Who in Haiti and Malaysia can aim and fire?

For that's what Jean-Claude Duvalier deserves.  It is the least Haiti deserves.  The Duvalier family are irredeemably vile, murderous crooks.  Even divorcing his repulsive thieving bitch of a wife doesn't make Baby Doc more acceptable.  The record of his family added decades to the poverty, suffering and death of this sad, but proud country.  A country that threw off the yoke of French slavery, but was punished by the West for over a century and a half, and after paying off the French, got handed the Duvaliers.

The same Duvaliers who used the country's tobacco monopoly as a personal slush fund to enrich themselves.   The same Duvaliers who spent US$3 million on their wedding ceremony.  The same Duvaliers who ruthlessly suppressed dissent, maintained a ban on independent media and promoted widespread corruption and patronage.

Meanwhile, Robert Mugabe is in a hospital in Kuala Lumpur.  Another answer to the problems of a nation is in the hands of the brave.

Bear in mind these people are proven murderers and thieves.  If they were not politicians, they would have been subjected to extradition treaties and be treated as the evil men they really are.   However, they are not "common" criminals, they are the extraordinary ones, that hide behind "state sovereignty" to protect their blood dripping hands. 

Both deserve at the most to be treated as criminals, but as they aren't common criminals, their crimes are indisputable, their role in making the law as they go along, means they have no right to that.   As with Saddam Hussein and Nicolae Ceausescu, they have forfeited the rights of human beings.  For the only legitimate use of the death penalty for me, is the removal of tyrants - as it is an act of self defence and revolution.

Greens imply Queensland to blame for floods (updated)

Whilst the Queensland floods have seen the media filled with stories of death, attempted heroism, homelessness and the callous mindless destruction that can be wrought by nature, most have been expressing sympathy and compassion for the victims.

Politicians across the spectrum in Australia are unified in their expression of the natural human emotions of compassion, and benevolence.  Genuine concern for the victims and willingness to do as they can to help.  The Australian Green Party has been no exception, supporting the Queensland Government flood appeal.

Not the Green Party of Aotearoa/New Zealand.  No, it's a chance to blog on climate change.

First, Russel Norman says climate change evidence is compelling and that events like the floods are more frequent because of it.  Even though the scientist quoted says "It certainly fits the climate change models but I have to add the proviso that it’s very difficult – even with extreme conditions like this – to always attribute it to climate change".  "He says the extremes being encountered in Australia this week fit climate change models, but it is too early to prove a direct link to changing weather patterns."  However, if you have the faith, believe in it brothers.  There could be a link, but that's about it.  Given the last flood on this scale was in 1974, unless such floods occur again in the next 5-10 years it would seem to be a weak link at best.

Second, Russel points out one of the key industries of Queensland is coal mining so says "It is also noteworthy that Queensland is one of the biggest coal exporters in the world and so is making a significant contribution to climate change."

Putting those two statements together is effectively saying  "floods caused by climate change, Queensland exports climate change, Queensland brought it on itself".

Finally, after blaming the floods on climate change, blaming Queensland for contributing to climate change, the school prefect in the Greens come out to patronise Queenslanders:

"I hope that, once the cleanup is underway and people have a chance to recover from the impact, the 2011 flood leads to a debate in Queensland about whether they want to continue to be such a big contributor to climate change given that climate change makes such extreme weather events more likely."

Yes, the fools, they should do better next time.  Not that I was elected to represent them, but I want to make a political point anyway.


Presumably if Queensland shut down coal mining tomorrow all that would happen is the price of coal would go up, tens of thousands would be out of work, millions would be poorer off and there would be still no protection from floods - funny that.

He ends it with a weak expression of support "Love to all my family and friends over there. – ‘74 didn’t take out Brissie and neither will ‘11!" I'm surprised he didn't throw in a "you should have known better that this would have happened".

Most politicians responding to natural disasters respond with expressions that show they give a damn about the human beings who are suffering and rebuilding their lives.  Russel Norman has done it to make a political point, to effectively blame the victims and hector them into debating how much of it was their own fault. 

This is from the same people that go on about how they, unlike others, put people first.  No, it would appear they put politics first.  However, it is not the first example this week of people on the political left using a tragedy to score points.

UPDATE: Russel Norman's response is, as before,  to misconstrue and ignore my point, then engage in an ad-hominem attack saying "I really do love the way “Liberty”Scott tries to shut down debate. Keep on writing LS I think you demonstrate nicely the kind of freedom that the far right believes in, and it ain’t freedom of speech!".  All I suggested was that blaming the victims for a disaster on the day people were being killed wasn't good taste, but as someone who plays the man not the ball, he doesn't appear to understand the concept of standing aside from politics in the midst of tragedy.   Then he calls me "far right" because it is all so easy to paint someone libertarian as fascist.

This being the same man who thinks non-ionising electromagnetic radiation from cellphone towers is an issue because it is about adding to "background radiation", but similar radiation from far more powerful TV and radio transmitters can be ignored.  So it is safe to say he has scientific credentials that wouldn't get him passing NCEA Level 1 science, which tells your something about the extent to which he can be taken seriously on anything to do with real science.

Only we can stir up bigotry and hatred

Once walking down a Wellington alleyway I saw a piece of graffiti which depicted Nandor Tanczos saying "everything you do is political".  A similar philosophy has seemed to have gripped some on the political left in a manner that is both inexplicably vile and hypocritical at the same time.  Even the Secretary of State claims that the murder was by "an extremist".  I'll leave aside thay apparently only the shooting of the Congresswoman is significant here, and that the shooting of a child and several others are hard to connect to any political motive at all - but then it would be inconvenient to even consider that.  Malcolm Harbrow doesn't even mention those killed in his own unhinged diatribe of bigotry.

The killer in question is clearly rather disturbed, with possible psychoses.  What about his politics?  Well as much as can be gleaned from evidence seen so far, it would appear they are as deranged and incoherent as his behaviour.  Some on the left have grabbed his hatred of the government, concern for the constitution and embrace of a gold standard as evidence he is a Tea Partier, yet conveniently ignoring his appreciation of The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf.  Him being an ardent atheist wouldn't exactly align him with most Republicans either.  Then there is a report that he believed he could fly.  There were signs he was interested in the occult, but he also loved animals.  Time to point fingers at similar people?

Yet this transcript of his Youtube posting shows even less coherency, with random obsessions with the currency (he wants a new "third" currency), literacy and that the government engages in mind control and brainwashing.  He burned an American flag on Youtube, an act frequently seen committed by leftwing protestors (and one they defend as free speech, yet decry burning the Koran).

How could anyone say this nonsense has any credible link with the Tea Party, Republican party, Libertarian Party or whatever?   He hated the government, but then those on the far left, religious extremists of Christian and Muslim hues and white supremacists all share this.  He liked the Communist Manifesto too apparently.

To make such an accusation is itself an act of hatred and bigotry, to tar a whole political group with the brush of blame for inciting the murders of a disturbed young man. 

The Tea Party itself has three core values:

- Fiscal responsibility;

- Constitutionally limited government; and

- Free markets.

Quite how that can be blamed for inciting murder is a stretch.  So the philosophical and political agenda of the Tea Party can hardly be said to be responsible.

However, those on the left cite the map with crosshairs as incitement to murder.  It isn't the politics, but the dialogue and the way it is expressed.

There are two problems with this leap of "logic". 

