Perigo Formally Announces Candidacy
Anthony Hobbs
In article <32373C...@auckland.ac.nz>,
Larry Timberlake <l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> Libertarianz leader Lindsay Perigo has heralded the official
> registration of his party as the formal beginning of New Zealand's long
> march away from Nanny-Statism.
Okay, I will now officially take all bets on whether the
Lindsaytarians will get more votes than either the McGillicuddies or
United. For the latter, I think it might be a close-run thing, but I
suggest that the tartaned hordes will be using pages from _Atlas Shrugged_
to light their bongs with by the time this election is out.
By the way, I always thought capitalism was a socio-sexual neurosis linked
to sado-masochism (cf. the work of Wilhelm Reich), and the recent
Lindsaytarian ads have convinced me of this.
> That one exception is The Libertarianz. We are the one party which
> believes in restoring to individuals their sovereignty.
Ah, bullshit. You're interested in ensuring *capital*'s sovereignty. If
you were *really* concerned about freedom, you'd stop to wonder why having
to donate a proportion of the fruits of your labour to the masters of
capital in form of "rent", "interest" and "profit" (unless you *are* a
master of capital, of course) is morally superior to having to donate a
proportion of the fruits of your labour to the masters of organised
violence in form of "taxation".
--
Anthony "Slug of Doom" Hobbs, GCP: musician and amateur ranter, Wellington, NZ.
ant...@actrix.gen.nz http://shell.ihug.co.nz/~norway/hobbs.htm
McGSP spokesthing on Electrickery and candidate for Invercargill
What am I singing? A song of seeds, the food of love. Eat the music.
Larry Timberlake
Libertarianz leader Lindsay Perigo has heralded the official
registration
of his party as the formal beginning of New Zealand's long march away
from Nanny-Statism.
"There are now nearly thirty political parties registered," Perigo says,
"and all except one believe, in one form or another, that government
knows
best how individuals should run their lives. That one exception is The
Libertarianz. We are the one party which believes in restoring to
individuals
their sovereignty. We are the only party committed not to "doing"
things,
but to undoing them, and leaving people alone to live their lives as
they
see fit."
Perigo acknowledges that the likely impact of the party in this year's
election is small, but says it's important at this time to have the
party
registered, establishing its presence and laying the foundation for its
future as the voice of individual liberty. "To that end," he says, "we
will
be standing candidates on the list vote, and I also will be standing for
the constituency of Epsom. Confirmed among the list candidates are
myself,
deputy-leader Deborah Coddington, party president Ian Fraser and most of
the party executive of twelve. We expect to announce another twenty or
so
candidates in the near future."
Silas Stedman
Larry Timberlake <l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>Libertarianz leader Lindsay Perigo has heralded the official
>registration
>of his party as the formal beginning of New Zealand's long march away
>from Nanny-Statism.
>
>
>Perigo acknowledges that the likely impact of the party in this year's
>election is small, but says it's important at this time to have the
>party
This part is right. Any vote for this party is definetly into the bin!
Silas
D McLoughlin
Larry Timberlake <l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
"To that end," Lindsay Perigo says, "we
> will
> be standing candidates on the list vote, and I also will be standing for
> the constituency of Epsom. Confirmed among the list candidates are
> myself,
> deputy-leader Deborah Coddington, party president Ian Fraser and most of
> the party executive of twelve. ."
Is Lindsay standing in Epsom so he will get at least one
vote, ie, Deborah's? (she lives in that electorate).
And where is Deborah standing? She might pick up a few votes if
she stands in whatever electorate Rolleston prison is in.
(sorry Deborah, just a joke :) I couldn't resist it)
DMcLoughlin
Ray Dobson
Larry Timberlake <l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>Libertarianz leader Lindsay Perigo has heralded the official
>registration
>of his party as the formal beginning of New Zealand's long march away
>from Nanny-Statism.
And the best of luck to you, Lindsay.
Brian Paul Lilburn
In article <32373C...@auckland.ac.nz>, Larry Timberlake <l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz> says:
>
>Libertarianz leader Lindsay Perigo has heralded the official
>registration
>of his party as the formal beginning of New Zealand's long march away
>from Nanny-Statism.
We seem to have gone a good way away from that already, with the tightening
of benefits and increase in 'user pays' (Don't include capitalist exploiter
in the 'user' category, though).
