EFA: Some Thoughts, Some Quotes ... PS—Don't Vote National

Lance's picture
Submitted by Lance on Wed, 2007-12-19 10:38

It's safe to say the passing of the Electoral Finance Act has left a foul taste in my mouth. The dirty damned lies that have led us to this point are on a par with, if not more disgusting than, the act itself. There is the 'laughable were it not a tragedy' supposed consistency that the EFB had when it was first checked against the Bill of Rights. Remember this was when it said that $1 spent on advertising meant registration with the state. There is the exposure of Greens as nothing more than unprincipled political whores. A supposedly principled, youthful, rebellious even, activist party that sold its soul to the gray, banal, life-sucking, joyless, evil of statism and proceeded to swallow political dick for votes. I think invoking the 'Rod Donald grave-spin' is in bad taste, but one can't help but wonder what he would have made of it. There is the perpetuated lie that money spent to reach people with a message, a communication between free and private citizens, for Galt's sake, is the same as buying votes or buying elections. Influence is not a dirty word. People, private fucking citizens Helen, can and do influence each other. It's called interaction. And when people spend money to interact with as many people as they can, to say, "Hey, the Labour government is sucking the life out of us. Good god wake up they're stealing our souls and eating our children," any influence that has is under no goddamn circumstances "undue."

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
-- John F. Kennedy

But what sticks out in my mind, beyond the sickening arrogance of Labour, beyond the dangerous rhetoric of Winston "our censorship laws are perhaps too liberal" Peters, beyond the hideous stench of corruption of the whole damned process, is the smug, snide look on the face of John Key and Bill English when they first started speaking out against the bill in the media.

National are not our saviours—they cannot be trusted any more than Labour can. To them this wasn't an all-out assault against free expression. No, this was a golden opportunity. I'll never forget the overjoyed look on John Key's face while describing just how draconian the EFB was. Smiling and laughing the whole way. These are evil, evil, pricks. Suckers of Satan's cock, to invoke the late great Bill Hicks. Do not for one second think that they are any more conducive to liberty in New Zealand than Labour. They are exactly the same brand of evil fucks. If Labour are the type to launch a "dramatic assault" on liberty, then National are the type to give her a quiet back alley raping, then tell us that she was asking for it. Voting National just to dislodge Labour would be votes wasted.

There is one party and one party only that is conducive to liberty in New Zealand and that is the Libertarianz. Can we expect our votes to get them in in 2008? No, I don't expect it, but they deserve our support. They deserve as big a number as they can muster, if only to give them the will to carry on. The only vote wasted, would be any vote NOT given to the Libertarianz. Parties that get voted for get noticed.

That is all... for now.


( categories: )

Deborah Coddington says:

Jameson's picture

"... we can be grateful for three MPs whose outstanding defence and definition of freedom of speech was delivered in heartfelt debate, something Parliament has sadly lacked this year. Take a bow Rodney Hide, Hone Harawira and John Key."

Fair points

Jameson's picture

I admire your stand on principle, Lance, and given Lindsay's eleven Top Ten reasons not to vote Nats I'd find it very difficult to blame you for voting with your conscience.

But what does any of this have to do with the EFB? National would NOT have introduced this evil legislation, nor for that matter the anti-smacking bill. There is sufficient light between Clark/Cullen and Key/English for me to make a reasoned choice. As far as I'm concerned the Helengrad/EFB is our Iraq/Islamofilth issue - a clear and present danger - and I'm prepared to live with the conservatives for three years to see it exterminated.

National's stated values - seen nowhere in Labour's - include "Individual freedom and choice," "Personal responsibility," "Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement," "Limited government," and "National and personal security." I'd like the opportunity to hold them to these principles.

Given the state of emergency, a party with superior values is not enough in my book: The Libertarianz haven't convinced me that my vote will count for anything more than a triple-digit nostalgic footnote in the margins of electoral history.

As a voter, the onus is on them to persuade me.

Agree with LP's post

Mike Gardner's picture

Agree with LP's post just up.

However I also agree with Glenn Jameson's reasoning. As will most NZers.

Libertarianz did very well under Mr Perigo's leadership. A few agressive ranters on blogs will not influence anyone. That is just preaching to the choir.

Maybe start a phpBB forum - it is free, and posters interested in politics  could ask questions without having to register and put in silly codes.

Libertarians could do a lot better if they were not so damned rude. I find most people I speak to have at least SOME sympathy with the idea, but are put off by the childish  'cocksucker' type of thing.

