Act Party Fails to Increase Off-License Purchase Age

Stephen Berry's picture
Submitted by Stephen Berry on Thu, 2012-08-30 09:28

There is good reason for the advocates of individual liberty to be rejoicing tonight, as the alcohol purchase age stays at 18 for both on and off license purchases. I was considerably nervous bout the prospects of keeping the status quo as public opinion and the media are clearly overwhelmingly in favour of an increase back to 20. So as well as rejoicing in the vote I am also relieved.

John Banks, Leader of the Act Party, has failed in his attempt to reduce individual freedom by voting to increase the off-license alcohol purchase age. Yes, the sole MP of a party which claims to stand for liberalism and freedom cast a vote in favour of reducing individual freedom. Then, when that vote failed, he voted to keep the purchase age 18. What choice did he have? His party’s youth wing had threatened to walk, but Banks doesn’t believe in individual liberty. He even had the cheek to vote for as much of a decrease in freedom as he thought he could get away with. So the Act membership must be pissed right?

Actually no. Right now, many of them are patting themselves on the back because Act helped to achieve keeping the purchase age 18. What the fuck? The age stayed at 18 despite the Act party, not because of it. What would they be saying right now if the split purchase age, which their leader actually preferred was passed? I don’t know to be honest, because it appears that many of them will grasp onto whatever pitiful excuse they can to stick with the sinking ship! The leader of the Act party voted to increase the off-license alcohol purchase age and those in Act who threatened to walk are now sticking by him because he failed and then voted to keep the age 18.

Now I’ve had my time as a quantum leap libertarian advocating a jump to minarchy within 10 years. It was incredibly unsuccessful. I accept being pragmatic and principled as seeking to achieve smaller government in bite size chunks. A lot of people in Act support the same approach but they delude themselves that this is what they are getting with a Banks-led Act party. They are not. All the Act party has achieved is the establishment of charter schools, which is the spending of taxpayer dollars on something other than state schools, as well as a meaningless pledge to cap Government spending increases with enough provisos to be worthless. The recognition of the right of homosexuals to marry is not an Act initiative and their leader took a lot of threats and convincing not to vote 20/20 on the alcohol purchase age. Nothing has even been achieved in this vote – it is just one of those rare occasions where the state hasn’t got larger.

The real option for the liberals in Act to achieve something in 2014 is to jump ship now, while there is still time to organise a liberal alternative prior to the 2014 election. When you’re threatening and blackmailing your leader to stop him from increasing state control over the lives of individuals, you’re in the wrong political party. When you consider your party leader’s failed vote to decrease liberty an achievement, you’re deluded. If the Act liberals don’t jump ship now, they’ll be dragged into the 2014 election swallowing their own bile, campaigning to elect a man who despises what they value in the hope a John Key led Government will chuck them a couple of crumbs.

Courage, clarity and conviction is the answer for true liberals. A new political party that takes a pragmatic approach to advocate for more freedom and less government is the right path. The opportunity to be part of this new party is just weeks away…

http://www.libertarianz.org.nz...

LIBERATE NZ!
http://liberatenz.wordpress.com


Oh, Richard...

Ross Elliot's picture

...what a little scamp you are. So precocious.

Refer to the millions of words that have been written as to the immorality of regarding the individual as a means to an end. As grist for the mill.

Ross

Richard Goode's picture

Oh, Richard...

"Socialism is wrong merely for its reliance on compulsion."

...is that why it's wrong? Here was I thinking it had to do with all sorts of philosophical reasons, but I learn it's simply that one is compelled.

You're compelled to undergo a search if there is cause for the search. Is that wrong? You're compelled to attend a court if you have been charged with a crime. Is that wrong?

It's not the compulsion itself that defines illegitimacy, it's the *reason* for the compulsion that defines its illegitimacy. The difference is not subtle.

What is the reason for socialism that defines its illegitimacy?

Ross

Richard Goode's picture

Thanks for the clarification.

Are you suggesting no compulsion is proper if an individual is charged with such crimes? Arrest not proper? Custody not proper? Incarceration not proper if found guilty?

No.

You need this clarified, Richard?

Ross Elliot's picture

"The point is, that compulsion, per se, is not any reason to deny the legitimacy of a state act. It's the basis for the compulsion that matters. To suggest there are no reasons for compulsion per se, is to advocate anarchy."

