One releases, illegally, transcripts of terrorists plotting to blow us up, because the incompetent drafting of the law makes it impossible to do so legally

While you're giving away legal opinion, how about...

1) Use of parliamentary privilege as a means of transmitting said information
2) Use of offshore sources (my blog is hosted and owned by Americans) to get the information out. FYI, as I said above, the information IS out and online- hosted in the US

I bet my lawyer mates could think of many other legal ways to do it too.

One is acting entirely morally

No contest.

In any event, Rick, I'm telling you that for SOLO it is Showtime—and I, not you, decide that.

That's fine because I've got my hands almost full deciding if it's "Showtime" for "New Zealanders" which is what we are actually talking about, aren't we?

I say again...
2) Repairing to the forcible removal of the government when it has declared war on its people is not just a right, it is a duty.

By those standards such removal is many years overdue.
The Libz constitution preamble enumerates sufficient justification. That was written about 10 years ago! So what was keeping all you "Showtime Now" people all that time?

I listened intently and answered fully. Lance will verify. He was there.

I am saying that when one breaks one of our laws one flouts the entire system.

How does that work, exactly?

One releases, illegally, transcripts of terrorists plotting to blow us up, because the incompetent drafting of the law makes it impossible to do so legally. One is acting entirely morally—and the wet ACT pansy-asses who oppose such a thing do so (oppose it) entirely immorally.

In any event, Rick, I'm telling you that for SOLO it is Showtime—and I, not you, decide that. If that's too radical for you, retreat to the ACT blouses, fully. And to your behind-the-scenes KASSless anti-SOLO snipers who pursue their agenda in the shadows under the floorboards while courageous folk are performing on stage, fearlessly.

Things are happening. No place for cowards and Richie Riches. Like 'em? Go to 'em.

He says he didn't do well arguing with me in the flesh because his ability to express himself deserted him

I didn't say that at all. Nor did I say that YOUR ability to LISTEN deserted you.

1) Disobeying one dumb/evil law in a context where most law is good is not going to bring the whole rule of law crashing down. Mine and thousands of others' disobedience of anti-sodomy laws certainly didn't,

You can't overturn the New Zealand legal system by sodomy alone, try as you might, even if it came to trial. I wasn't implying otherwise.

I am saying that when one breaks one of our laws one flouts the entire system.

But- and this is my advice- when one challenges one of our laws one accepts the entire system.
When Bernard Darnton took issue with the Labour Party pledge card he didn't load his gun or wheel gunpowder into the parliament. He found the right instrument- he took the Prime Minister to court! That is not the same as disobeying the law at all.

...yet Rick would have you believe we acted "wrongly," albeit "ethically"

As any judge would be forced to agree.

While we accept non-Objective law we will always have contradictions between what is legally right and metaphysically/epistemologically/ethically/politically/aesthetically right.

I did not "blank out" at anti-homosexuality laws. I was trying to come up with a way to challenge those laws without LEGALLY breaking them. I'm still trying. Ain't no lawyer.

2) Repairing to the forcible removal of the government when it has declared war on its people is not just a right, it is a duty.

By those standards such removal is many years overdue.
The Libz constitution preamble enumerates sufficient justification. That was written about 10 years ago! So what was keeping all you "Showtime Now" people all that time?

The latest Government transgression isn't an historical precident in this Government's transgressions! [edit]

It's Showtime! The government has forfeited its legitimacy, as I have shown in the press release this thread is based on. Rick doesn't address this part of the DOI because it would rouse him to virile action as opposed to ACT's cerebral and erectile dysfunction:

It's not Showtime. Settle down.

Elijah, it's not about morality, it's about law and order. Handy institutions to have about the place, those.
What do you mean by 'law and order', Rick?

I mean a governed human environment rather than chaos, and I mean one governed by a great organic 'seamless web' such as the tried and true one of English Common Law.

Sometimes it is perverted. It's not John Gault, it's more of a Ron Paul. But the virtues tend to outweigh the vices, so we keep it and live in it and protect it and try to make those vital repairs from within it- even when, morally, we're justified in doing otherwise.

Are you suggesting a chap is incapable of surviving without a myriad of legislation to guide him?

Not at all, 'Robinson Crusoe' is a plausable story.

...that the fairly simple idea of 'non-initiation of force' is insufficient?