First, it applies the very same logic that the conservative right (and the feminist left) uses to justify censorship, on the basis that it incites people to commit crimes.  Media should be devoid of violence and sexual imagery, because it might "raise the passions to a height at which a weak willed man could not resist".  It has been used to claim that nudity incites rape, that young women wearing short skirts and revealing tops incite rape.  It carries the implication that criminals are not responsible for their acts, but rather "society" is to blame for creating an environment that incites them.  Some on the left claim that "society" is to blame for why someone might torture an infant after all.  This disconnect between actual events and actions of an individual and any sort of choice or responsibility is a dangerous form of determinism, and one that has long justified the actions of totalitarians who believe all must be controlled to ensure people act "responsibly".

If it were true there would be justification for controls on speech to limit language, given the danger that could arise from that.  Of course, the US has constitutionally protected free speech that has only few limits, which are around defamation and production of recordings of actual violent and sexual offences.  So any call to "tone things down" wont be about legal limits, it will be about "being polite".  Yet should political discourse be limited just because someone unstable could misinterpret it?

The second problem with this approach is the failure to look in the mirror.  You see the left doesn't mind using violent rhetoric itself, especially when George W. Bush was President. For years it used the same inflammatory rhetoric, in depicting George W. Bush as a terrorist, akin to Hitler and that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy between the Administration, Israel and the military-industrial complex.  This even includes a frequently quoted mainstream journalist.  The Guardian's TV critic Charlie Brooker wrote a review calling for the assassination of Bush ("John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?") , culminating it the text being removed from the website.  Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe outlined multiple examples of those on the left using extreme inflammatory language, such as an NPR leftwing journalist saying it would be "retributive justice" if the then Senator Jesse Helms or his grandchildren got AIDS.  More recently, plenty on the left put up placards that call for violence against bankers, or jokingly then seriously suggest it online. 

So the idea that rhetoric that could be interpreted as violent is a "Tea Party" "right wing" trend is sheer nonsense, when the left uses the same language, pure and simple.  Pot-kettle.

Indeed, if you want to stir up hatred and bigotry, then what do you call smearing a political movement with blame for a multiple murder?  What does that do to lift standards of discussion and debate?  In fact by pointing the finger so ridiculously at the Tea Party for the actions of an unstable young man, it is doing precisely what the left is accusing the Tea Party of - engaging in bigotry, hatred and viciousness.

The strengh of rhetoric from some libertarians (not the "right" as the Republicans in the US have been part of the problem) is because many are fed up with politicians borrowing and spending money that is not theirs, they are fed up with their own peaceful activities being taxed to pay to boost business, social or other interests that get listened to in government.  They are fed up with property rights being eroded and new laws being developed for the latest problem.

To end it, Jeff Perren's excellent post at Not PC has two very useful points.

Firstly, to reinforce the point that the reason some express political anger is because they want change to less government.  Not something many on the left (and some on the right) understand.   As long as there are politicians who want to spend more, tax more, borrow more and regulate more, there will be those standing up to say no, again and again.

Secondly, he links to the excellent Michelle Malkin piece showing explicitly violent rhetoric used by the left against the right in the US.  Then again, it's hardly surprising that the left has long excused violence used in its name to justify political action (e.g. threats and intimidation of so-called "scabs" at pickets), given it so warmly embraces state violence to accomplish its goals.

You see, when someone commits murder, with no clear motive, then the appropriate political response is, in fact, exactly what President Obama has done so far.  It was a crime, there was some courage shown by those who confronted the gunman, and the bigger concern is for those who have lost a loved one.

Let those who want to occupy the fetid sewers of hatred, bigotry, blame and hypocrisy wallow, and be shown up for the shallow opportunists they are.

Hungary leapfrogs to authoritarianism

Hungary has long been known as one of the countries that openly defied the Stalinist brutality and inhumanity that was imposed on it by Moscow after WW2, and having one of the first set of gutless mice who scurried off when Mikhail Gorbachev told the Soviet satellite countries that it wouldn't intervene if their regimes faced overthrow by popular acclaim.

Since then it has reformed, opened up its economy, joined the European Union and NATO, and made huge strides towards being an independent relatively liberal open country, with a vibrant civil society, embracing freedom. The old cliche that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance is only too true, as the coalition government of Fidesz-KDNP is proving too well.

The 2010 Hungarian election saw a collapse in popularity for the Hungarian Socialist Party, which despite its name (and being the partial inheritor of the old communist Socialist Workers Party), has helped lead many free market reforms in Hungary for some years.  The communist element left very early to form a tiny hardline party that has never done well.  The socialists had been in government in coalition since 2002.  However, the biggest blow to the socialists was in 2006, not long after the last elections, when a recording was released of the socialist Prime Minister, Ferenc Gyurcsány, openly saying his party had lied to win the election.  Mass protests erupted.  The government remained tainted and stank for the next four years, voters never forgave the socialists.  The 2010 election saw the socialist vote collapse from 42% to just under 17% of the vote.  Those votes had to go somewhere.

As a result, two opposition parties did comparatively well, Fidesz and Jobbik.

Fidesz has had a laudable history as one of Hungary's first independent political parties, being pro-freedom, anti-communist and youth oriented.  However, its electoral success was more limited as parties flourished after the end of one-party rule, so that it had a respectable 7% of the vote in 1994.  Then the party transformed into a conservative party, adding the name Hungarian Civic Party to its name.  It adopted an approach of social conservatism and greater nationalism, and grew to 28% support in 1998.   In 2010 it won the greatest plurality with nearly 53% of the vote, up from 43% (the socialists had been governing in coalition with the Alliance of Free Democrats, a liberal free market party).

Whilst Fidesz could govern in its own right with 262 out of 386 seats, it had campaigned jointly with the Jobbik party.

Jobbik (or Movement for a Better Hungary) was originally set up as Christian oriented conservative party, with strong nationalist credentials (although distinctly non-racial, rather culturally nationalist).  It was sceptical of EU accession.  The 2006 protests gave it a perfect platform to campaign on, as it simply said the communists are still in charge (given the socialists lied).  Jobbik claimed the electronic media was on the side of the government, so that it was ostracised unfairly.  It claimed crime was on the rise and needed to be addressed.  It developed a manifesto opposing free market capitalism, social liberalism and multiculturalism.  It promoted granting citizenship to Hungarians who live outside Hungary.  It was "very nearly" fascist, in that it avoided anti-semitism, anti-Roma and other such language, but was strongly pro-Hungarian.  It got just under 17% of the vote.

So Hungary elected a conservative government, with an ultra-conservative coalition partner.  It has sought to radically change the Hungarian state, and one of the early controversial moves has been the creation of a new media law.  This law creates a media regulator which judges whether TV and radio stations, and newspapers have provided "balanced coverage", and can fine or shut down those deemed to have failed.   The Prime Minister has evasively said this is "just like" other European countries.  It's not.  It is state control of the dissemination of debate and opinion, and it is unacceptable.

If that wasn't enough, the government has found a new way to address Hungary's public debt.  It is confiscating the private pensions of citizens (or rather saying "hand them over to the state or get no pension at all").   The current Hungarian system has some parallels to Roger Douglas's compulsory retirement savings account idea, although it retains a significant public sector component.

All Hungarians are required to put 8% of their salary into a private pension fund of their choice, another 1.5% is effectively taxed to pay for current state pensions.  Employers were also expected to make a contribution, with pensions received being a combination of private and state funded pensions.  Now it is being confiscated, and mixed messages are being given as to whether receipts will reflect contributions or not, the strong suspicion is that this is easy money.  The government has said it is about dealing with the budget deficit, a deficit not caused by people saving, but by overspending.  However, the same government is increasing state pensions and increasing maternity leave.