>
undoing them, and leaving people alone to live their lives as
>they
>see fit."
>
Should we all be hiving off to live individually on separate desert islands?
While I believe that individuality should be encouraged, the truth is that
we don't and we can't leave each other alone, and still expect to have a
reasonably ordered and civilized society. Idividualization is only possible
when our dealings with each other are fair and compassionate. In the kind
of society the Libertarianz seem to be aiming for, the individual who
stands out on his/her own in originality of work and play(=talent)
is likely to get a raw deal ( - perhaps Mozart could be seen as an example
from history of that).
The reason is that the Libertarianz platform is based on a hypocracy.
Individuals cannot become (or stay) rich and successful except as members
of some organization or other. The lone individual gets nowhere, though
there have been exceptions due to very unusual talent combined with luck.
Although individuals in a capitalist organization like a corporate tend
to conform to the Libertarianz ideology when justifying themselves to -
or criticizing - those who aren't in such an organization, *within* that
organization they are becoming more and more *socialist*! What I mean
by that, is that under modern pressures they tend to be more and more
co-operative, sharing, and non-hierarchical. For a good example of how
this is happening, "A sceptic's guide to groupware", by Anna Wallis, in
Management Technology Briefing Vol.3 No.3.
Brian
Bruce Hoult
All you say is true. I can't even imagine the Libertarianz disagreeing.
What I fail to see is why you think that this somehow invalidates the
Libertarianz ideas. The whole *point* of what they're saying is that
people should be free to associate with -- or to not associate with --
whoever they want, and free to join -- or not join -- whatever organisations
they want.
Freedom to not be forced by government to associate with particular groups
or individuals does *not* mean that everyone imediately hives off to some
desert island. Why should it? That's just another sort of conformity.
-- Bruce
Larry Timberlake
Brian Paul Lilburn wrote:
>
> ...Individualization is only possible
> when our dealings with each other are fair and compassionate...
>
> Individuals cannot become...successful except as members
> of some organization or other. The lone individual gets nowhere...
> ...individuals in a capitalist organization ...
> [often become] more and more *socialist*!
> ...they tend to be more and more
> co-operative, sharing, and non-hierarchical...
The crux of the Libertarian philosophy is that all adult interactions
should be voluntary. This in no way precludes co-operation, kindness or
compassion.
It does preclude altruism, that is, the insane notion that the highest
purpose in life is to sacrifice one's own happiness to the needs of
others, or the will of the group. (Although some will always argue that
400,000 lemmings can't be wrong...)
It certainly precludes the compulsory altruism that pervades all the
other parties, each with its own variation on the theme: "We know what's
best for you and your neighbours. Elect us so we can spend your money
more wisely than you ever could." Even ACT says "We have ways of making
you save for your own retirement; We have ways of making you send your
kids to a school we approve of..."
By coincidence, the benevolent aspect of Libertarian thought is
canvassed by David Kelley of the Institute for Objectivist Studies in
"Unrugged Individualism", [available on special offer this month through
The Free Radical magazine].
--
Larry Timberlake
l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz
"Put Perigo in his place... Parliament!"
Visit The Libertarianz at <http://freeradical.co.nz>
Nikolas Haden
In message <9d7cc$1392...@news.lynx.co.nz> - b...@lynx.co.nz (Brian Paul
Lilburn)Thu, 12 Sep 1996 13:57:43 GMT writes:
:>
:>In article <32373C...@auckland.ac.nz>, Larry Timberlake <l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz> says:
:>>
:>>Libertarianz leader Lindsay Perigo has heralded the official
:>>registration
:>>of his party as the formal beginning of New Zealand's long march away
:>>from Nanny-Statism.
:>
:>We seem to have gone a good way away from that already, with the tightening
:>of benefits and increase in 'user pays' (Don't include capitalist exploiter
:>in the 'user' category, though).
:>>
:> undoing them, and leaving people alone to live their lives as
:>>they
:>>see fit."
:>>
:>Should we all be hiving off to live individually on separate desert islands?
"Should" isn't a word libertarians use a lot. While reality imposes a lot of
conditional musts, (eg. you must eat if you want to avoid starvation) whether
or not people should do things is something for each individual to decide.