 

 

 

 

Ten top reasons ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

.... not to vote National:

1) The RMA. Your land tied up because of some conservation order? Can't paint your house pink? Can't add that veranda to it? Can't upgrade that bog into a pond? Can't construct that tree-house, or cut the tree down? And on and on ad nauseam? Thank National.

2) The banning of speech that could be construed as inciting racial disharmony, such speech punishable by 3 months in jail.

3) The banning of tobacco advertising and the magazine, Cigar Aficionado.

4) Jenny "The Ministry of Women's Affairs will be abolished over my dead body" Shipley.

5) Jim (Neville) Bolger, who led the capitulation to pseudo-Mordi and the peaceniks. Bolger, who said to my face that basing policies on principles was "bullshit." Bolger is a key Key advisor.

6) Bill (Think Big) Birch. He governs best who governs most. "A lot of us worship the ground he [Muldoon] walks on."

7) Lockwood Smith, who surrendered the children of the nation to the child-molesters of the mind and the nation to the Cult of the Airhead.

8 Doug Graham (Lord Montrose of Drury). "The sooner people realise there's one law for Maori and another for the rest of us the better."

9) Opposition to the decriminalising of prostitution, drugs, voluntary euthanasia. Your life belongs to the state, mate.

10) Nick Smith, eco-fascist Global Warmonger.

11) Nick Smith's halitosis.

OK, that's 11, not 10. Whatever. That's the Lockwood Smith school of maths.

Voting National will see the

Lance's picture

Voting National will see the EFA repealed. So sayeth John "I scratch my nose when I'm talking cos it's itchy" Key. And let's give him the benefit of doubt and assume it will. I still won't vote National.

Voting National to what end?
The EFA get's repealed. Yay, celebrations in the street, Israelis hugging their Palestinian brethren etc etc.

Great, meanwhile behind the facade of this innocent looking bookstore...

The NZ public have entrenched in their mind that the restriction on free speech wasn't repugnant in itself, it was just badly written. So all the parties get together and write a better one. Perhaps a little more liberal, perhaps not. And shock horreur! Because the small handful of people in NZ that voice their love of liberty in the face of derision and dismissal, dropped their principle panties, we haven't just lost a battle in the cultural revolution. We have thrown down arms and conceded defeat.

Voting Libz this time around won't win us that battle I admit. It will make a statement though that the fight is carrying on. Do you think it is just a matter of Libz conceding votes to National this time around, just this one off time for the sake of one damn act, and getting them back later? It's not, it's a betrayal of principle. It will cost them and us dearly. Come 2011 Labour are slightly ahead in the polls and National are flagging, what then do we say "Oh don't vote for Libz, it's great in principle, but we have to keep Labour out. Hell, Libz got less votes than they have members last time! There's no point."

The fight for reason and liberty does not hinge on the EFA. Yes I am prepared to live with it. Just as I am prepared to live with anti smoking legislation, the RMA, drug prohibition, infantile food labeling... the list goes on and on.

I am prepared to live with it all. I am also prepared, being armed with reason, passion, and unwavering, unflinching principle to fight it tooth and bloody nail.

Lance...

Jameson's picture

As dubious as National have been, the EFB is a dead duck if they get in - no question.

John Key: "I make this promise to New Zealanders: when Labour is gone at the end of 2008 the first thing National will do is repeal this legislation. It's gone."

Now... what's the best way to stop the EFB?:

a) register a protest vote that WILL NOT THREATEN the bill in the slightest, or
b) register a protest vote that WILL KILL the bill dead

I suppose the real question is, Lance, is the EFB something you're prepared to live with?

Yes... number 11 on the list

Jameson's picture

... my six figure salary in advertising was not under any threat. Smiling

I believe Lindsay was

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I believe Lindsay was involved but not anymore, why?

I was a founding member and first leader. We got 6000 party votes thanks to my media profile and a nationwide speaking tour. Glenn Jameson was a list candidate. Hehehehe. VERY pretty he was back then, too.

I'm not directly involved now but not agin' them. Some of them are agin' me 'cos I yell at them for being useless. Smiling

Linz

why don't you just call them there phone numbers are on the webs

Big Ben's picture

numbers are on the website.

It's about people

dinther's picture

Nobody on Solo would question the principles of Libertarianz. But there are also the people behind the party. To me they are as important as their policies.

