• How the welfare state expands and endures

On the first of October this year the elderly were given “free” public transport throughout New Zealand¹. Winston Peters used this as an election bribe in 2005 and Labour needed his support to stay in power so Peters was able to deliver on his promise (at the taxpayers’ expense, naturally). Thus the welfare state expanded.

No politician will take way “free” public transport for the elderly, because to do so would be political suicide: thus the welfare state endures.

There was another interesting effect arising from the giving of “free” public transport: Grey Power complained that the West Coast of the South Island had no public transport at all², and that it wasn’t fair that other people got “free” public transport whilst those on the West Coast – who pay the same taxes – got nothing. This is not an unreasonable complaint, but it does show one of the fallacies inherent in a welfare state.

The welfare state is is supposedly all about fairness and equality – Socialist/Marxist concepts – but it can never deliver those things. Public transport is a perfect illustration of this: everyone pays the same taxes, but those in rural areas do not receive the same level of service as those in the cities. Thus people in rural areas suffer unfairness in two ways; they don’t receive the same return on their tax dollars, and they don’t have the same level of public transport as city folk do.

There are three morals to this story:

1) the welfare state almost always expands (at the taxpayers’ expense), but very rarely shrinks.

2) Socialism/Marxism claims to cure inequality but in attempting to do so creates new inequalities.

3) life isn’t fair, and forcibly taking money from one person and giving to another will never alter that.

**********

1. by a strange coincidence this “free” public transport was made available five weeks before an election. The fact that Labour did not acknowledge Peters’ role in this was indicative of the rift between them.

2. apart from long distance buses, which are unsubsidised and not part of the welfare scheme

My comment on winstonpeters.com

Peters is splitting hairs about the difference between travelling in a helicopter and campaigning in a helicopter. I have submitted a comment on this page of Peters’ blog, so let’s see if it makes it through moderation. My comment was as follows:

With all due respect Mr Peters, you are dodging the issue again: the issue is whether or not the use of a helicopter was provided by the Vela brothers to you as a means of paying you for your political support.

I will be posting a copy of this comment on my blog and on Kiwiblog along with a link to this page, so that if you do not publish this comment before 7:30pm on 4-11-08 (24 hours is plenty of time for moderation) people will know that you only allow sycophants to post on your blog and that you do not welcome people comments from people who question your statements.

Update: My comment was not published and later positive comments have been published – now there’s a surprise. Peters is within his rights here because it is his blog, but is is consistent with a pattern of him ignoring critics and vilifying those critics. A good politician (pardon the oxymoron) would publish the comments of his critics and respond to them in a sane and civilised manner. Peters is obviously unable or unwilling to do this.

I find the comments on his blog suspicious: too many of them gush in a similar voice and give the impression that one author is writing under various pseudonyms. In comparison, comments on other blogs normally have a distinctly different voice for nearly every comment. Mind you, when a Party is on the lunatic fringe of politics it has to drum up support in any way it can.

• Anti-gang laws are contrary to natural justice and a violation of civil liberties

Wanganui District Council is trying to push through a law forbidding the wearing of gang patches and tattoos, and this is now a step closer to coming into force. Gang members are usually sociopathic thugs (like many politicians*), but that does not alter the transcendent issues here. What are the transcendent issues?

1) simply wearing gang insignia is not a crime against property or person. The classical libertarian definition of a crime is thus: It is illicit to initiate or threaten invasive violence against a man or his legitimately owned property. As you read on you will see that we already have laws covering the threatening part, which is what this law is attempting to address.

2) this simply won’t work: the best way to deal with gangs is to legalise drugs

3) the police agree with me, saying that it won’t work and it will put the police in danger

4) like the Electoral Finance Act, this is yet another law that breaches the Bill of rights. The Mayor of Wanganui said:

One obstacle to the bill is that it technically breaches the Bill of Rights but Mr Laws said Parliament should put this to one side for the “greater good” of Wanganui.

There is a repeated pattern of the laws of NZ being put aside when they are inconvenient. Here Helen Clark leads by example.