"Though the accounts are not linked to any underlying assets, an individual’s pension entitlement is tied to the sum recorded in that account, giving earners an incentive to contribute more. But the government’s most recent statements suggest the individual accounts will be no more than a regular statement of the value of the pensions contributors can expect to receive, with no relationship to contributions made."

In other words, a money grab. Unadulterated theft on behalf of the state. 

The EU has lodged protests about the media law, but not the state theft (which is unsurprising).  Given Bulgaria, Poland and Ireland have all embarked on related confiscations of pension funds to cover short term overspending, and the EU strongly supports state confiscation of private property, why be surprised?

The media law should be scrapped, and private pensions should be sacrosanct.  Indeed the only safe policy is to keep it completely out of state hands altogether.

Bear in mind that in New Zealand, the equivalent is a pay as you go pension, that promises you absolutely nothing, that pays nothing if you die before you retire, and bears absolutely no relationship to what you pay the state.  So no need to worry about state theft of your pension in New Zealand, it is simply par for the course as it is exactly what happens to anyone paying above the average amount in tax or dying before age 65!

Rewriting history by claiming your opponents are doing so

It is fairly well established that one of the big economic mistakes of the last Labour Government in the UK was its addiction to overspending.  With the exception of two years, the entire history of the Blair-Brown government saw deficits.  Indeed the surpluses were largely generated by some early privatisations and the sale of radio frequency spectrum.  When elected, public debt as a proportion of GDP was 41.9% in 1997, by 2002 economic growth had reduced that to 29.3% but the debt itself had not declined.  This was entirely frittered away by Gordon Brown by 2009, with public debt up to 44.2% of GDP, and now predicted to climb to 69% of GDP by 2014.  This ignores the massive off balance sheet debt of PFI (PPPs) and unfunded public sector pension debts for many firms, such as the Royal Mail.

In other words, whilst Labour spent its first time being frugal, after that it started spending up large.

The Adam Smith Institute explains the deficit situation (in nominal terms) since 2001.  It shows a pattern of ever increasing overspending, with two years of easing of overspending as tax revenue took off.  

Why does it matter now?  Because the modest cuts implemented by the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition are creating an enormous gnashing of teeth and moans from those who are having to face not living off of other people's borrowed money so much.   The cuts reduce government spending to the level they were in 2007, which is hardly enormous.

Of course it is understandable that Labour would oppose the government, and not by saying the cuts are too modest and tax rises are wrong, but by opposing cuts full stop.  Labour believes in more government spending, it is back to its socialist roots.  

However, the cuts are being sold to the public on the basis that Labour mismanaged the economy by overspending.  This resonates with many voters who understand that when taxes are not enough to cover spending, that borrowing occurs and that constant overspending is unsustainable.   So Labour needed to rewrite history, in this case to claim that the deficit was not Labour's fault, but due to a collapse in tax revenue, which is about blaming the banks.  

So Red Ed wrote a column for the Times that does just that.  He claims the Conservatives are lying about the budget deficit to justify a radical plan to cut the state (if only!), and that it is the same everywhere else.   He who points the finger at deception is guilty of a complete fabrication himself.

The figures from Treasury show that tax revenue dropped for two years, but by 2010-11 had recovered to the level of three years previous.  Hardly catastrophic. On top of that Labour had been overspending to the tune of at least £26 billion a year since 2003.   Miliband is being deliberately evasive of these facts to save his credibility, and only the true believers will listen to his nonsense.  He also talks nonsense in claiming no other developed country is undertaking such cuts, when it is obvious that Ireland, Greece and Iceland all are.  Estonia, the latest member of the Eurozone has a budget deficit of only 1% of GDP and public debt at 7% of GDP.  Given the UK's public debt is over 10x that proportionately, Miliband is simply wrong.   He thinks Obama's overspending gets him off the hook.

The Adam Smith Institute summarises Miliband's deceit:

First, from 2000-01 and 2006-07, spending rose by 51 percent, while tax revenues only rose by 36 percent. Secondly, from 2006-07 to 2009-10 (which encompasses the crisis years), spending rose by 22 percent. 

In other words, it isn't about tax.  It isn't about bailing out the banks either, the debt from which is less than 5% of total public debt.   That lie is trotted out by the left who oppose cuts, who prefer to blame bankers than their beloved Labour Party borrowing and spending as if it could continue forever.

So Ed Miliband claims the Conservatives are ignoring the collapse in tax revenue, which was actually modest, to rewrite history.  In fact HE is rewriting history in claiming Labour was a great manager of the public accounts, and that the financial crisis (which had nothing to do with the growth in fiat money and government supported inflation of housing prices) is to blame entirely.   The leftwing myth of government not being to blame.   By contrast I don't believe the banks are blameless and I don't believe it was right to bail them out, so the left that thinks capitalism means taxpayers bearing losses is floating a strawman that true laissez-faire capitalists reject.   Miliband further evades truth by saying neither Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties campaigned on spending cuts, which is true.  However, had they done so, Labour would have engaged in grotesque scaremongering of the people who it has made dependent on the state.

Quite simply, Britain's economy has seen an ever increasing role for the state, as the last Conservative administration did less cutting than it is accused of (and the Major years were profligate), and Labour kept creating new bureaucracies and pouring good money after bad into the NHS, plus greatly advancing the welfare state.

British taxpayers are unwilling to pay more, so cuts need to be made.  The Conservative/Lib Dem coalition at best is freezing the growth of the state and the growth in public debt.  GDP growth will shrink this modestly, but it is not radical.  It is taking a breather.

And sorry Labour, you are to blame.  You are the problem, your philosophy, your belief that people should not be responsible for their own lives, your belief that other people owe people a living and that other people's money is yours.  What is more disgusting is your willingness to lie and evade the facts - in government you supported overspending and more government dependency.  Labour wants people dependent on government to feed, house, clothe, education, medicate and move them - for without that dependency, why would they ever want the Labour Party?

Pakistan sadly spirals towards theocracy

The assassination of Salman Taseer, Governor of Punjab, Pakistan, should send shivers down the spines of all within and outside Pakistan who do not wish to see that country become another Iran.  You see Taseer was a secularist, he wanted Pakistan to be a secular state that allowed citizens to choose not to be Muslims.  He himself was a Muslim.  His most recent campaign has been to oppose laws on blasphemy, as he defended Asia Bibi, a Christian woman, from being convicted and executed.  Not only it is a crime to blaspheme against Islam in Pakistan, but it carries a mandatory death sentence.

He was murdered by one of his own security guards, Malik Mumtaz Qadri.  He aimed at AK-47 at Taseer and shot him 27 times. Notably, his other guards didn't shoot and kill Qadri, who is now under arrest.  

As is to be expected, Facebook pages have emerged for Taseer AND for his murderer.  Yes, his murderer has much support among Islamist violence peddlers across the world.  

The whole idea of Pakistan was a mistake, it was a recipe for disaster from the start and the blood of hundreds of thousands have been spilt because of this mindless religious sectarianism in what was India (and Hindus are not innocent of this either).  The contrast today is palpable between an outward looking growing liberalising India, and a poor, backward, terrorist ridden Pakistan.  If only Pakistan could shed Islamism it could join with its fast growing neighbour and be a country that didn't chase its best and brightest overseas to flee violence and seek opportunity.  

Have little doubt, the war in Afghanistan is as much about keeping Islamism from overrunning Pakistan as it is about keeping the Taliban confined in Afghanistan.  A Western-Indian strategy to keep Pakistan from becoming Islamist is essential to ensure the worst possible outcome does not arise.  For if it does, then prepare for blood to be spilt on a grand scale.  India knows this too well, it would be good if the Obama Administration, NATO and others did so as well.