If I have the wrong impression of the Libertarianz being a rebellious student party then prove it to me. Setup some meetings in Auckland. Let's talk without drinking and show me what the Libz are made of. Sell the party to me. Just a web-site won't do.

For me a party is as strong as it's core people. Who are they, how old are they (Life experience) how long have they been with the party? What do they do.

I believe Lindsay was involved but not anymore, why? 

Libertarianz need to be believable and that won't happen through shooting from the hip actions like the offer to a backdoor around the EFB because that just hides issues.

 

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

right on the money

Big Ben's picture

"I don't care how many votes the Libz got in the last election, my concern is how many votes they get this election." and there not ganna get many if we all sit around bitching we all want freedom so lets go get it. How many of us here are willing to commet to doing all we can to getting the libz a seat. Even trying and failing is more of an achivement than doing nothing. Rand would be discusted you know whats right you know its in your own interist to fight for it yet you do nothing.

Who will commet to the path to freedom ?

you?

Glenn's Scaremongering

Lance's picture

You guys are gonna vote for a party that got 630% less votes in the last election than it did in '99, rather than help push the plunger on the bill?

Ahhh there's that loaded question again. No that is not it at all Glenn. I have zero faith in National. Voting Labour-Lite means assuming the following: Key will keep his promise and that the replacement to the repealed act will necessarily be good.

There is also the possibility that the majority of public opinion could sway in favour of the bill and National chicken out. After all Labour will have plenty of opportunities to calm some nerves about the bill with Joe Public.

The problem with National's potential replacement for the act is the entrenchment in the mind of the public that money still has some kind of "undue" influence in elections. An influence that is apparently right and proper when bought with time or man power, that's just advocacy and activism. But when bought with money, it's obviously trying to "buy democracy"!

Whatever their replacement is, IF they repeal, it will still reflect that private citizens spending money communicating and advertising their ideas is BAD. Maybe they will make it a bit more liberal, maybe you can spend a little more, is that the point though? That the bill doesn't let you spend enough? Or is it that it presumes to tell you at all?

National are not, have never been, and certainly don't look like they ever will be the answer to our liberty. Voting National will either leave us with the act in place if they fail to repeal it, or with a replacement "friendlier" version, that would have such widespread support it would become almost impossible to dislodge without a "massive philosophical and cultural revolution". You will still lose your free speech under National. But like I said: If Labour are the type to launch a "dramatic assault" on liberty, then National are the type to give her a quiet back alley raping, then tell us that she was asking for it.

I don't care how many votes the Libz got in the last election, my concern is how many votes they get this election. The absolute only way to secure liberty, to secure free speech, is for however small a group of people to draw a line in the sand and unwaveringly and unflinchingly act according to their principles. For me that precludes voting National. Voting the centrist mush that is Labour-Lite may get you the friendlier version of the act that you want, but it won't get you your liberty.

I remember

Big Ben's picture

a labour mp come to marlbourgh and braged about how there was only 500 unemployed people were pissed off, the vineyard hire any one and they are always short of labour so bring in lots of over seas workers. If you sold it right you have heaps of people on board.

I think concentrating the effort is the way to go

Big Ben's picture

I was thinking they should say one seat in chch one in wellington and one in auckland. I thought taking on brownly in chch would be the one to go for.

But if you were ganna take on one seat I think kikora would be the one. How ever if you were ganna do that you would have to concentrate on RMA, Propertie rights, low taxes ending welfarisim. Actaully its more complicated than that becouse the drug rules could apeal to some x labour/none voters. I've thought about this alot I grew up there and I think it could be a go. If any of the libz are there contact me I think I could help including on securing funding from people in the area. It could work but your ganna need to be careful how you go about it the way you guys rant you'll fail but if you rant the right way it could be done. 

Paul

Mark Hubbard's picture

I'd say the more parties in a coalition the better because they will never agree with each other and never ever make any decisions at all which is great.

Wrong. I did once think that perhaps this would have been the case under MMP, however, what it has ended up in is lowest common denominator policy making, with nutters like the Greens able to have enough undue influence to get some of their fascist policies through as pay back for their support of Labour policies. If only it had been stalemate, but amongst all the horse trading our liberty has been lost apace.

Maybe I was wrong. Maybe

Mark Hubbard's picture

Maybe I was wrong. Maybe SOLO is not the place for Libertarianz to go to recruit the best activist talent for this election year.