Of course it's insufficient. It must also be enforced.

If man is an end unto himself, what is wrong with simply ignoring something you disagree with?

Ignoring injustice encourages more. That's what's wrong with it.
Hint: injustice is non-desirable.

... of the "obey the law under all circumstances" injunction is fully displayed here in Rick's post. He says he didn't do well arguing with me in the flesh because his ability to express himself deserted him; well, there's no discernible improvement in this post.

Two points:

1) Disobeying one dumb/evil law in a context where most law is good is not going to bring the whole rule of law crashing down. Mine and thousands of others' disobedience of anti-sodomy laws certainly didn't, yet Rick would have you believe we acted "wrongly," albeit "ethically" (there's a new phony dichotomy for you!). Rick's view remains incoherent.

2) Repairing to the forcible removal of the government when it has declared war on its people is not just a right, it is a duty. I have shown, repairing to historical precedent, that our government has done just that: declared war on us.

I think what's going on here relates to Rick's rediscovered enthusiasm for the ACT Party, the relentlessly besuited and boring Mormons of politics. And ACT, I'm afraid, are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Watching the narcissusly skeletal Wodney pawading and stwutting in his stwiped suits makes one cwinge; it doesn't inspire one to man liberty's bawwicades. Neither do the Mormons in his entourage.

And man the barricades is what we must do. It's Showtime! The government has forfeited its legitimacy, as I have shown in the press release this thread is based on. Rick doesn't address this part of the DOI because it would rouse him to virile action as opposed to ACT's cerebral and erectile dysfunction:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The bad news for ACT is that it will happen. Without them. Wodney will be locked up with Sue Kedgley. And they'll be filmed. This'll be way better than Big Brother.

do you mean by 'law and order', Rick?

Are you suggesting a chap is incapable of surviving without a myriad of legislation to guide him? ...that the fairly simple idea of 'non-initiation of force' is insufficient?

Or are you a closet Labour MP who is incapable of 'trusting the people because they are stupid and require us to know best'?

If man is an end unto himself, what is wrong with simply ignoring something you disagree with?

"I create nothing. I own"

Elijah, it's not about morality, it's about law and order. Handy institutions to have about the place, those.

I'm assuming that you mean, once this law is in, you will not be seeking to flout it

If there's one thing I've learned from the Library of Melissa S. Lepley it's that the law is an instrument, not a tool.
Have you read 'Stranger in a Strange Land?'

You raise a reasonable argument Rick, however, when you say 'one day it won't be', then when will that day be, for you?

When these things come to pass....
Consitution for New Freeland

...then we must invoke it.
I've never understood that it had been invoked, only that it was waiting for "Showtime."

...flouting bad law, while ethical, is wrong
I understand exactly what you mean, but it's also one of those oxymoronic sentences that makes less and less sense as you try to apply it to living, and then finally drives you mad. Where are we expected to go given this understanding?

The same place we've always gone, the place we've been "going" for most of New Zealand history. We patriots have been very patient and suffered great pains to live with the status quo rather than upset the apple cart. For scores of years we have accepted the protection of law, even though it comes with tyrannies of various shape. Better, we thought, to fight for reform within the existing framework than to resort to retaliatory force. The Libertarianz and ACT partys of New Zealand were constituted to that end, for example.

Libz constitution
I don't have a link to ACT's party constitution, but it's pretty much identical.

We've been swallowing bad law and perversions of our rights all this time, and consciously so. If we change our minds it's a very big deal. Not something to be done because we're less patient than those who came before us, or than we have managed to be for all this time.

I'm not convinced it's time to give that away. For now, and, with fortune, forever, we will never have to retaliate in kind. We will keep up the effort to reform New Zealand from within via the same democratic arena every other politically active group uses.
Libertarianz is there to be used, dieing on the vine. ACT is thriving. SOLO is picking up speed.

We do this, not because of the intrinsic value of 'law for law's sake' but because we believe our human nature and our civilised institutions have enough redeeming virtue that ideas will win out, force not required. Also, because shock revolution and change are a messy and painful business which are not to be taken lightly where there's a decent chance of drawing them out of the present condition of the nation.
Thus far.

have always engaged in 'Law Ignoring', rather than law breaking...when something is silly and I disagree with it.

As a libertarian individualist I am more than capable of deciding the morality of something on my own without a Parliament of alcoholics legislating for me.

