the Kiwi Party and little regard for separating church and state. The morality of Brian Tamaki and all that is about.

Pacific Party – Philip Field, and the morality attached to him.

Ah better than Christian Heritage right?

However, if you miss the Soviet Union, loathe capitalism, individualism, business and believe nothing would be better than to unite the workers so they’ll never be defeated by the beloved people’s government, and you think Helen Clark is a sellout to global capitalism. You can choose:

The Alliance – Yes, nationalise, keep those foreigners and their money out, make everything free and pine about Muldoon (quietly) and how Jim Anderton is a sellout.

RAM – Foaming at the mouth conspiracy theory led Marxists who think big money is running everything, and only when they control things through the state can they look after themselves, I mean you. This is where the really crazy Alliance people went, I know, I talked to one and I wondered where her straight jacket went.

Workers' Party – You can’t make an omelette without cracking a few eggs, so think of the firing squads, gulags, political prisons and the 100 million slaughtered by communism as a small price to pay to defeat capitalism. Workers' Marxist Leninist dictatorships have such a record of poverty, executions, torture and despair, but hey that was all cooked up by the American Zionist conspiracy - all those fake witnesses to murder in those workers' paradises. Not quite North Korean friendly, but wouldn’t have been distressed had North Korea won the Korean War.

Greens – Yes the Marxist party you have when you want to seem respectable. Policies on almost everything, science replaced with faith based ideologies, enthusiasm to regulate, ban, compel, tax and subsidise all they hate and love respectively, AND most of the MPs have Marxist backgrounds. Allegedly about the environment, but doesn't let reason, science and economics get in the way of a good bit of telling people what to do.