Hell no Sally. You stick around. Some of us are going the principled way Smiling

Glenn's idea about concentrating in one specific area has merit, I thought, but I can't think where ... though, yes, probably a rural area. One thing I can say, from living by the sea, is don't pick any area with a coastline, they're full of Greens.

I'm pretty sure there was/is a long term project in the States for all freedom lovers to move to a particular State over time, thus form a significant voting block? Can't give details, but I saw it constantly referred to on Claire Woolf's Mental Militia forum (now closed).

 

But, back to the matter at hand. SOLO is just the place you need to be, as if you guys can't convince the Kiwi's here to vote Libz, then you/we don't stand a damned chance.

Some good ideas

sallyo's picture

Glenn: "If I were managing the Libz campaign my recommendation would be to think small, smart and concentrated"

This is among the possibilities that Libz are considering. All the ideas you listed are good ones. This is the kind of stuff  was hoping for in comming to recruit SOLOists. Maybe it was a good idea after all.

Now I'm confused. Good practical ideas but some potential representatives who don't understand freedom's indivisibility.

Hmm.

 

 

 

 

 

Freedom Indivisible

sallyo's picture

 

Maybe that tiny number of people who voted for the Libz know more about freedom than many SOLOistst who would seriously consider voting for National or ACT. Maybe they know better than you that a vote for these centrist mixed economy parties is a vote against lassaize fare capitalism which is a vote against freedom of association and freedom of speech and your own mind; your own life! Do I have to explain to SOLOists how freedom is indivisible? Do I Have to explain how being forced to pay for your enemies to lecture in univercities or to have TV stations or and to have any state funding for electioneering is corruption of your freedom of association and freedom of speech.

Maybe I was wrong. Maybe SOLO is not the place for Libertarianz to go to recruit the best activist talent for this election year.

Act sounds like a good enough option

dinther's picture

Indeed Ben, Act policies sound good, although there doesn't seem to be a principle involved that drives the party.

I would hate to see National win in a landslide victory. They will trip up just as bad as Labour has done and possibly much sooner. National has always been too busy with internal bickering and leadership takeovers.

Voting for Act won't leave a foul taste in my mouth when I leave the voting booth while it hopefully creates a strong enough party for National to go into coalition with.

I'd say the more parties in a coalition the better because they will never agree with each other and never ever make any decisions at all which is great.

(Actually I wonder how well Belgium has been doing without an active government)

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

Oh yeah...

Jameson's picture

... and don't forget to make the Oscar-winning documentary while you're at it: "Liberty Won: the rural revolution" ... a capitalism in a microcosm story.

Even if you lose you'll have made a film that encapsulates your entire manifesto... You never know, it might even make you a million. Smiling

"But, Glenn, are you with us?"

Jameson's picture

I'm not against you. If I were managing the Libz campaign my recommendation would be to think small, smart and concentrated:

1) Identify the one seat the Libz have a remote chance of grabbing - probably in the country somewhere; small, close knit communities with town halls - full of grumpy farmers sick of the RMA.

2) Do a high profile (but low cost) put-the-small-town/electorate-on-the-map stunt.

3) Raise as much money as you can on the back of the stunt.

4) Announce a series of town hall debates - involve the townspeople, make it an exciting winner/loser vote; turn it into the country event of the year, a real show (MC Matty), get the people motivated -- they're making history!

5) Draw on their proud heritage; make speeches at local war memorials, on RMA-garrotted farms, at neglected local schools, in the life-threatening hospital -- tell them they're the last bastion of freedom in New Zealand!

6) Organise a convoy to the booths, pick up all the nanas, make it a day of liberty!

7) Win the seat, crack a bottle of Lindauer, send Bernard to parliament where he can support the Nats and Act on the EFB repeal.

So, lemme get this straight...

Jameson's picture

You guys are gonna vote for a party that got 630% less votes in the last election than it did in '99, rather than help push the plunger on the bill?

Okay... still a free country... for a while anyways. Smiling

A vote for act

Big Ben's picture

has got to be better than a vote for any one else in parliment. Look I get some of you have a bone to pick with act but I'm too young to remember the politics of 80's and don't see what good can come out of having arguments all over again. I know roger D was no libitarian and was less principled then your averge street whore and likely less honest (he would have supported slavary if it worked economicly). But I don't think the same is true of rodny and co so I think if your worried about your vote being wasted on the libz than act would be a better bet than national.

Rodney seems some what principled even though his philosophy is a little lacking.