"I create nothing. I own"

You raise a reasonable argument Rick, however, when you say 'one day it won't be', then when will that day be, for you?

I believe the attack on free speech is a defining moment (in any society), and don't know what you think needs to happen beyond that, given I'm assuming that you mean, once this law is in, you will not be seeking to flout it, that is, you will be silenced. It'll be a shame not seeing your posts in here next year, it being an election year

...flouting bad law, while ethical, is wrong

I understand exactly what you mean, but it's also one of those oxymoronic sentences that makes less and less sense as you try to apply it to living, and then finally drives you mad. Where are we expected to go given this understanding?

Anthony can be very good value, but he can't express himself in writing to save his own life. Because he's lazy!He'll soon be blocked because he can't be bothered concentrating long enough to write properly.

BTW, I was having an argument along similar lines with someone the other night. He was essentially arguing that the law should be obeyed at all times because ... well, just because

That would be me.
I was unable to express myself clearly, but that can be fixed.
I'm not done yet, just haven't made time. Here's a start...

I don't believe in following the law for law's sake. I believe in the rule of law as a package deal (L does not) so that flouting bad law, while ethical, is wrong. Keeping our 'law and order' intact in the face of stolen liberties has always been, thus far, the better bargain. One day it wont be. I accept that Lindsay thinks that day has now come. I don't agree.

Leaking the transcripts (which were, and ARE, under judicial suppression (although they are online, if you can find them ) was against the law. This guy suggested that the New Zealand legal system is robust enough for this information to come out without screwing over the rule of law. Parliamentary privilege springs to mind.

he was also an insufferably priggish heretic-burner (something not shown in the movie).

The story and the moral message matter, not that they happen to be illustrated by the clothing of an historical episode. A film critic judges the film or its protagonist for their own sake. If one has issue with Tudor's times or with the historical figure of Thomas More that's another kettle of fish not to be confounded with this one.

This one is a fictional film celebrating selfness, and championing the rule of law and one man's mastery of it. We've got Lord Denning and Cicero, and others, to provide the intellectual side of this (which I mean to post about as I can) but for inspiration this film stands above all others...

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

So .... how did you arrive at this evaluation?

Answer here.

suppose mentioning to the Dictator you disagree...and asking him to list the Top 10 reasons 'why' is out of the question? ...(that being 'adult' debate)

Well, no, it doesn't. You do! Insistently.

In part just to show you have no answer. But I might have missed something. So .... how did you arrive at this evaluation?

Shoot first, answer questions later.

Now why would you do that, I wonder?

gosh! initiation of force ...and murder..gosh

But "good," Goode, is a judgement, a moral evaluation. It demands an answer to: how did we arrive at this evaluation?

Well, no, it doesn't. You do! Insistently.

So again I ask, confronted by a dictator who says his belief in the goodness of dictatorship is an article of faith, your response is?

Shoot first, answer questions later.

BTW, I was having an argument along similar lines with someone the other night. He was essentially arguing that the law should be obeyed at all times because ... well, just because. The law is the law is the law. I was puzzled, since I assumed this person knew better. Then he dropped the movie, Man for all Seasons, into the conversation, and the penny dropped. More's approach was the same, though in this instance, of course, God's Law trumped man's law. The Law is the Law is the Law because ... well, God says so. And you muck with it at your peril, both on earth and in the afterlife.

This guy was arguing that the press shouldn't have leaked the terrorist transcripts because to do so was an illegal act. When I asked if I should never have broken the then-law against homosexuality, he blanked out. Needless to say, he opposes my claim that we now have the moral right forcibly to evict the current crop of legalised thugs from the Beehive.

The movie is an all-time great. But let it not blind us to More's intrinsicism, the fact that he put his neck on the line over something really daft, and that he was also an insufferably priggish heretic-burner (something not shown in the movie).

I trust I make myself obscure.

You can believe that the Earth is round, you can hope that the Earth is round, you can fear that the Earth is round, you can doubt that the Earth is round, you can have faith that the Earth is round, you can entertain the idea that Earth is round. Thoughout all this, the Earth is, and remains, whatever shape it happens, in reality, to be.