Monbiot says share your house or else! (UPDATED for Monbiotbots)

I visited the Green Party website for the first time in age today, nothing quite as funny as seeing Catherine Delahunty on the front page claiming 1 in 5 New Zealanders experience disability (it being pretty obvious that she is one of them), but one of the pin ups of the Green Party is British radical environmental moonbat - George Monbiot.  Monbiot is an advocate of all sorts of compulsion, including banning patio heaters, replacing gas pipelines with hydrogen, abolish superstores, cut airport capacity, as well as calling for an end to economic growth.

His latest missive is his brilliant solution to the high cost of housing in the UK - make people rent out their spare rooms.  Not rooms they define as spare, but ones that the Great Leader George Monbiot has deemed as excessive.  He thinks that people shouldn't have spare bedrooms, that there should be a housing footprint.  That means a couple in a four bedroom house should rent out two rooms.  Spare rooms should be occupied by people seeking housing.

Monbiot is such the little central planner control freak, that he believes pensioners should rent out spare rooms so people can live with them and provide home help and assistance.

He seems to have completely ignored the simple point that most people like to choose who they live with and to decide what to do with their own property.   He has decided there are enough homes around if only people used less rooms.  Are there limits to this bullying wannabe thugs willingness to stomp over the rights of others?

Nothing says more about his complete contempt for property rights, lack of any understanding about personal achievement and reward for effort and value than this statement:

While most houses are privately owned, the total housing stock is a common resource. Either we ensure that it is used wisely and fairly, or we allow its distribution to become the starkest expression of inequality.

A common resource?  How much of a communist is this man?  Its "distribution"?  Who "distributed" it?  If you buy land and build on it, who "distributed" it?  It is as if he thinks some holy economic father dishes out money and resources, and all that is needed is someone to reverse it.  He either doesn't know or willfully blinds himself to how the diffuse ownership of property is due to millions upon millions of decisions by billions of people who buy, sell, earn, consume, destroy and build, in spite of petty thugs like Monbiot who prefer the Khmer Rouge approach to government - do whatever it takes to reach a final solution.

He wants to tax empty rooms.  He is just a thieving little religious evangelist who deserves no more attention than the hate filled Westboro Baptist Church.

Monbiot has no respect for property rights or individual rights at all.  He is chief priest of the high church of environmental armageddonism.

Of course, the Green Party gleefully links to him approvingly on regular occasions.  Will it soon be promoting housing footprints?  Is not the Green belief in planning laws to promote high density housing based around railway stations a form of embracing this agenda?

Ed West in the Daily Telegraph calls him a fascist and carefully explains why.  It is about time that Monbiot was ignored for the raving lunatic crank he is.

Meanwhile, Tim Blair points out that Al Gore achieves five rooms per inhabitant in his home.

UPDATE:  Some have said Monbiot doesn't actually say force people to share their homes, but what does this tell you:

He says of housing footprints: " Like ecological footprints, it reminds us that the resource is finite, and that if some people take more than they need, others are left with less than they need".  Zero sum economics.  Sheer utter nonsense.  As if you cannot increase housing capacity without destroying something valuable.  Even ignoring land, he's forgotten airspace or is that precious too??

However, he carefully shrouds his iron fist in his glove by saying this:  "none of the major parties wants to pick a fight with wealthy householders. So it’s up to us to give them no choice, by turning under-occupation into an issue they can’t avoid. It cannot be left to the market, as the market works for the rich."  He doesn't intend to persuade anyone, he wants to give "no choice" he doesn't want the market, he wants to use force (the only alternative).   It is semantics to claim otherwise.

Monbiot's suggestions about council tax discounts are besides the point.  Council tax is a charge for individuals using council services with a relationship to property prices to have some reflection of income.  As a libertarian I'd scrap council tax altogether, because all council services can be funded by direct or indirect users.  The council tax discount is virtually irrelevant in any case, as it would be a small fraction of the annual cost of housing.

Monbiot does have a four bedroom house and this great hero lives in it with his daughter and two lodgers.  His own choice is a shining example to us all of course.

Ending the subsidy to breed

Cactus Kate has written about two interconnected issues, the chronic rate of extreme abuse and neglect of children in New Zealand disproportionately by Maori adults, and the way the state subsidises breeding from the taxes of others.

She is right of course.  Despite Marxist reality evaders like John Minto and Maia excusing brutal child abuse as being about poverty, precious little is needed to disprove that.  If it were true, children in poorer countries would be getting beaten up and murdered in record numbers.  The problem is not material the problem is a poverty of aspirations, a problem of people breeding recklessly and keeping the kids because they bring in cash, or wanting to be parents, but also wanting to party, get drunk, leave children with relatives, friends, neighbours and then psychologically abusing the kids who want attention.  People who themselves wasted their education, don't read, don't study, don't work hard and don't want kids who know they can be better than them, are the source of abuse and despair.   They destroy the lives and futures of children because they have made their lives a daily search for instant gratification, sensation and mindless hedonism.

Her answers are good as well.  The first priority for the welfare state should be to cease paying the DPB to new claimants, and to end all other benefits/tax allowances for children, in exchange for lowering taxes across the board.  People shouldn't be rewarded for breeding.  Indeed, breeding whilst on welfare benefits should be penalised on the basis that the last thing someone should do whilst unemployed or sick is to breed.

By contrast, imagine if there was an income tax free threshold of NZ$15,000.  What if GST could go back down to 12.5% (!), then families who do work hard to make a difference wouldn't be penalised so much for what they do.  

However, to do that you'd need to vote for political parties that believe in more freedom and less government.  These don't apparently exist in Parliament at the moment.

The bigger message is that breeding carries responsibility and to give up some of your money, time and effort for children.  It costs you to breed.  Nobody else owes you or your children a living, except the source of the sperm (or egg) of your child.   Along with such welfare and tax reform would be the legal obligation of each parent to be responsible for the basic needs of the child (unless one has been removed from this by contract/court agreement).  

While we are at it, why not deny custody of children of all those convicted of serious violent and sexual offences - for reasons that are rather obvious.

Fascist council of the day

If the British Government ever needed reasons to cut funding local authorities and to reject the stupid Tory policy of devolution of powers to local government, it is the likes of Bedfordshire Borough Council.

The Daily Telegraph reports how a man who put up 20 A4 posters, home made, seeking his lost cat, was threatened by council goons for "fly posting" (it being illegal to just put posters up on lampposts).  He was phoned by the council and a letter was sent telling him of his offence, and threatening a £1000 fine.

A spokesman said: ''Our Environmental Enforcement Team discovered more than 20 of Mr Harding's 'lost cat' posters. Some were nailed to eight trees along The Embankment. ''As well as damaging trees, fly-posting is also illegal and may lead to fines of up to £1,000. 

That's what a power of general competence gets you.

Yes the local government policy of the National Party originally came from the UK and the Blair administration.   

2011 comes with a UK tax hike

Despite all the nonsensical blusterings of the British Labour Party and others on the left who think that government halting the rise of the state is somehow some neo-liberal revolution, the truth is that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat government is not driven by an ambition to shrink the state.

Proof of this has been seen twice in four days.  On 1 January, the UK's fuel excise duty (fuel tax), one of the highest in the world, went up by another £0.0075 a litre.  Not much, and yes it was a decision from the Brown Government, but the money is entirely to help reduce the budget deficit.  You seen, unlike NZ, the UK's fuel excise duty is entirely revenue for the Crown, none of it is dedicated to roads or transport spending at all (and it corresponds to about five times the total government expenditure on roads).  Fuel tax in the UK is now nearly 59p per litre (NZ$1.18).  That plus VAT makes tax more than half the price of petrol.

