I like Rodney's speech. When you think about it, it is even more important that government delivers than private business. After all you can use your feet in the private sector. Not with government.
If they can't deliver on the quality and quantity of services they promise then we have a right to be told. I'm not big on 'rights' but this one is indisputable.
10 comments:
It is a good speech. The five core principles are admirable. Especially so because they include no hint of the hawkish neo-con positions which ACT has adopted in recent years, and which are still promoted with much enthusiasm by Trevor Loudon. An ACT which abandoned the oxymoronic concept of a small state with the will and muscle to engage in intervention into the affairs of other states would be worthy of enthusiastic support.
Dave
Louden is a neocon?
What neo-con positions do I promote Dave?
It doesn’t matter what I call you or what you call yourself Trevor.
There are three broad categories of excuses for denying individual freedom of choice: 1. People are selfish and don’t consider consequences, so they will harm themselves and others unless they are forced to make selfless decisions for the greater good. 2. People are weak and are inclined towards debasement and depravity unless they are forced to maintain standards. 3. People are complaisant, and will be overrun by barbarian hoards unless they are forced to treat those hoards as ‘the enemy’.
Everyone who uses any combination of these excuses will also claim to favour liberty. I’m sure that you also must often be disappointed to hear the word used to mean its antithesis: People can’t be free is they are poor, so liberty is promoted by forcing people to pay redistributive taxes; People can’t be free if they are slaves to their desires, so liberty is served by passing laws banning sex, drugs, & rock & roll; People can’t be free if bad people impose their will upon them, so liberty is maintained by passing laws which prevent people from weakening the state or assisting or promoting the ideas of those whom the state labels as it’s enemies.
Two out of three ain’t bad – but it ain’t good enough either.
Neo-cons have seen the heart of the beast and returned to tell the tale that it should be slain (like refomed nicotene addicts, they want to lead the charge against that which they foolishly embraced). Freedom-lovers oppose this for the same reason they oppose global approaches to climate change: The ‘cure’ will be many times worse than the disease (whether there really is one or not) and will certainly involve dramatic curtailment of individual liberty.
I will happily call you a freedom lover too if you say that you wouldn’t seek to prevent me from selling Uranium to Iran or North Korea should I be able and willing to do so. After all, I support your freedom to choose, so why can’t you support mine?
Dave
ACT has been a bit too hawkish for my likihng in the past -- something I have urged Rodney to abandon. I don't have a problem with NZ making sure it is capable of protecting itself but I do have problems in supporting US foreign policy -- which is a disaster. Free trade and peaceful relations with all as Washington suggested is about the best we can hope for.
Sloppy logic Dave. Should I have the freedom to pay someone to shoot you, smash up your house or crash your website?
Why should you be allowed to aid the enemies of a country reside in-or that country's allies for that matter?
Being allowed to aid your country's enemies isn't libertarian, it's treason.
Lindsay might not appreciate us re-hashing an old issue here.
Come over to my blog if you like.
Yep, I vote he's a neo-con. I wasn't sure until he posted is response here but that was sufficient for me. Free trade is individuals trading with whomever they wish. Now that may mean people Loudon thinks are his enemies. They may be even enemies of my government. Who is "the nation"? Is it the same collective used by the Left to support socialism except they call it "society"?
Seems to me that Loudon is saying that it is permissible to strip away freedom from individuals to trade because of it is not in "the nation's" interest. Socialist say the same thing.
Anon-you break my heart.
My definition of libertarian-one who believes that the state should be confined to protecting its citizens from force and/or fraud.
If an individual threatens his fellow citizen's by supporting or aiding the enemy, the state has an obligation to to stop him.
If you think the state has no such obligation, you're not a libertarian-you're probably an anarchist.
You're definitely a dreamer.
Free trade is trade free of government interference. In Loudon's distorted libertarian world (he never was a libertarian) it means the right to trade with people he thinks you should have the right to trade with. Rubbish. He's a collectivist. His argument is the same rubbish we heard from the Left about trading with South Africa. And the more he spouts off the more he proves the accusation he is denying.
Simple question anon-would you sell someone a gun, knowing he was going to use it to murder your neighbour?
If you would, you're an accessory to murder.
If you wouldn't you've got no right to complain about government's banning trade with enemy nations.
Another example-would it be morally right for the NZ government to ban trade trade with Japan during WW2?
If not, why not?
If so, where's your consistency?
Post a Comment