Monday, July 02, 2007
Again - ACT philosophy is not right-wing
For the record I don't mind ACT supporting Labour IF the support is based on classical liberal principles ie less state and greater individual power. I hate ACT being described as right wing - here and here. I grew up in a Labour household and voted Labour before I voted Libertarianz and then ACT. I was pleased and appreciative of my ranking on ACT's list in 2005. It wasn't right-wing conservative ideas that got me there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Lindsay, I was shocked to hear that Rodney was throwing his weight behind the Therapeutics & Meds Bill, and said as much on ZB this morning.
Regulation isn't liberal.
Hes not supporting it all the way, but he does have input on it.
The regulation is going to pass regardless, better to reduce teh damage that it does than to oppose it without having any real effect.
Libertarians are against force and fraud. If the regulation helps to prevent fraud it (such as through quackery) then it is very libertarian.
It really depends on whether a difference can be made to it or not.
But if this is the tradeoff to get the Regulatory Responsibility Bill in, then its worth it.
I love it how all the people seem to think that everything labour does is evil, regardless. They should be looking at each policy on a case by case basis.
Supporting the Nats can be anti liberal as well (you've only gotta look at the party pills issue).
ACT (and the libs) should be supporting any party, regardless of where they fall, whenever the agenda of liberty can be pushed forward.
Sus, I'm not too thrilled either but am waiting to see exactly what he is supporting. I'm just arguing for the idea of supporting either party.
Mikee, the argument you are putting is similar to National's when it supported the anti-smacking legislation. Is it going to pass anyway?
When the end is more liberty there are often justifiable but conflicting ways of achieving it. Ultimately we individually make up our own minds what's warranted.
Unfortunately its the old issue of trade offs.There will have to be some and its better to get a better outcome for freedom than was originally on offer than sit on the sidelines and get nothing.
ACT may well be able to limit the damage to liberty this bill may do and that will be better than doomed flag waving which is the only real other option available.Its reality as we have it...A=A.
Mikee, your third paragraph is a contradiction in terms. The first sentence is correct; the second simply doesn't make sense.
If someone's stupid enough to fall for quackery, it's their fault. If nothing else, they won't do it again in a hurry.
But don't presume to regulate "for my sake" thanks. That's decidedly unlibertarian.
James, you seem to be supporting our old friend 'compromise', or am I reading you wrongly?
To compromise one's principles is unforgivable IMO. I'm still disgusted with John Key's eleventh hour support of the anti-smacking bill. I believe it's only a mark of how unpopular Clark & co are that he continues to lead in the polls.
He certainly lost his shine with a lot of Nats over that.
I've long admired Rodney's pro-liberty stance in the face of all that Beehive statism. I'd be disappointed if he reneged.
You can keep your pragmatism. I suspect Neville Chamberlain thought he was being nothing if not pragmatic that day in Munich.
"James, you seem to be supporting our old friend 'compromise', or am I reading you wrongly?
I used to be a Libz fanatic too Sus and it gets you no where.Its not compromise rather than clawing back some positives from the jaws of negativity, an acknowledgement of facts and reality as it stands.If ACT do nothing the bill is passed in a worse form than otherwise was possible if they do do something...we are not living in a perfect world ....respect the reality we find ourselves in.If ACT starts supporting overtly liberty stripping positions then I and many others will be screaming long and loud don't you worry.
Libz once opposed the NZ on Air tax and it wound up just being hidden in the consolidated fund but that didn't stop Libz from claiming it as a principled victory...which it was but still far from a perfect outcome..
Lindsay, you know at Libz we'll welcome you with open arms :-)
I'm afraid ACT's support of the Therapeutics & Meds Bill, no matter its form or the Party's motives, will mean they never see my vote again. To encourage in any manner is an outrage.
I'm appalled.
Obviously at some very basic level, Rodney does not understand the concept of choice and individual freedom.
Mark Hubbard
There have been sadly missed opportunities in the past for ACT-Labour cooperation: CUB, prostitution reform. This seems like a very strange place to start, but I guess we shouldn't rush to judgement until we see the outcome.
Dave Christian
This idea that the Libz are these highly principled lot (all though highly obnoxious in the process) is not quite true. They argued that they had to that thousands in campaign funds for radio ads because the government wouldn't let them use their own money for ads. Except they didn't have any of their own to use. They could have taken the money from the state, raised their own and then given back to the state what they raised. In other words let the state pay the ad and them repay the state back with donations. But they preferred to have state funding to principles. Funny how that works.
And then there was the birthday bash for their guru and prophet held in parliament. Was this because of some regulation that made it illegal to have birthday parties for rude SOBs in private facilities? Principles! Right.
Post a Comment