Certainly it does. Because, as you say, it is. But humans need to know that it is if they are to live and flourish on earth. Can they safely sail without falling over an edge? What they discover is not then rendered subjective when they discover it and because they discover it. Their knowledge is objective because it conforms to reality. Reality itself is not objective—it just is. The term "objective reality" is a redundancy, albeit one that we use a lot (unnecessarily).

Likewise, if it's an objective fact that freedom is good (as I claim), then it is good regardless of what goes on in my head.

But "good," Goode, is a judgement, a moral evaluation. It demands an answer to: how did we arrive at this evaluation?

You are saying that the good is some ineffable "thing" that would still be here in a humanless earth, some intrinsic thing that was here before us and will be here after us. It requires no standard; it just is, according to you. And if it isn't like that, it can't be "objective." Will you at least do us the favour of describing it and defining it? And how you arrive at your description and definition? By faith, also?

Don't confuse metaphysics and epistemology.

We don't. You do. As you also confuse metaphysics and ethics.

Why faith?
(1) Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
(2) My belief that freedom is good does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Therefore, (3) My belief that freedom is good is an article of faith.

We sure got that already.

So again I ask, confronted by a dictator who says his belief in the goodness of dictatorship is an article of faith, your response is?

You state your belief that freedom is good is an article of faith, which certainly 'implies' that you must then leave open the possibility of doubt over this statement, that freedom may not be 'good'. This doubt then flows back, necessarily, and casts doubt on your second statement, that it's an objective, moral fact that freedom is good. Otherwise why the recourse to faith?

I interpret you as saying this fact is objective, but then you take your ontological feet out from under yourself by stating your acceptance of this leaves room for doubt because you are really only accepting this as a matter of faith. It either is or it isn't. I'll rephrase this as a question to you: why do you make your third statement? Why is faith involved, for you?

Given your third 'article of faith' statement below, and your definition of faith immediately preceding this, how can you then make the second statement at all, that freedom is good is an objective fact?

In philosophy the primary meaning of objective is "mind-independent". And the primary field of application is metaphysics. Wikipedia gets it right when it says

Metaphysical subjectivism is the theory that perception is reality, and that there is no underlying, true reality that exists independent of perception... This is in contrast to metaphysical objectivism, which asserts that there is an underlying 'objective' reality which is perceived in different ways.

In ethics the term 'objective' means much the same thing. An objective moral fact is a moral fact which is independent of your perceptions, sentiments, thoughts, actions, choices, etc. In particular, objective moral facts, like any objective facts, are independent of your epistemic attitudes.

You can believe that the Earth is round, you can hope that the Earth is round, you can fear that the Earth is round, you can doubt that the Earth is round, you can have faith that the Earth is round, you can entertain the idea that Earth is round. Thoughout all this, the Earth is, and remains, whatever shape it happens, in reality, to be.

Likewise, if it's an objective fact that freedom is good (as I claim), then it is good regardless of what goes on in my head.

Don't confuse metaphysics and epistemology.

Why faith?

(1) Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
(2) My belief that freedom is good does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Therefore, (3) My belief that freedom is good is an article of faith.

I don't need to blog about drugs to have a good time.

You need to get some fresh air and drink plenty of water.

Not that American citizens can do much, and not that there are not also ominous things going on here, but these sorts of measures--are your elected officials over there completely out of their minds? Is New Zealand ~really~ dominated by such lunatics as will elect them and keep them in power?

We need a new country, this world does. I support you all in your fight against this ridiculous-if-it-were-not-so-dangerous Bill.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

except for Matty and Co. You have all been

derogatory and quiet hostile not welcoming here.

 
I hope to die in an America saving an American.

Kiwis like evil why try to change that
Freedom like you say.
Choose Evil
You seem to enjoy it.

There is three furtures for NZ

If you must know gimp 

Our socialism, which even many here are enjoying will collapse.

We have a Right wing govement that causes civil unrest and War amongst minoritys

as we have to clean our system up,

Laughed so hard I nearly pissed myself!

His profile reads:

don't close account.
What u afraid of

Please, please don't close his account.

[edit] Bugger it... why did you edit your post, Anthony? It was pricless! (sic)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

 I dont want to affend Mr Matty,

So I will remove this

You others need to learn what freedom of speech is. 

like you guys have really clever conversations of nothing.semantic do nothing enjoy your status quo. sad arse   thought there may have been some hope here for goverment, nope.

