Julian Pistorius - Old Site

(Taken from the latest Libertarianz members newsletter)

By Bernard Darnton

What sort of country do you want to live in? Every action you take, everyday, helps determine what sort of country you live in. On election day you get to make a public statement about what you'd like this country to be like. Do you want to live in a country where an exclusive cadre of politicians tells you how to live or a country where people are free to choose and pursue their own goals? A country where the government mismanages half the economy or a country where hard work and entrepreneurialism make a difference?

Since you're reading this, I'll assume the latter.

If you want to be free to choose and pursue your own goals and live in a country where hard work and entrepreneurialism make a difference, you have to vote as if you mean it. Only one party in this country consistently stands up for small government, for free speech, and for free markets and that's Libertarianz.

If you believe in those things then you must vote Libertarianz. Most parties actively oppose these ideas but even those that sometimes pay lip-service to freedom are not worth your vote. They water down liberty to the point where it is unrecognisable mush.

In 2005, a number of people came up to me before the election and said that they'd like to vote Libertarianz but that the chance of getting rid of the Clark administration was too good and so they'd be voting for Don Brash's National party. That excuse no longer exists.

Today's National Party is a perfect example of unrecognisable mush. National under John Key is devoid of ideas. Even if they do have ideas, they've kept them well hidden so as not to frighten the horses, preferring to parrot their opponents. Voting for National is an own goal in the contest of ideas.

Act still lives under Roger Douglas' shadow. In 1984, Douglas underwent a Damascene conversion to free marketeer. He zealously decided that the free market's results were so good that they should be compulsory, rather missing the point. Believing in freedom and voting for Act is delusional.

For politicians, the holy grail is "the mandate". By voting for a party that treats politics as a game with us as the pawns you're providing that mandate; you're providing your permission for every oppressive, expensive, and ill-thoughtout scheme their "strategists" might dream up.

Voting for change but getting all the same policies back is a wasted vote. Voting for the lesser of two evils and hoping that you don't get the evil you deserve is a wasted vote. Voting for compulsion-touters in the hope of gaining freedom is a wasted vote.

Only voting for a party that stands for what you believe in and that is willing to promote those ideas honestly and openly gives your vote any value. Only voting for Libertarianz tells those in power that freedom actually matters to you. Vote like you mean it.

The Viscount Monckton takes on McCain over for his global warming policy, and in the process clearly explains why the global warming panic is irrational:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html

From the article:

The "climate problem" is in truth a non-problem: and the correct policy for addressing a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

This is a bloody brilliant article! Do read it.

Found on Not PC.

(Hmm... Would the title of this blog post qualify as a slogan? Damnit! :)

Here's a question I've been pondering tonight: How devoid of morals, and ignorant of both economics and logic do you have to be to qualify as 'the leader' of Australia? The answer: Very

Apparently Kevin Rudd thinks that 'Extreme Capitalism' ^TM is what caused the economic crisis, and that the solution is to punish "fat cat" executives by limiting how much they can be paid, and other assorted heavy-handed government interference:

Rudd targets fat-cat salaries (BusinessDay)

Global crisis 'failure of extreme capitalism': Australian PM (AFP)

They're a couple of weeks old now, but a friend just brought them to my attention, completely spoiling my dinner, and precipitating this rant. Thanks David!

In case you haven't heard, there is no such thing as 'Extreme Capitalism' around. There isn't even a mild, watered-down version anywhere on this earth. You won't find it outside of the fond daydreams of capitalists (me included) who hope that it might take hold inside their own lifetimes.

In fact, except for North Korea and Cuba which are outright communist, the world only has variations of fascism which range from corrupt "crony-capitalism" to rigid state control of everything.

"Laissez-faire capitalism has a definite meaning, which is totally ignored, contradicted, and downright defiled by such statements as those quoted above. Laissez-faire capitalism is a politico-economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and in which the powers of the state are limited to the protection of the individual's rights against the initiation of physical force. This protection applies to the initiation of physical force by other private individuals, by foreign governments, and, most importantly, by the individual's own government. This last is accomplished by such means as a written constitution, a system of division of powers and checks and balances, an explicit bill of rights, and eternal vigilance on the part of a citizenry with the right to keep and bear arms. Under laissez-faire capitalism, the state consists essentially just of a police force, law courts, and a national defense establishment, which deter and combat those who initiate the use of physical force. And nothing more."