Murder, rape, theft. The state compels individuals to answer for those types of crimes upon the presentation of reasonable evidence.

Are you suggesting no compulsion is proper if an individual is charged with such crimes? Arrest not proper? Custody not proper? Incarceration not proper if found guilty?

"Ross seems to think that socialism is fine and dandy if you do it for the right reason."

What an outrageous supposition. How wholly bereft you are if you conflate theft and murder by the state with the same by one individual against another.

Ross

Richard Goode's picture

...head back up ass for you.

Please clarify.

Nice, Richard...

Ross Elliot's picture

...head back up ass for you.

back on topic

Damien Grant's picture

If those with libertarian spirit did join National they would shape the party in the same way the Tea Party shaped the Republicans and unions the Labour Party here.

There would be no need to constrain or self-censure thinking or thought, National is unlikely to expel people for being too right-wing. I expect they are desperate for live bodies.

If a fringe group espouses libertarian thought it is too hard for most people to absorb, but if the same thing is said by what they perceive to be a mainstream party the ideology is listened to and accepted much easier.

Libertarians should be a faction of National, with members in parliament and a seat at the table. Leave the middle ground to Peter Dunne.

Evasion

Richard Goode's picture

Run away is the new blank out.

Stephen

Richard Goode's picture

How the hell did this turn into a rape topic?

Because I likened socialism to rape.

Ross seems to think that socialism is fine and dandy if you do it for the right reason.

How the hell did this turn

Stephen Berry's picture

How the hell did this turn into a rape topic?

Ross

Richard Goode's picture

When you said

It's not the compulsion itself that defines illegitimacy, it's the *reason* for the compulsion that defines its illegitimacy.

were you talking about acts of compulsion in general, or only acts of compulsion by governments, or just socialism?

Ok, Richard...

Ross Elliot's picture

...you win.

I can't answer a nonsensical question.

May God's love be upon you.

Ross

Richard Goode's picture

You said

It's not the compulsion itself that defines illegitimacy, it's the *reason* for the compulsion that defines its illegitimacy.

I asked

what is the *reason* for committing rape that defines its illegitimacy?

Blank out.

No, Richard...

Ross Elliot's picture

"what is the *reason* for committing rape that defines its illegitimacy?"

A stupider, more incoherent excuse for a question, I cannot imagine.

...again, are there legitimate reasons to compel individuals?

So, Ross ...

Richard Goode's picture

It's not the compulsion itself that defines illegitimacy, it's the *reason* for the compulsion that defines its illegitimacy.

...there are no legitimate reasons to commit rape.

... what is the *reason* for committing rape that defines its illegitimacy?

Are there legitimate reasons to compel individuals, Richard?

You tell me, Ross, you're the one who voted for the National socialists.

No, Richard...

Ross Elliot's picture

...there are no legitimate reasons to commit rape.

But there are to *compel* those accused of rape, upon reasonable evidence, to answer.

The point is, that compulsion, per se, is not any reason to deny the legitimacy of a state act. It's the basis for the compulsion that matters. To suggest there are no reasons for compulsion per se, is to advocate anarchy.

Are there legitimate reasons to compel individuals, Richard?

Ross

Richard Goode's picture

It's not the compulsion itself that defines illegitimacy, it's the *reason* for the compulsion that defines its illegitimacy.

Are there legitimate reasons to commit rape?

Are there legitimate reasons to commit state rape?

Oh, Richard...

Ross Elliot's picture

"Socialism is wrong merely for its reliance on compulsion."

...is that why it's wrong? Here was I thinking it had to do with all sorts of philosophical reasons, but I learn it's simply that one is compelled.

You're compelled to undergo a search if there is cause for the search. Is that wrong? You're compelled to attend a court if you have been charged with a crime. Is that wrong?

It's not the compulsion itself that defines illegitimacy, it's the *reason* for the compulsion that defines its illegitimacy. The difference is not subtle.

do you mean legitimate rape?

Damien Grant's picture

compulsion is the difference between them, if you take compulsion out of rape it is not rape, it is something else.

Compulsion is the bedrock of many form of economics, not merely socialism, and yes, I am willing to trade some liberty for performance, just a lot less than most people but a little more than folks here.