Mr Darnton ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... did a no-show. Apparently he's pregnant. What an impertinence.

Craig got a minor quizzing, but not a flogging. He can speak to the issue, though maybe not straight away—he's travelling around a bit over Xmas.

Apparently it didn't take

Lance's picture

Apparently it didn't take long for some scum to go out looting. Business owners have had to get to their shops and secure them as vandals and looters have been on a bit of a window breaking spree. Scum, scum, scum!

Oh, and I'm all for sending

Mark Hubbard's picture

Oh, and I'm all for sending Glenn to jail. Must we wait till next year?

I'll put up a few dollars to get him there just after Christmas, given the Act comes into effect on 1 January. Better and better, Glenn, remembering your child support thread, you don't have to pay from prison, so it's an almost unbelievably perfect fit. We all win.

 

[Hope the earthquake hasn't got any of the Kiwi North Islanders too jostled? Seems worst damage limited to Gisborne, and then only three CBD buildings reported as down, so just a bit shaken up I suspect, or certainly, hope.]

Mr Darnton ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... will be Chez Linz tonight. Possibly Craig too. They'll get a flogging about this daft gimmick.

Talking of the egregious Nats, I just saw on PC's blog mention of Simon Upton (Simone d'Uptart in Linz-speak), one of the most egregious. How she's scored a cruisy little number researching subsidies.

Oh, and I'm all for sending Glenn to jail. Must we wait till next year?

I have to say I don't agree

Mark Hubbard's picture

 

I have to say I don't agree with the Libz policy of allowing third parties to use their 'political party' funding as a way around the EFA. To demonstrate to the NZ public the evil of this Act we need people and groups to be breaking its edicts and getting arrested for merely trying to voice political opinions, or, in view of the Act, be promoting parties or individuals. People on the news being arrested and carted off for something so basic to freedom as promoting their ideas.

So, agreeing with Glenn that free speech lay at the fulcrum of 'everything'; without it, no hope of a free society, then my grand strategy would be for SOLO and the Libz to come together and promote a frontsman, say Glenn, to a point where he is in flagrant breach of the legislation. Yes, it's all coming together in my mind. SOLO and Libz must band together and get Glenn arrested.

2008, the year we send Glenn to jail on our principles. Perfect.

Yes?

 

Seriously, Craig: I don't know that your policy of allowing others to use your funding is the way to go?

 

But, Glenn, are you with us? 

Trouble is ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... every election is an emergency. And one will never go broke underestimating National's commitment to principle.

In America I would vote Giuliani for reasons well canvassed on other threads, and in the absence of a "perfect" candidate. Here, the Nats are just as sickening as Labour. More so, given that they're supposed to know better. They are scum. They'll repeal the EFA? Yeah, right. Still, if Libz don't lift their game I might consider voting for the Nats in the party vote on the off-chance that they just *might* honour their promise, given how evil the EFA is. But I sure as hell wouldn't do it lightly, or without feeling covered in slime.

Edited to add—great post Craig! More like it!

Jameson, of course National

Craig Milmine's picture

Jameson, of course National won't be counting the votes they lose to Libz - because you keep giving them to National!

It has been made blatently clear here by others that National are supporting free speech in this instance because it suits them politically to do so. Like all of their policy decisions of late - they have been based on sticking their finger in the air and seeing which way the political wind is blowing. If the wind was blowing against free speech you can bet the National Party would be right there blowing away with it. They have done it on climate change, welfare reform, treaty issues and one law for all.

I have to ask why you don't give your vote to another party that voted against this bill. Why are you not supporting the Maori Party, ACT, United Future (after they too saw the political wind changing) Gordon Copeland's Future NZ? Some of them have a better track record on Free Speech than the National Party.

But if you are looking for the best track record on free speech - you cannot go past Libertarianz. We will remove all censorship, all restrictions on advertising and all government funded political speech. The only proviso being that actual crimes are not recorded and broadcasted (ie child porn and snuff movies). You certainly do not see the National Party moving to change any of that. Where is the National Party's call for the removal of government funding of all political parties? Where is their call for the removal of restrictions on any political broadcasting by a political party whatsoever - unless it is the money given to them by the electoral commission? There is none. Libertarianz have certainly been saying it for years. But our message does not get across because the people who say they support us (and free speech) then go and vote for one of the big parties because "they are going to get in." Well of course they get in - you keep voting for them! And we are stuck with National who say they support free speech - but actually have no idea what it is and will vote against it the first chance they get if they think they can get away with it.