Speaking of VAT, that rises to 20% from 4 January, up from 17.5%.  Now VAT in the UK does not include food not served in restaurants, childrens' clothes, books and other items, but this tax increase has provoked considerable buying of bigger items such as cars, electronics and clothes in the post Xmas sales.

All in all, it is more money for the UK government, less for consumers, retailers, wholesalers, producers.  Labour's Ed Miliband is opposing the increase, but like an ostrich in the sand he never says what spending he would cut, what taxes he would increase, and given Labour is so overwhelmingly to blame for a decade of reckless overspending, he has no credibility except for the whinging unionised public sector workforce and those who don't want to be weaned from the state tit. 

The Opposition's only response is to say that the UK government should not cut its overspending so fast, delaying the inevitable, and increasing overall public debt levels - but if you're a socialist who wants to remain willfully blind about government borrowing why shouldn't you just be on the side of "the people" in promoting the same ignorance?

Of course there is no need to increase either tax, it will suppress demand and suppress the private sector.  There is still plenty of scope to cut public spending, such as eliminating child benefits and winter fuel allowances for those not in poverty, getting rid of subsidies for "green energy", not pursuing an unprofitable high speed railway pet project and not increasing foreign state aid.   The British state has grown like an obese nanny never sated on desserts.   Tax increases delay economic recovery and help cement the fact the UK economy is now 50% consumed by the state.

Thatcherite government? hardly.

Top 10 wishes for world affairs - 2011

As below, here are some of my biggest wishes, for international affairs and countries other than the UK and NZ.   As before, from lowest to highest priority (and the list could easily have been twice as long).

10.  A new WTO trade round is rescued from oblivion: The Obama Administration has been absolutely disgraceful on trade, and so the dark economically illiterate forces of ill-guided economic nationalism have raised their ugly heads.  It would be enormously beneficial if the US, EU, Japan and the key developing countries got their heads out of their arses and talked multilateral liberalisation of trade in agriculture and services.  If this is done it could lift global GDP by 1-2%, could dramatically improve the lot of people in food producing countries, service providing countries and consumers worldwide.   It's an indictment on the Obama Administration and the EU that neither have the competence nor courage to lead this.

9. Robert Mugabe is dragged from a car, beaten up and left to die with his wife and lackeys in central Harare, and Zimbabwe gets a truly open accountable government:  This repulsive murderous crook continues to be lauded around Africa (explaining the standards of morality on much of that continent) and by the UN.  A bullet would do, but it would be a delightful message to his Stalinist gangsters and fellow dictators elsewhere as to what can happen to thieving violent bullies.   Let's hope 2011 finishes without Robert Mugabe.

8. Kim Jong Il dies and his son succeeds him, averts a military coup and starts reform seeking guidance and friendship from South Korea:  North Korea is in a sad state due to 60 years of misrule and totalitarianism.  There are plenty there who want reform who know it is needed and fearful of what will come.  There are various paths for it to go down, the best one is to follow its neighbour to the south, of strong rule establishing open civil society, ever opening markets and progressively confronting the lies its people have been bathed in for decades.   Only through reform and economic growth can the strong role of the military be sidestepped.  Only with firm deterrence, but with a friendly hand to assist change with someone who seeks it can this happen peacefully.  Japan wont be trusted, China can't be trusted and South Korea has done an impressive job that Pyongyang need not look elsewhere.

7. The Communist Party of China separates party and state, putting the Party under the rule of law for the first time, and loosens freedom of speech some more:  The biggest hindrances to the growth of China being seen benignly is the iron fist it uses to maintain domestic control, and its unwillingness to have modern independent judiciary and separation of politics from governance.  It is too much to expect China to become a fully liberal state, but a key step forward would be separating party and state, so that the party and its officials can be prosecuted for breaking the law.  Accompanying this should be legal guarantees of free speech to discuss government policy and the behaviour of all politicians and officials.   Only when Chinese people and institutions can hold government accountable, and the Chinese government and CPC stop acting like a moody teenager whenever criticised, will China have become a modern country.

6. The West-bashing climate change agenda comes to a complete halt,  as people in Western countries choose politicians that are unwilling to sacrifice their economies and freedoms to let China, Russia, Gulf States and India emit all the CO2 they wish, and they stop believing the armageddon rhetoric of the anti-capitalist green movement:  It's about time that average people in richer countries stopped tolerating taxes and regulations on their behaviour for the sake of letting the likes of Kuwait and other countries with fast growing economies to do as they wish.  The middle and low income of rich countries should not be penalised to allow the rich in poorer countries to do as they wish, particularly because there is no evidence to support the kind of pillaging interventionism demanded by the developing countries (who want more money to pay for the luxuries of their political elite).  Energy efficiency and cleaner energy are all very well, if people are prepared to pay for them, and governments get out of the way of developing them, but no more should be done.

5.  The Obama Administration has its spending plans frozen, as the new US Congress slashes spending and starts focusing Americans on achieving a balanced budget in less than 4 years:  Unless the US stops growing government and stops debasing its currency through continued borrowing, it will continue to slide relative to other economies.  The US can recover, but it will need a wholly different approach to the spend and borrow policies of recent history.  Here is hoping Americans can maintain the courage.

4. Portugal, Spain, Italy, France and Belgium face sovereign debt defaults, effectively destroying the Euro: All of countries have sustained decades of socialist style big government economic policies, running almost perpetual deficits and borrowing, and all have sought to use the Euro as a hard currency to sustain their economic irrationalism.  The tension in the EU is either it governs national fiscal policies or the Euro is unsustainable.  Let the Euro collapse, and the short term pain will result in a longer term re-evaluation of the EU, fiscal and monetary policy and demonstrate that the Western European quasi-socialist approach has been irrational, unsustainable and immoral.

3. An end to Islamist insurgency and terror: As much as so many haters of Western values and individual freedom cheer them on, I wish very simply, that Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and all other Islamist insurgents fail to carry out any further attacks, whether they be in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere.  The reason should be obvious, it may be idealistic, but this scourge continues to cost in lives, injuries and cash an incalculable amount every day.  Appeasement of Islamism is no virtue.

2. Fiat money is subject to serious review by governments across the world:  Fiat money has proven to be what it has always been, a way for governments to manufacture nothing from nothing, generating either inflation of consumer goods or commodities and property.  Time to reconsider the entire basis for monetary policy and to examine the role fiat currencies had in the financial crisis.  It is the single biggest elephant in the global economic "room".

1. The Iranian people overthrow the country's brutal theocracy:  Having already destroyed any semblance of democracy effectively by military coup, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now pursuing nuclear weapons with the forked tongue of a cruel mindless liar.  The people of Tehran know better and rattled this evil regime briefly a year or so ago.   It would be right for them and especially right for the Middle East and the world if this murderous brutal regime was overthrown.

Top 10 wishes for New Zealand politics - 2011

Following from the UK list, here are my top ten wishes for NZ politics in 2011. I'm not being starry eyed and overly optimistic, because I'm getting to the age when I want things to change. the blame and little of the credit.

My top ten from lowest to highest priority:

10. Winston Peters and NZ First remain irrelevant and a historical anomaly:  Hopefully this is simply a matter of the personality cult members dying off over time.  There shall be no third coming for Winston Peters, as much as National has left a constituency to one side again, the cheap talkback caller Muldoonist racism and anti-capitalist hysteria of Winston should be consigned to history.