5) there is another repeated pattern in NZ law, which is adding additional regulations to cover something that is already illegal. Liquor bans are a good example of this: we already have laws covering drunk-and-disorderly offences, but liquor bans are added to that, killing the civil liberties of the law abiding citizens who want to have a glass of wine at the beach and watch the sun go down.

There are already plenty of laws covering intimidation by gang members, and here is just one example:

Section 9 of the Summary Offences Act says:

Common assault
Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding $4,000 who assaults any other person.

The definition of assault is:

Assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning [emphasis added]

So, we have a law with a very broad definition of assault that includes threatening behaviour, but instead of using that they want to add another illegal law that breaches the Bill of Rights.

6) the law will cover tattoos. So will the gang members start wearing balaclavas to cover their facial tattoos? Will balaclavas then be made illegal in Wanganui?

7) the law will allow the seizure of tattoos that are gang insignia. Yes, the State can now strap you down and take away your tattoos. This is like a nightmarish science fiction movie come true.

8.) this opens the way for the State to outlaw other groups and insignia that it finds inconvenient. Many Christians are opposed to the anti-smacking law, and if they get too obstreperous will the wearing of crosses be made illegal?

This law is an example of the despotic Police State gone mad and should be opposed by all those who value personal freedoms and common sense.

**********

* here’s ten candidates for the diagnosis of “Highly Paid Sociopathic Thug”:

• Helen Clark, a.k.a the White Witch
• Winston Peters
• Sue Bradford
• Michael Cullen
• George W. Bush
• Barack Obama
• Vladimir Putin
• Joseph Stalin
• Mao Zedong
• Pol Pot

Helen will be pleased to know that she has the international status that she so desperately wants.

Even Helen Clark’s photographer can’t tell the truth

In an earlier post I showed how Helen Clark’s official photo from the 2005 campaign compared with the real thing.

Now, the NZ Herald has published two sycophantic articles (click here and here) covering Helen’s campaign launch.

One article says in part:

Photographer Monty Adams took the campaign shot and was adamant that the touch-ups were “minimal”.

“There was such a hoo-ha about her last photo, which was hardly touched up at all.”

Rather it was the use of “very, very soft light”.

“Everyone looks great under it. That’s the light I use for older women these days, my Joan Collins light.”

Adams has been photographing the Prime Minister for a number of years and said she was a good subject.

“Obviously we put a lot more make-up on her than she usually wears.”

Adams said the most post-production work was done whitening Clark’s eyes. “The wrinkles are still there,” he said.

I’m a photographer and that isn’t “minimal” touching up, that’s digital surgery. The teeth for pity’s sake, look at the teeth. As for “the most post-production work was done whitening Clark’s eyes”, that ranks alongside Winstons “NO” sign and Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”.

The woman who fraudulently signed a painting had the utter audacity and arrogance to launch her campaign with a trust message, yet we can’t even trust her photographer. Birds of a feather flock together.

Election on 8 November

November 8 is excellent – all the citizens will be armed with explosives. This is an opportunity for another Gunpowder Plot, lets make the most of it before the Fun Police make fireworks illegal.

The evidence for the prosecution

* Labour stole $800,000 at the last election, then made it legal

* Labour removed access to the privy council, effectively bringing justice under the control of the PM

* Labour removed knighthoods without public consultation or mandate

* the PM now appoints the Police Commissioner

* Labour stifled free speech with the EFA

* Labour bought in the ETS, which will cost each home thousands per year

* Labour invaded homes and made smacking illegal

* Labour is putting off the referendum on the anti-smacking bill

* The Minister of Arts, Culture & Heritage fraudulently signed a painting

* Labour removed the double jeopardy rule

* Labour ran huge surpluses, then bought in tax cuts just before an election

* Labour says that if the naughty children continue to misbehave they’ll make fireworks illegal (I’ll bet Labour will shut up this Guy Fawkes, just before the election)

* Helen refuses to put a bullet in the head of her lapdog Winston because she needs his paw print on a Money Supply Bill

* all bar one of the misbehaving Labour MPs, including Helen, has been ignored by the police

* this is not a complete list

The evidence for the defence

“My actions are entirely reasonable for a dictator who has the best interests of the country at heart”

**********

See also my posts here and here