Delusions of grandeur

Jameson's picture

I can tell you right now, Craig, National will not be calculating ways to recapture the 946 votes they lost to the Libz in 2005. They won't even be too concerned about the 14,210 they lost to the Destiny church, which only rated 0.62% of the party vote.

"... a vote for the lesser of two evils is still evil... the best thing about voting Libz is that you can say that you actually voted for something you believe in."

I believe in the right to speak above all other freedoms other than the right to breathe. Personally I'm voting in what could best be described as an emergency - for the preservation of my freedom to complain about my government - and on that criteria my vote will NOT count if I vote for the Libertarianz.

I don't mean to be cruel, Craig, I know you all have the best intentions, but we can't feed those intentions into the furnace, can we?

Mark

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Of course, down to Linz if he wants an influx of Libz here.

If only that were a danger! They're practically invisible on their own board, let alone here! Smiling

I wonder if it makes sense

Mark Hubbard's picture

I wonder if it makes sense to take the New Zealand specific political discussions to the Libertarianz site.

With work commitments at the moment I'm allowing myself time to track one forum, and this is it: so, I'd prefer Libz members simply partake in the political discussions here. So as not to mess about our other nation friends Smiling just head any relevant thread with a (NZ) prefix.

Also, I don't just want to know what these guys think politically, I can probably guess that, I'd be interested in knowing how they post to the gamut of topics that are discussed on SOLO.

Of course, down to Linz if he wants an influx of Libz here.

Good call Mark. I second that.

dinther's picture

I love to hear a lot more from you guys as Libertarianz members discuss the issues with you. We discuss a lot of politics here and I  recall seeing a post from Lindsay discussing the fact that Solo has a better on-line presence than the Libertarianz.

Libertarianz could be all over the political threads. I wonder if it makes sense to take the New Zealand specific political discussions to the Libertarianz site.

If a relationship can be build with Libertarianz members it will be much more likely that  I'd step up and lend a hand.

 

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

Craig

Mark Hubbard's picture

 

[Between yourself and Sally O'Brien who I see under 'Who's New', it's good to see Libz party representation on SOLO. Hope you guys stick around and debate/scratch/claw your way through all variety of threads so voters such as myself can get a chance to really assess the type of people we most probably will be voting for, given I've had no contact with the party up until now.]

Libertarianz deserve your vote.

Craig Milmine's picture

I would dearly love to see National fail to form a government in 2008 because of the votes that Libz took away from them. Anyone who really wants a change for freedom in NZ should be similarly delighted. The statists on both sides of the fence would then at least consider the consequences of any future legislation that restricts freedom.

I constantly get people saying that they support Libz but will not vote for them because they don't want to waste their vote. What they fail to realise is that a vote for the lesser of two evils is still evil.

The advantages of voting Libz - even under the full understanding that we will not get into parliament in 2008 are many:

Every vote we get sends a message to politicians that freedom matters. Politicians want to know how many votes we get when Libz make select committee submissions. The more votes we get, the more influence we have, and the higher the chance is that the current lot will listen.

The Values Party spent years out of parliament before they burst into power as the Green Party. That would never happen if their supporters kept voting for the lesser of two evils (according to their values).

The more votes we get in 2008, the less people are going to say "Libertarianz only got x votes last election, so I will not vote for them next time." Which is a stupid circular argument.

Libertarianz have some great people. I'm not sure who Dinther saw in Auckland, but the vast majority of Libz members I have met are sensible, lucid, engaging and most importantly - principled. What we do have a shortage of is people who have the time to get involved - and so it falls on a small group of people to get anything done. For instance, we are currently in need of a webmaster - and Dinther your profile suggests you would be very well qualified to help us out.

But the best thing about voting Libz is that you can say that you actually voted for something you believe in. It is a great feeling walking out of the polling booth having done that. It also means you have every right to complain about whatever evils the lesser of the two evils will eventually do.

Piss away...

Jameson's picture

Smiling

I'm voting on principle too: when there's a fire raging in the kitchen I'll reach for the extinguisher, not the vase with the pretty bunch of flowers in it.

  Seriously, if Don

Mark Hubbard's picture

 

Seriously, if Don Brash was still there, this would've been a harder decision. With Key, no contest. I'm voting principle.