9. Peter Dunne loses Ohariu:  Long struggling to be relevant, Peter Dunne has been the great political prostitute in recent years having tried to woo ethnic minority immigrants, Christian conservatives, Labour, then National.   His legacy is the creation of a useless bureaucracy called the Families Commission.  He pushed his pork-barrel project, the Transmission Gully motorway, regardless of the cost and economics, and has never been consistently anything other than opportunistic.   He exaggerates his influence for the people of Ohariu.  It is about time they figured it out.

8. The electoral referendum is a negative for MMP:  Having used disenchantment about economic austerity to harness enough people to vote for MMP in 1993, the left regarded this as one of its greatest victories.  It would simply piss them off a great deal if MMP was voted out in the 2011 referendum.  I am non-chalant about what replaces it, I simply want to expose the myth that such enormous constitutional changes should be made on the basis of a simple majority of votes cast.

7. Labour attacks the Maori Party for what it is, and argues the election based on reform of delivery of state services:  Not exactly realistic, but it would be fun if Labour started arguing against the Maori seats and took on the Maori Party directly.  It would also be fun if it had policies promoting private competitive delivery of health and education, as nearly happened in the late 1980s.  This would attract new voters who would see National as status-quo oriented, and Labour as no longer stuck with its old fashioned view of state monopoly provision of services.  Labour, after all, has almost always been the party of change in New Zealand politics.

Sadly, Phil Goff, who is more than capable of making those arguments, is hamstrung by a vile neo-Marxist, trade union, structuralist identity politics, control obsessed party filled with people who were only too keen to stick their sycophantic tongues up Helen Clark's "state is sovereign" view of government.  As a result, I'll be content if Labour drops to less than 30% of the vote, happy if less than 25%.

6. The media puts the Greens under intense critical scrutiny, and fail to get 5% of the party vote:  The Greens get an easy ride compared to most other minor parties, with their anti-capitalist and anti-science hysteria rarely facing real scrutiny.   Press releases about 1999 being the last Christmas for safe potatoes, the hysteria about cellphone towers, nuclear energy, climate change, the anti-trade agenda, the constant desire to regulate, tax and hector people, and the barely concealed racism behind policies on foreign investment and Maori all deserve to be exposed for what they are - the policies of a radical socialist nationalist party that is sceptical about science, quasi-religious about its beliefs and more pro-violent than it would ever care to admit.

5. ACT makes its last gasp worth it by rolling Hide as leader and campaigning on principle:  I personally had a lot of hope for Rodney Hide, but he has failed miserably to demonstrate that he could help pull the Nat led government towards less government in the areas ACT had some major influence over.  His acceptance not only of Labour's local government policy for Auckland, but unwillingness to push for statutory limits on the powers of the Auckland Council shows a distinct lack of courage or commitment to what so many ACT voters were hoping for.   ACT could have been National's conscience.  It now looks like facing electoral oblivion for failure to deliver anything beyond the votes in Parliament to keep National in power.   To have any solid following it will need to change, fast and fundamentally - that means Rodney Hide's political career is over.

4. Assuming National gets re-elected, it grows a pair:  It sells at least one of the power generating SOEs, opens up the rest of ACC to competition, implements a voucher system for compulsory education, abolishes a long list of government agencies, eliminates the budget deficit and cuts the welfare state.   Unfortunately, National's last pair was once Governor of the Reserve Bank.  Expect Muldoonist plodding on, with little innovation, less courage and more government.  Helengrad became Keynesia.

3. Maori vote in record numbers in general seats, not Maori seats:  To do that they would have to reject the racist nationalism that education and media have inculcated in young Maori for the past thirty years, and wish to be treated as individuals with the same rights as other New Zealand citizens.  It would be nice if Maori gave up their patronising racist seats, but I wont be holding my breath.  However, they may turn their back on the equally patronising racist Maori Party.

2. Libertarianz make a good go at the election, getting its best result in 16 years thanks to a competent leader, a simple message about less government, ACT voters being disenchanted and the Nats facing a fairly safe victory.  It would be delightful if the Libertarianz brand was sold on simply being the party that will consistently support less government, without being distracted by detailed policies or past difficulties.  Even better if ACT and National supporters of less government united around the only political brand in the country that demonstrably supports less government spending and lower taxes.  After all, a vote for National is not a vote for less government, a vote for ACT is a vote to continue the current government.

1. The NZ media gets journalists who can ask politicians as to whether governments should do less, spend less and tax less:  Most journalists are reporters, and many simply ask politicians whether they are supporting the right policy or whether more or something different "should be done".  Virtually none ask "why should people be forced to pay for this", or "why should people be forced to do this or not do that".  The real fundamental political debate is whether the state should do more, or do less, but most journalists are more interested in shallow frippery and parroting the constant claims of lobbyists who almost always want government to solve their problems.  When I read how a journalists has asked lobbyists why don't they spend their own money on whatever it is, then it will be a great improvement.  Meanwhile, nothing holds back politics in New Zealand more than the lack of journalists willing to ask intelligent questions from both ends of the political spectrum - more and less government.

It's one thing to be generous...

but another to use coercion to foist a guilt trip on people to be so.

That is one idea floated by the Con-Dem coalition government in the UK.

The idea? Require all cash withdrawals from ATMs and all EFT-POS transactions to offer people an option of "donating" some money to charity.   Of course that would be managed collectively so that "charity" isn't specified.   Some companies already do this as part of their business, but the government is talking about making it mandatory.

What nerve.

The effect is to imply  "you're buying something, you can't do that and not also give money for something else".  It imposes a duty on people to spend a second or two to say no to giving their own money to some charity they haven't had time to even judge the merits of, as if it doesn't matter, it's a charity, charities are good.  This is nonsense of course.   People may object to charities run by specific religions, or they may object to causes that are seen to be more political than philanthropic, or quite simply people want their own money to be used for their own purposes.

Objectivists regard benevolence as being human, natural and a part of life.  People do give of their time, money and possessions to others because they find value in doing so.  At the most basic level it happens most frequently with family and friends, but many give of themselves to strangers and causes, and do so because it gives them joy to support whatever cause it is that they like.  It is not a sacrifice to give time or money for the value of providing support for something you agree with, and to help those you wish to help.

However, the Conservative Party (and dare I say quite a few small "c" conservatives) believe charity is not just about that, but an obligation.  It is as if your very existence and the fact you have or earn money means you are morally obliged to give some to others.  That you owe other people something and that you are somehow immoral if you don't give.   This guilt for your existence and guilt for success is at the bottom of this approach, and even setting aside the burden of tax in the UK (which is over 50% for me if VAT is included), nobody should feel guilty for not giving their money away.  It is, after all, their money.

So to hell with enforced charitable giving.   One point usefully noted by the BBC on TV was that people in the UK are more generous charitable givers than the French and Germans (both known to have more generous welfare states), but less than the US (which has lower taxes and less welfare).  The lesson to the Conservatives or anyone wanting people to be more benevolent, is that when the state takes more, people are less inclined to give.  Even more important, the last thing taxpayers want is to be hectored by those who live off their money, to be charitable.

Although it wouldn't go wrong for politicians to tell anyone who wants the government to spend more on pet ideas that they should spend their own money on it first and then engage in some fundraising, instead of wanting the state to force others to pay.

Farewell Dennis Dutton

I didn't always agree with Dennis Dutton (such as his strong belief in compulsorily funded state radio), but beyond that he was a strong advocate for reason and science.

He passed away today (28 December) of cancer (thank you Homepaddock for the news).  He debunked many paranormal fraudsters, had an open mind about climate change and supported science and evidence over mysticism and the new age snake oil merchants.  He will be sadly missed.

His websites here, here and here.  No doubt more will be written about him elsewhere in a few more days.