We have a crisis in ur country an clever leaders are needed well,

where do I look to find them?

gee,  National Party?

Act?

not here.

You're too good to be true.

A better question for you:

Given your third 'article of faith' statement below, and your definition of faith immediately preceding this, how can you then make the second statement at all, that freedom is good is an objective fact?

On this particular issue, are we only arguing definitions? I think we possibly are and there is no point of disagreement.

And now I must go ... look forward to getting back to this.

More about me: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~mhubbard/

Ahh, that's a better point to sleep on then. I look forward to watching this thread develop. Cheers Richard.

[Anthony, you're a few keys short of a board, mate, can you bugger off from this thread please, unless you have something relevant to it to say.]

More about me: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~mhubbard/

By faith, I mean belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. (American Heritage Dictionary)

My belief that freedom is good does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. More to the point, neither does yours.

Boring..man you guys talk nohing.

So anyway...

You all a bid morebid here huh.

i want to get an American Girlfriend if anyone can help?how

anyone know

So we having a revolution or not, Im bored, lets do something,. coo.

Whats Helen done so bad anyway where the ones voting....

She just as bored as you wants to start a war why not how boring  

just stupid mettings. 

I knew I should have left off for the night at my stock market post

It's quarter past midnight, Richard, I'm going to sleep on your last post, and rejoin the discussion again over the weekend.

Although, I give you the second point, you did not say 'eternal and immutable', that was my part, just assumed. So what is your position on the sentence, '... freedom is good is eternal and immutable'?

... Before going to bed. Re the third part, I think you do imply that sentence. As I said at the end of my last post, no faith without doubt (yes/no?). You state your belief that freedom is good is an article of faith, which certainly 'implies' that you must then leave open the possibility of doubt over this statement, that freedom may not be 'good'. This doubt then flows back, necessarily, and casts doubt on your second statement, that it's an objective, moral fact that freedom is good. Otherwise why the recourse to faith?

 I interpret you as saying this fact is objective, but then you take your ontological feet out from under yourself by stating your acceptance of this leaves room for doubt because you are really only accepting this as a matter of faith. It either is or it isn't. I'll rephrase this as a question to you: why do you make your third statement? Why is faith involved, for you?

More about me: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~mhubbard/

The contradiction lies in the space between your statements (2) and (3).

This is loose talk. A contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions.

In (2) you admit to the objective fact, as such eternal and immutable

The fact that freedom is good is eternal and immutable? - something else I never said, or implied.

yet you then contradict this statement by saying - no, implying - the Truth of it as fact is actually reliant on your subjective perception of it being so.

No, I never said, or implied, any such thing.

Again, surely you don't have to cross your fingers whenever you walk through an opened door, it not being an article of faith whether or not it is open?

That's right. My beliefs in medium-sized physical objects are empirical. My moral beliefs are not. More to the point, neither are yours.

So can i blog now Lindsay

thanks.

New Zealand  , I love this country  .

The contradiction lies in the space between your statements (2) and (3). In (2) you admit to the objective fact, as such eternal and immutable, yet you then contradict this statement by saying - no, implying - the Truth of it as fact is actually reliant on your subjective perception of it being so. It either 'is' or it 'isn't', in this case 'is': ergo, a contradiction (if nothing else, in your world view).

Again, surely you don't have to cross your fingers whenever you walk through an opened door, it not being an article of faith whether or not it is open? Faith leaving the door open, of course, for doubt.

[After-thought: a bit out of my depth now, but can the meaning of 'faith' not be defined by it's reverse, 'doubt' - thus, any act of faith inherently invokes contradiction by its very nature? I've got this awful feeling that in defining A by B, as opposed to A is A, I have probably succumbed to an Objectivist sin ]

It's a fact that freedom is good. An objective, moral fact. It's my belief that freedom is good which is an article of faith.

I don't understand this, it's contradictory.

If it's contradictory, one (or more than one) of the statements is false. (Since a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions.)

(1) It's a fact that freedom is good.

(2) It's an objective, moral fact that freedom is good.

(3) My belief that freedom is good is an article of faith.

Which is it, then?

As much as I enjoy reading philosophical arguments between you, Linz and James - you've been here for three weeks and you haven't blogged about drugs once. I am supremely disappointed.