That's from Prof. George Reisman's evisceration of the myth that capitalism caused the current problem paralysing the world's economy. I linked to it in my last blog post, and if you haven't read it yet, you should:

http://georgereisman.com/blog/2008/10/myth-that-laissez-faire-is-responsible.html

Capitalism? Hah! Where?

And WTF is with the "fat cat" stuff? I'm betting none of the pro hate-speech folks are going to take him up on this smear attack. Yes, there are undoubtedly executives and businessmen who abuse the system for personal profit and short-term gains, but the politicians and bureaucrats have created the environment for this sort of behaviour to thrive. And the way to fix it is by actually allowing 'proper' capitalism - the thing they're blaming for the problem. These parasites (that was for the "fat cat" slur!) should look in the mirror.

Looking at this bastard's photo immediately reminded me of a certain politician with similar politics. The resemblance is remarkable.



(Photo credit AFP)
(Apologies to George Lucas)

Economist George Reisman exposes the bastards who managed to screw up the world:

http://georgereisman.com/blog/2008/10/myth-that-laissez-faire-is-responsible.html

As PC says: "He's written the most thorough review that I've yet seen of what caused the current crisis, and why -- and of all the reaction to it, and and what needs to be done now.

He covers the braindead "Marxist" media reaction; the rush to blame laissez-faire (as if!); what, and who, is really responsible for the crisis; and where, if we're not careful, we're going to all end up."

Taxes are listed as a prohibited item, capable of causing injury, on Ryanair's website, and you can't take them on one of their airplanes:



(Click on the image for a screenshot of the whole page)

How very true. They have the right idea. Now if only we could get rid of taxes on the ground as well. ;)

Link:
Ryanair.com - FAQS: What items are prohibited from being carried in the Cabin of the aircraft?

(Note: And 'hatches'? Now taxes I can understand; they're dangerous, but 'hatches'? Surely they mean hatchets?)

If anybody is still checking this blog, I will be migrating it to a new blog engine, and a new server, in the near future.

The original purpose of this blog was to document my election campaign in 2005. Once that was finished, I started floundering. I didn't really have the time or desire to write much of anything. I don't really want to get rid of it, since occasionally I actually do feel like saying something. Whether that's worth keeping this blog open - I don't know yet.

In the mean time, I'll point you to my all-time favourite blog: http://pc.blogspot.com

Cheers
Julian

I've just finished reading Nigel Lawson's An Appeal to Reason. I am seriously considering buying a bunch of these books and posting copies to my friends and family who believe in the Anthropogenic Global Warming bogey man. It clearly, simply, succinctly and eloquently dismantles the case for AGW, and also exposes the utter madness of the so-called solution - the dramatic reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. I don't know how to recommend it any higher without using a silly number of superlatives.

Read it!

An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, by Nigel Lawson is published by Gerald Duckworth & Co. (Buy this book from Amazon.)

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1316907/1500456

"In a report released on Wednesday the ombudsman is critical of the way the potential health risks from the spraying were communicated.

But the findings aren't sitting well with Anderton.

The minister accepts there are lessons to be learned but says the recommendation that such operations be subject to the Resource Management Act is disingenuous.

He says anyone who knows about the RMA process knows it can take years to complete.

Anderton says biosecurity issues are such that if you wait years it'll be all over and the problem won't be able to be fixed."

Hahaha! Yes, so he admits the RMA is a pain in the ass, but it's OK for the government to bypass it when it suits. Instead of making exceptions, just scrap the bloody thing.

For more about the evils of the RMA, see PC's posts concerning the beast:
http://del.icio.us/NotPC/RMA

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10277230&fsrc=RSS

"According to figures compiled by the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), almost 30m people claimed "no religion" in 2001, a doubling from 1991. This dwarfs America's 2.8m who describe themselves as Jews according to the same survey (although other estimates suggest that the Jewish population is much larger, at about 6m). Catholicism, the country's largest Christian denomination, boasts 51m followers. In other words, irreligion claims a surprisingly large number of adherents. Mr Romney's attack on disbelievers prompted Christopher Hitchens, a well-known polemicist and the author of "God Is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything", to describe him as "Entirely lacking in dignity or nobility (or average integrity)". Others cited Thomas Jefferson's ruder comments about religion. Even some conservative columnists chided Mr Romney for not saying, as George Bush has, that people of no faith at all are Americans too."

A friend sent me this link:
Toddler fools the art world into buying his tomato ketchup paintings

And this is the online gallery the article mentions.

It's funny, and sad. The world of 'high-art' has well and truly devoured itself.