Top 10 wishes for UK politics - 2011

For the sake of the new year, I thought it was time to have some wishlists.  The first is for my adopted home, and the birthplace of my parents.  So what of the UK in 2011?  2010 was dominated by recession, the ongoing hatred of politicians for their noses being in the public trough, election of the first coalition government in the UK for generations, protests by posh and middle class students as they were told to be weaned off the state tit and the ongoing climate of supposed austerity as the newly elected government decides the state should grow more slowly than Gordon Brown had promised.

So what for 2011? Well with five year Parliamentary terms the typical assumption is that governments have long periods to implement policies and see results, but with the coalition it is harder as the Liberal Democrats face the usual problem of being the minor party in any coalition - taking all the blame and little of the credit.

My top ten from lowest to highest priority:

10.  The Green Party of England and Wales remains irrelevant nationally and does poorly in local elections.  This little mob of pro-violence Marxists may start to get the level of scrutiny it deserves as the UK, beset with recession, stops tolerating those who believe in more spending, more taxes and less freedom.

9.  Alternative Vote system is selected in the 2011 Electoral System referendum and electoral boundaries are adjusted to have similar populations.  Why?  I've always supported the idea that local MPs should be supported by at least a majority of those who vote, so that MPs are representative of their constituents.  I'm not fussed as to what parties benefit from this, as it is likely to be better for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, what matters is that it means people can make a first choice that they believe in.   Secondary to this is that electoral boundaries are redrawn to have roughly even populations in each constituency.  The status quo is a gerrymander that benefits Labour, because it creates small "community based" constituencies that happen to favour Labour dominated areas.   It is time for the UK's political system to become at least based on majority voting in equivalent constituencies.

8. Scotland rejects the SNP in the 2011 elections.  The Scottish National Party is a party of posing socialists who once sold the merits of following the models of Iceland and Ireland, and now pretend the ills of Scotland can be blamed on Westminster.  As much as I'd like Scotland to be cast adrift and for those who believe in Scottish nationalism to be able to test their socialist credentials in real life (as if Scotland isn't already a testament to that abject failure), I'd much rather for Scots to get the picture and boot out these pretenders from the Scottish Parliament.  Let the SNP lose, comprehensively, preferably into third place or worse.  I don't care who beats the SNP, but the fatuous emptiness of the "Scotland is better off independent" deserves to be beaten into submission, and the posing economic fraud of Alex Salmond to be consigned to history.

7. The devolved administrations have funding and their roles restructured so that they do not get more money per head than England, and have their own taxation powers to make up the difference.  The economies of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are so dominated by state spending that they have bigger public sector economies than Hungary, Czechoslovakia and East Germany before the fall of their one party states.   It is time the voters in those administrations stopped being subsidised by English voters, and for the taxes collected locally to be all they have to spend.   They would still be subsidised in effect for defence and foreign affairs, but for any new spending, the taxes would rise.  Meanwhile, if Scotland wants to grant free university education, which the EU requires must be offered to other Member States, it should also be forced to offer it to students across the UK as well.  Time for those parts of the UK that think government is always the solution to pay the price.

6. The Labour Party is seen as having been part of the problem, and Ed Miliband as "Wallace" from Wallace and Gromit.  Labour for many years pretended government overspending, and forever extending credit was about abolishing boom and bust.  It pretended that anytime there was a problem, the state could be the solution.  Everytime a serious horrible crime was committed, it passed a new law clamping down on freedoms and the innocent.  It has perpetuated the cruel and specious lie that the NHS is some sacred model of healthcare that is the envy of the world, when it is anything but.  It has continued to support a culture of putting much of the country in dependency on government.  It deserves to be blamed for being the philosophical source of the ongoing economic and social erosion of Britain.  Ed Miliband only looks like going back to the 1980s, having been so soundly endorsed by Neil Kinnock (who couldn't even beat John Major).  Labour doesn't have solutions and deserves to be reminded of how much it contributed to today's problems.

5. UKIP goes beyond EU bashing to being a party of consistently less government . It might be too much to ask for, but UKIP is right about the EU and needs to be seen as being more of a party of less government as well as opposing the EU.  It has many members who believe in less regulation, less tax and less government spending, and the only philosophically consistent reason to oppose EU membership that isn't autarkic is laissez-faire capitalism.  I don't expect UKIP to be libertarian, but I do want it to fill the gap the Conservative Party has left behind, of welcoming a smaller state.

4. The coalition government stands firm on spending cuts, and goes further.  It hasn't been easy for politicians to say no to lobby groups, and in the last few weeks it has already kowtowed to a handful of authors who want taxpayers to keep paying for free books for families.   The coalition should cut spending further, abandon the ridiculous HS2 high speed rail boondoggle, and make it clear that it has a goal of starting to cut Britain's public debt by the time of the next election.  Less spending shouldn't be sold as pain, but as a long term investment in shifting from compulsion to the voluntary sector, as well as being to start reversing decades of borrowing.

3. The coalition remains intact, but the Liberal Democrats split into two for the next election.  The Liberal Party has a mostly honourable past as a party of less government and individual freedom.  This has been diluted and corrupted by the Social Democrat breakaway from the then far-left Marxist Labour Party.  Labour may remain leftwing, but it isn't the Soviet-appeasing mob of the early 1980s.  The Liberal Democrats should divide into the Liberals, with the rest either returning to Labour or having a go at being Social Democrats again.   The coalition can remain intact, but it is time this chameleon party had a divorce.

2. The obsession with the UK sacrificing its economy for climate change (whilst far bigger economies continually grow emissions with little concern) ceases in government.  The UK has been riding this bandwagon for years, with massive subsidies for renewable energy, unprofitable railways and quasi-religious obsession for recycling and prohibiting airport expansion.  Meanwhile, Russia, China, India, the Middle East and even half of Europe do next to nothing, whilst their economies grow.  The UK shouldn't be sacrificing itself for some moral highground based on at least questionable science and nonsense economics.   Let people pursue energy efficiency and less pollution on their own merits, as much of the British public isn't convinced that it should pay the price whilst those from other countries can do as they please.

1. The British media to regularly invite advocates of less government to participate in debates.  The British media is diverse, but rarely are those who advocate less government spending, less regulation and lower taxes asked to debate on public issues (or comment in newspapers).  It is a lot to expect the predominantly statist UK public to be libertarians, but the media should at the very least start exposing people to views that reject the "government should do this" perspective.  The trade unions, business lobbies and the major political parties all tend to support government doing more.   It would be fresh if someone asked all of them why people need to be forced to do good.

Helen Clark the hypocrite

As one of the world's very high income untaxed international civil servant parasites, Helen Clark thinks she has some moral authority to comment about New Zealand politics.

So she is back to her tired old tribal politics of saying the Wikileaks cables showed the US "disrespected" New Zealand's so-called "independent" foreign policy according to the NZ Herald.  Of course it paints a whole series of assumptions, such as the idea that a foreign policy that was sold as maintaining an alliance with the US (just without anything nuclear) is more independent than choosing to welcome all of the ships and weapons of your allies.   However, the key point Clark is upset about is that US diplomats, privately, were less than impressed by the policy - which Clark was a cheerleader of as she and other leftists in the Labour caucus in the mid 1980s, pushed David Lange to accepting.

Clark herself has long been anti-American, having picked coffee for the "peace-loving" Sandinistas (not that the other side was worth supporting) and having frequently held the US government in contempt publicly (and who knows how often in private).   If her private communications were to be leaked much no doubt would be discovered, although it is no secret that she was no friend of US foreign policy.