No revolution? Ah well, guess I'll have to put the pitch fork back in the shed then. It was pretty rusty anyway, I'm not big on maintenance, probably would have done myself a mischief with it.

To Richard, who said:

It's a fact that freedom is good. An objective, moral fact. It's my belief that freedom is good which is an article of faith.

I don't understand this, it's contradictory. How can you say something is an objective fact, then require an act of faith to believe in it? You don't have to cross your fingers, or worse, your chest, whenever you walk through a door you've just opened surely?

I've never said that freedom is just an article of faith.

I've never said that the goodness of freedom is just an article of faith.

I'm not a brigade.

Stop misrepresenting me. Do us both a favour and stick to verbatim quotes, in context, like this chap.

It's a fact that freedom is good. An objective, moral fact. It's my belief that freedom is good which is an article of faith. Freedom itself is objectively good and, hence, worth fighting for. But I repeat myself, and you don't dispute any of what I've just said.

Someone who evidently hangs on my every word as soon as it's published will save the fascist filth from the Evil Linz:

http://aynrandcontrahumannatur...

Funny part is, I was alerted to this by one of the freedom-is-an-article-of-faith brigade who warned me to be careful in what I say, since freedom does have real enemies, such as this Nyquist site. As if the article-of-faithers are not real enemies of freedom!!

Linz

PS—For the pomowankers at this Nyquist outfit: the coup will be at ten past four next Tuesday afternoon, NZ time. 9th floor, Beehive Building. Please be sure not to miss it. I doubt it'll get any other media coverage. There's bound to be a kitten in a drainpipe that day. It ain't easy, staging a revolution.

... but no need to give the authorities a pretext for closing SOLO down just yet.

Today, "three smacks and you're guilty."

The end is nigh for the fascist filth.

I'm sure when reading this thread over breakfast there was a rather intriguing post here, now missing in action it would appear

 Must have been my last night's whisky nightcap.

me in, Lindsay!

Gosh..this revolution lark should be such fun!

It is clear there is a lack of legitimacy of government and has been for some time, since at least 1994 in my opinion, when the Income Tax Act was altered and various High Court rulings overriden by Parliament (and 800 years of Common Law tradition went west).

I can help, what can be done?

What about not paying taxes for a month? or writting to head of state.

 I'm in on the TV add. Some times one must make an exsample of ones self for the good of freedom.

"All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the ben

What a fabulous day for a March.

It may shock some, but there you go.

I don't know the source, but I know that Rand firmly believed that as long as you could exercise your right to free speech, you should resist your government peacefully; once that right is taken away, anything goes. After all, if you can't use reason or persuasion to make your voice heard, the only remaining option is force.

I will still be attending the march and hope the rest of you do as well. I'm sure it won't prevent the bill from being passed, but every last bit of political pressure counts - especially while it is still legal to protest.

Today a report was released by the Police Complaints Authority into the conduct of police during the visit by the Chinese President in 1999. It found that police illegally shut down peaceful "Free Tibet" protests, after the operational commander met with Chinese officials and told them that every effort would be made to ensure that the President did not see or hear any protesters during his visit. Taking orders from a dictatorship is disgusting! The Police cannot be trusted to respect our freedoms.

1) The one place that can't be policed or audited is the internet. Viral marketing costs nothing to disseminate and it's highly effective.

2) Gather a shit load of donations and blow it on one KASS anti-Totalitarian ad. We break the law, get arrested, and have our day in court - smack in the middle of election year.

Stirring stuff, Lindsay, I had to stop myself loading the H&K!! [Disclaimer for the SIS: please note the smiley face designating the preceding comment as a joke]

Okay, so an armed rebellion is out of the question (Bugger it! [joke]). I'm unemployed so the Galt Gambit won't work. What the hell do we do...?

just realised I can do 'my bit'!

It seems Mrs Davis is now my MP, as my new house is right on the edge of the Mt Albert electorate! ..so I can help overthrow her next year in the most proactive way possible.

At least you took in its import.

And yes, this is where we've got to.

I'm not quite sure how to respond either, if that's any consolation.

You've certainly shocked me out of my evenings work Linz.

 Bravo.

 But other than that, I have no idea how to respond to this. None at all.

I was wondering if the promotion of Atlas Shrugged could be considered a political activity and come under the aigis of this bill.Would anybody have the gall to try to ban it?