A puzzle

Leonid's picture

It always was a puzzle to me. How come that in many countries the voting age is 18, but drinking age is 21? How it makes sense that people can choose a government before they can choose to drink? Eventually I understood the reason beyond this legislation. It gives to the people at least 3 years of the sober look on their governments.

Damien

Richard Goode's picture

but it would not be rape otherwise?

True. And, without compulsion, socialism would not be socialism.

Is it your view that the essential difference between consensual sex and rape, viz. the element of compulsion, is not what makes the latter wrong?

(Are you willing to trade some sexual non-performance for liberty?!)

socialism

Damien Grant's picture

I support libertarian ideas not merely because of the lack of compulsion but also because it is better economically. I am wiling to trade some economic non-performance for liberty but there is a limit. At some point I would sacrifice liberty for economic results.

I am impure and unclean.

but...

Damien Grant's picture

it would not be rape otherwise?

Damien

Richard Goode's picture

Rape is wrong merely for its reliance on compulsion.

your view Richard

Damien Grant's picture

not mine.

Damien

Richard Goode's picture

Socialism is wrong not merely for its reliance on compulsion but also for its perverse economic outcomes.

Socialism is wrong merely for its reliance on compulsion.

old goal

Damien Grant's picture

I agree with you here, that Douglas etc concluded that the best way to help the poor and achieve "social justice" (I never really understood what that means) was by undoing the unnecessary infrastructure of the state.

This is a good thing though. If the poor could be made to understand that a social welfare state actually reduces their real income and damns their children to poverty then the road to a free society would be easier.

Socialism is wrong not merely for its reliance on compulsion but also for its perverse economic outcomes.

No...

Ross Elliot's picture

"I am unsure if Douglas, Prebble etc were economic liberals until 1984. I get the impression that reality forced it on them and then they became believers."

...they were never economic liberals. They were early converts to the Third Way.

They still believed in the holy leftist agenda of social justice, but they found a new path to it.

I'll be the first to applaud the reforms of the 80s, because they breathed life back into our economy and saved us from banana republic status. But is was liberalism in the pursuit of the old goal. It was the idea that if you treat the slaves nicely, they will work harder.

I was a child...

Marcus's picture

...but I have a good memory of what was repeated from adults in the primary school playground.

I often went with my father (at behest of the Lower Hutt Rotary Club) to the annual Garden Party at Vogel House.

It was always a great let-down in terms of the hype they gave it.

I'm sure such a "Government" residence would be laughed out of Whitehall.

i do

Damien Grant's picture

but you seem too young to have been a part of that era Marcus.

Vogel house?

Marcus's picture

House of birds?

Remember the '70s.

There was an obsession with pigs then.

The police were referred to by nearly everyone as "the pigs".

Robert Muldoon was called "Piggy" Muldoon.

There was a running joke about putting a pig in a beehive being crazy.

There was another joke about confusing a pig in a round beehive by telling them to go piss in the corner.

Ah, total disrespect for authority. Whatever happened to it?

No eyed deer

Damien Grant's picture

I am unsure if Douglas, Prebble etc were economic liberals until 1984. I get the impression that reality forced it on them and then they became believers.

A bit like Clinton when he took over, become a Greenspan convert; the left often produces bright men of courage.

Anyway, I point to Dr Brash. He nearly took Vogel house with National and could not get 1% leading Act.

Inertia matters. Why fight it?

Has anyone changed the system...

Marcus's picture

...from within?

Well, there have been reformers for sure. Some bigger, some smaller.

Roger Douglas, Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher.

However they were dedicated and loyal to their parties (at least until they left).

They spent their youth inside the party tent and their urge for reform was a desire to improve and strengthen it, rather than undermine it.

So, it has never really worked Damien.

Pragmatism just looks good on paper.

The ACT Party

Richard Goode's picture

Rearranging barnacle-encrusted deckchairs on the Titanic.

Damien

Richard Goode's picture

Join National.

Infiltrate National.

well

Damien Grant's picture

the issue I think was an implication that I had a lack of principles more than being pragmatic, but perhaps I am simply touchy.

I seem to be always in trouble in Solo, which may make me a little defensive.

Damien...

Marcus's picture

...I seem to remember you getting all touchy when I called you a pragmatist.

What now?

simple

Damien Grant's picture

Join National.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_tendency

When torrential water tosses boulders, it is because of its momentum. (The Art of War)

Comment viewing options

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