Pissing in the wind seems to

Mark Hubbard's picture

Pissing in the wind seems to the order of the day.

Finger from mouth, in the air. Yes, from over there; turning ...

My mistake

Jameson's picture

I admit I came into this thread assuming a premise: that you thought Labour's law denying our free speech so disgusting that we should do everything in our power to have it dissolved.

Clearly I'm mistaken. Pissing in the wind seems to the order of the day. Smiling

As I see it, here are our realistic options for 2008:

1) Vote Libertarianz and risk handing Helen 3 years to embed the EFB, which will prevent you in 2011 from complaining about it and every new draconian act of self preservation they will devise - and rush through.

2) Vote National and improve the chances of having the EFB repealed, so that when the next election year rolls around you can actually have a say at all.

I get pressure around me all the time not to "waste" my vote

dinther's picture

But the nats simply did not deserve my support. When I judge a political party I look at both policies and the people who are supposed to implement them. If I find the people weak the policies are worthless.

Voting for Libertarianz based on policy is a no-brainer to me but I have little confidence in the people leading it. That clown that climbed the stage during the second Auckland EFB march was a disgrace and I understand he was a Libertarianz representative. Then again, chances are that the people behind the Libertarianz are not that relevant because of a low vote count. But if they could get a 3 or 4% support then that still sends a strong message. 

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

"If your main concern is the

Lance's picture

"If your main concern is the wretched EFB, then I'm afraid your call to "not waste your vote" simply doesn't add up."

Ahhh, what's that quote about checking your premises? The EFB is not my main concern. It's the culture that lead to it.

What I'm saying here is the EFB (A) was (is) disgusting and though National are the answer to it, provided John "I scratch my nose when I'm talking because it's itchy" Key keeps his promise, they are not the answer to the culture that gave birth to it.

Once more with feeling and in bold:
These are evil, evil, pricks. Suckers of Satan's cock, to invoke the late great Bill Hicks. Do not for one second think that they are any more conducive to liberty in New Zealand than Labour. They are exactly the same brand of evil fucks. If Labour are the type to launch a "dramatic assault" on liberty, then National are the type to give her a quiet back alley raping, then tell us that she was asking for it. Voting National just to dislodge Labour would be votes wasted.

There is one party and one party only that is conducive to liberty in New Zealand and that is the Libertarianz. Can we expect our votes to get them in in 2008? No, I don't expect it, but they deserve our support. They deserve as big a number as they can muster, if only to give them the will to carry on. The only vote wasted, would be any vote NOT given to the Libertarianz. Parties that get voted for get noticed.

Naive? Add to that: bloody minded, ambitious, determined, ruthless, unwavering, unflinching, passionate and furious.

Glenn

Mark Hubbard's picture

 

I've been voting tactically for something like twenty years and I have much less freedom now than when I stated, plus I've never paid so much tax as I'm currently paying year on year: so it's got me precisely nowhere.

I'm sick of it, so I'm just going to vote on principle from now on and at least not feel dirty when I leave the polling booth: I'm voting Libertarianz.

 

Wasted vote

Jameson's picture

The Libz - Galt bless 'em - got 946 votes in the last election. That's a chasmic 4.96% short of the 5% threshold, and about 113,000 votes shy of getting representation in parliament.

If your main concern is the wretched EFB, then I'm afraid your call to "not waste your vote" simply doesn't add up. What you're essentially saying here is, "The EFB is disgusting, vote Libertarianz!" - which seems rather naive.

Rather than answer that

Lance's picture

Rather than answer that loaded question let me put it thusly:

Libertarianz are not a force to be reckoned with yet because they don't have a big enough voter base. Voting for them for their promises of repeal over Key who is in a position to repeal is not the point. The point is I won't be waiting like a goddamn scared sheep to vote for them until they do. Damned if I'll rely on others to lay that foundation.

I could not in good conscience bemoan the state of New Zealand and not vote Libertarianz.

What happens in 2011? Labour gets some ground back, and we have to vote Nats again to keep them out? In 2014 the Libz disband in disgust due to apathy? Or they start doing an ACT act to get more mainstream votes?

No! The Libz have it right, it is the mainstream that has it wrong. New Zealand needs a massive cultural and philosophical revolution. To do that you have to set your teeth, draw a line in the sand and say "No further, these are our demands, these are our principles and we will fight for them unwaveringly and unflinchingly". What hope if every time the bogeyman spectre of Labour raises it's head we go running back to National?