Moreover, was it not disrespectful how Clark encouraged the Lange government to act towards the US? How the US was prepared to send a non-nuclear powered ship, that no rational individual could believe would ever carry nuclear weapons (USS Buchanan), but Clark like a clamouring harpie along with her coterie of baying Marxists demanded Lange refuse access to it because of the "neither confirm nor deny" policy that applied to all ships.   In other words, Clark was instrumental in telling the US, in the midst of the Cold War (which Clark no doubt thought NZ should be "neutral" in), to go to hell.

On top of that, as a former Prime Minister she isn't keeping her mouth shut, as is the conventional protocol, when there is an existing, elected Prime Minister that replaced her.

Who is the disrespectful one?  

Let's not forget, Helen Clark is one of the lords of poverty, she sups from the cornucopiae of loot from rich countries under the pretence that she is somehow necessary to the advancement of people in the poorer countries.  Helen Clark having never had any poverty as a child, and on US$0.5 million tax free, plus accommodation allowance and first class air travel, she will remain more remote from poverty than she ever has been.  Meanwhile, she has spent tax money on criticising UNDP's critics, and runs an organisation that has been criticised for not keeping proper accounts and in the midst of the recent attacks by North Korea on South Korea, sought to increase its budget.   You see UNDP has been paying its North Korean government approved staff in the country in foreign currency directly, not that Clark cares as she lives off the pig's back.   Experience has shown me how utterly lazy, unproductive and vastly overpaid the UN bureaucracy is, how little work people there do compared to the private sector (or even public sector elsewhere) and how generous pay and conditions are.

Helen Clark doesn't have moral authority to talk about "respect" from the US, when she gave the US precious little respect politically in much of her career, and in private as Prime Minister.  Today she lives like a grand Lady of Poverty, enjoying a privileged lifestyle whilst having responsibility for billions of dollars of other people's money (a good part from the US) ostensibly to provide relief from poverty.   She is one of the biggest parasites on the face of the earth, having spent her whole life living off of the back of others and doing little more than telling others what to do.   She wont answer questions about the openness and accountability of UNDP in her own job to Radio NZ.

You don't learn much about respect from paying attention to Helen Clark

Christmas/Saturnalia no time to feel guilty

Most of my views about this time of year have been ably written by Peter Cresswell here, here, here and here, and for me it is a day to smile, to spend with people whose company I like (particularly for those of us with family far away or without family) and to enjoy life.  That means food, drink, music, conversation and all kinds of fun.   In the Northern Hemisphere it is particularly enjoyable given the snow, the cold and how well hot food, mulled wine and all of the other traditional foods go together with this season - as it is, essentially, a celebration of the winter solstice, shared with Christians who use it to celebrate the birth of the man for whom their religion is central.

It is a time for joy to be shared with children in particular and despite the groans and moans of naysayers, a time to give and receive gifts (and for many to enjoy the pleasures of shopping and earning a living from those who do).

Some will remind us all that there are billions for whom this is another day of work or struggle, under conditions of conflict, crime and poverty.  I was reminded when in a shop the nauseating song of Do They Know It's Christmas (2004 version) was blaring over the speakers.  Yet it is not a time to feel guilty for your existence, for your relative prosperity.  It is not your fault that many are worse off than you, just as it is not the fault of those better off that you don't have their wealth.   Nor it is your obligation to make life better for others.   The comments today from the Archbishop of Canterbury that effectively criticise the British government's cuts in public spending are just peddling guilt trips as he is critical the "rich" are not bearing their "fair share" of public spending cuts.  This utter nonsense ignores that those on higher incomes pay by far the greatest share of tax and don't take their "fair share" of public spending either.   Christmas should not be a time to be hectored by the socialist leader of a church entirely based on the proclamation of a hereditary monarch about "privilege".

Still beyond that, those who choose, celebrate how they can.  For many it is just another day, some are celebrating a birth, others including probably the family of Joanna Yeates will forever associate it with the loss of a loved one.   

For you, I wish you a Merry Christmas, superlative Saturnalia, Happy Hannukah, or simply a day of joy.

The story I can't really tell

As a self-styled polemicist, opportunities to genuinely promote freedom have largely been dominated by what I write and what I say.  What I do for a living generally doesn't offer much chance for that, as it is dominated by development of business strategies, public policy and analytics.  Various charities and organisations promote individual freedom as well, but nothing quite comes close as being able to act in a way that is contrary to those who suppress freedom - particularly freedom of speech.

So it is in that light that I visited four dictatorships this year, all countries where the state has direct control over the entire mass media, where rule of law is at the mercy of the leadership and ruling parties and where criticism of the political leadership can prove fatal.   Talking about political change in such countries is not something undertaken lightly.   As such I hope you bear with me in that I wont identify the country I visited where the following rather minor events happened.  The primary reason I wont identify the country online is to protect those in that country who I talked to and who committed political crimes with me.  For not only is that important, but it is more important that people like them, who have some privileges already understand the outside world.

The people I met were initially cautious and careful about what to ask and what to say, but after building trust over a few days they were willing to talk - in circumstances when no one else would overhear.   Questions were asked about other countries, about whether people know what it is like there and what life is like in other countries.  Questions asked about history and events that have been suppressed (and rewritten), as foreign books on subjects (and local translations) are rare.   Questions asked about whether I thought change would come and what might happen and what should happen.   The people I met had consumed news from the BBC and CNN, although only sporadically, as access was severely restricted.

Perhaps the most astonishing question was to explain World War 2, from a Western perspective, and to explain to a university educated man what the Holocaust was, and what Germany is really like. 

I brought in literature that I knew would not be allowed to be distributed there, and I left one book which was a Western book in English containing a description of the country in question.  I understood that it would be prized far more than the price tag.

However I also allowed one to listen to foreign broadcasts in the national language - a criminal offence punishable by execution.   This was done carefully, as I brought a multiband (shortwave) radio into the country quite openly, although such radios are not freely available in shops there.   Foreign news broadcasts were devoured as I listened with my new friend when the opportunities arose.   Every day I was asked about what was in the news from overseas, whether there was news about the country concerned, and I made a point of remembering what I heard from the BBC World Service, Voice of America and Deutsche Welle.  Information was devoured, whatever I had to tell.

The current leadership was rarely mentioned, and none I talked to expressed enthusiasm or interest in their deeds.  They were simply acknowledged as "being there".  The overwhelming understanding was that the government was, by and large, not to be trusted.  Yet I could have talked for days and days about the outside world.   It was abundantly clear that none of them could easily get to leave.   What was also very clear was that these are intelligent and articulate people, who are looking for opportunities to reach out to the rest of the world, and to learn the truth, and who are anticipating change.  When and how that change occurs is unclear, but what is currently clear is that there is a political tinderbox which may ignite given half a chance - but one that is suppressed by a brutal secret police and climate of distrust.   Since then events have happened that might give hope for change in the near future.

When I left, I was told by one of them that eventually when he could leave, he would find me in London.   It was quite heart-breaking to realise how easy it is to visit and leave such places, when it is not the case for those who live there.  

What to do?  Despite what some political dissidents say, it IS important to visit such regimes.  It is important to bring books, bring a radio, learn a language and talk, let people know that you are interested, that you are not engaging in some macabre act of voyeurism, but that the outside world not only cares, but is friendly.  

So this time of year I want to give pause for those who do not live in a place where they can rant, blog, talk freely or simply insult the political leadership.  One cannot underestimate the importance of having such basic freedoms, and that those who are willing to compromise it are not deserving of it.  The darkness, stinking, cruel climate of fear that such dictatorship imposes on people is real.   Too many are unaware of what it is like, because their age or geography has meant they have not lived with such control, or lived in a world when more than half of it was under it (and promoted it).   

and the price of maintaining freedom is eternal vigilance.