I'm not yet so scared of Labour and their policies that I'll hide behind the skirts of National. Bring it on!

You'd rather Helen Clark got a fourth term

Jameson's picture

... than John Key get his first - and repeal this bestial law?

John "I scratch my nose when

Lance's picture

John "I scratch my nose when I speak 'cos it's itchy" Key: "Madam Speaker, let me say this: we will repeal this law!"

Libertarianz: "All laws against victimless 'crimes' involving consenting adults will be repealed,"

"A Libertarianz government will abolish all duties, tariffs, taxes and levies - except income tax. As a transitional measure this will be set at 15% - with an income threshold before payment of $10,000 - until being abolished in the shortest possible time consistent with debt obligations and transitional arrangements for ending the welfare state."

"Libertarianz will repeal the fascistic Resource Management Act,"

Shadbolt is temporarily off

Lance's picture

Shadbolt is temporarily off my shit-list, for now. As were National, I didn't once call them Labour-Lite or refer to them as Natscum throughout the anti-EFB campaign. But now that's over it's back to business.

The problem with the "we must vote National to dislodge Labour" is that we are then "settling" for National; a barely more palatable alternative. We then strike the problem that to prevent Labour coming back to power, we "must" vote National again. It's Tweedledum and Tweedledipshit, and it frustrates me that people see a need to support one over the other.

National might be more amenable to RMA reform, but would invariably cock it up and make it worse. They are not amenable to adding Property Rights protection under the Bill of Rights. They are not amenable to entrenching the Bill of Rights. They are amenable to tax cuts, but anything significant is offset by regulatory measures taken to prevent the economy from derailing because the stupid pricks try to cut more tax than they spend. They are enamoured with the emissions reduction nonsense, which even if you buy the AGW line, is a costly, empty gesture that wouldn't even solve the problem if it existed.

No, any vote given by any Objectivist or liberty lover to any party other than Libertarianz, is a vote wasted. Staving off the worst excesses of Labour's statism by voting in National's spineless, centrist muck.

Freedom of Speech

Jameson's picture

John Key: "Madam Speaker, let me say this: we will repeal this law!"

[click to play]

Libertarianz

sallyo's picture

Thankyou for reminding SOLOists that there is only one party in NZ for individual liberty. Libertarianz principles and policies are consistant with Objectivist politics.

However Libertarianz needs more than your vote. We need more good activists; we need SOLOists to get involved with the party.

On the party's discussion list, the libertyloop, we have been discussing our performance  as compared with SOLO in working to raise our profile. Linz asked "Why the hell else do you think SOLO's been creaming Libz?" We were told that "The point about "creaming" is not that SOLO is trying to outdo Libz.  SOLO just does its thing. In the process, as it happens, Libz have been left in the dust. Now, that shouldn't be happening."

My response:

I agree that this shouldn't be happening. SOLO has cranked up it's
political commentry lately while The Libz, as always, need all the help
they can get.

I have no problem with you using the loop to pull people up for a lack of
passion and I have no problem with you pointing out the value of valid
philosophical arguement to be able to substantiate the case for our policies. It is important to have such comment on the Libertyloop.

At the same time though, we need more active spokesmen and candidates, we
need more active regional co-ordinators and we need more inventive protest style activists and letter writers and talkback callers and columnests etc. etc. Don't you think that some SOLO talent could be of value within the party? Don't you think we would welcome more representatives especially of the passionate Objectivist variety who can help us be all over issues as you put it?

To all freedom lovers, people who don't at least make some small effort to help
raise The Libz profile in this election year can partly blame themselves if we have a
pathetic campaign. It's up to all of us. Enjoy your holiday season then please come back and put you hand up, there is much to do.

 

 

   

   

   


 

 


 

 

 

 


__,_._,___

 

 

 

 

Good post Lance. And I'd

Mark Hubbard's picture

Good post Lance. And I'd also like to say, although he belongs to the Compulsion Touters at ACT, good on John Boscawen, who, according to his radio interview with Leighton Smith this morning, is now going to take ten (further) months out of his business activities, and by the look of it, spend an awful lot of money protesting against the EFA, enough to keep it in the public eye, right up until the election.

I respect such a strong stand being taken on the principle of free speech. Good on John and more power to him.

(Although as for Shadbolt's high-jinks I am not so sure. For all the wrong reasons, and it's only like meets like over a difference of opinion, as opposed to principle. Or do I do him an injustice?)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.