:>While I believe that individuality should be encouraged, the truth is that
:>we don't and we can't leave each other alone, and still expect to have a
:>reasonably ordered and civilized society. Idividualization is only possible
:>when our dealings with each other are fair and compassionate. In the kind
:>of society the Libertarianz seem to be aiming for, the individual who
:>stands out on his/her own in originality of work and play(=talent)
:>is likely to get a raw deal ( - perhaps Mozart could be seen as an example
:>from history of that).
There are two principal benefits people receive from participating in a
society. They are firstly the ability to specialise and use trade to sell
your output for the things you need, and secondly the option to use the ideas
that people before you have developed. Any rational libertarian would be
aware of these things, even if he did choose to live on a desert island.
The real issue in social interactions is that they be voluntary. This is what
is required for a ordered and civilised society (to the extent that society
exists).
The individual who stands out getting a raw deal is in fact an aspect of our
current society. It is sometimes referred to as the tall poppy syndrome. In
a libertarian society where interactions are voluntary, individuals are likely
to be that much more appreciative of the benefits these stand-out individuals
provide to the rest of society - see the second benefit above.
:>
:>The reason is that the Libertarianz platform is based on a hypocracy.
:>Individuals cannot become (or stay) rich and successful except as members
:>of some organization or other. The lone individual gets nowhere, though
Successful organisations such as large corporations are almost always based on
voluntary association; of shareholders, management, employess, and customers.
:>there have been exceptions due to very unusual talent combined with luck.
:>Although individuals in a capitalist organization like a corporate tend
:>to conform to the Libertarianz ideology when justifying themselves to -
:>or criticizing - those who aren't in such an organization, *within* that
:>organization they are becoming more and more *socialist*! What I mean
:>by that, is that under modern pressures they tend to be more and more
:>co-operative, sharing, and non-hierarchical. For a good example of how
:>this is happening, "A sceptic's guide to groupware", by Anna Wallis, in
:>Management Technology Briefing Vol.3 No.3.
Current management thinking is moving increasingly away from the '70s-style
management philosophy you describe. The latest "trend" is towards the
"horizontal" organisation. This refers to a process focus that looks at the
set of tasks required to deliver value to customers. Individuals managing
each individual task need to interact with their internal customers and
suppliers. While this obviously can't be totally voluntary within an
organisation (apart from their option to quit), it is about trade a lot more
than co-operation.
Another example here would be the increasing trend towards out-sourcing.
Often this is done not just for the sake of concentrating on core business,
but also as a way of calibrating the performance of groups within the
organisation who are also carrying out the partially out-sourced tasks.
Nik Haden
D McLoughlin
nha...@central.co.nz (Nikolas Haden) wrote:
>
> The real issue in social interactions is that they be voluntary. This is what
> is required for a ordered and civilised society (to the extent that society
> exists).
>
I agree with this, in that I want to be free to enjoy my life
without being coerced into doing things/suffering nuisances
I don't care for.
The problem with the Libertarianz, as I've seen them promote
themselves, is that *they* want to be free to force themselves
on me, for example, Deborah frequently demands the right to
smoke where she likes and blow her smoke all over everyone
about her. She insists this is some basic freedom.
As far as I'm concerned she can smoke away, but her right to do
so ends at my nose. I have the right to breath fresh air and
not suffer the vile effects of her filthy addiction.
So laws which stop Deborah smoking all over me in offices,
restaurants etc are, IMO, a legitimate balancing of rights
in a fair society.
Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.
DMcLoughlin
Corky
D McLoughlin <dav...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>nha...@central.co.nz (Nikolas Haden) wrote:
>>
>> The real issue in social interactions is that they be voluntary. This is what
>> is required for a ordered and civilised society (to the extent that society
>> exists).
>>
>I agree with this, in that I want to be free to enjoy my life
>without being coerced into doing things/suffering nuisances
>I don't care for.
>The problem with the Libertarianz, as I've seen them promote
>themselves, is that *they* want to be free to force themselves
>on me, for example, Deborah frequently demands the right to
>smoke where she likes and blow her smoke all over everyone
>about her. She insists this is some basic freedom.
>As far as I'm concerned she can smoke away, but her right to do
>so ends at my nose. I have the right to breath fresh air and
>not suffer the vile effects of her filthy addiction.
>So laws which stop Deborah smoking all over me in offices,
>restaurants etc are, IMO, a legitimate balancing of rights
>in a fair society.
>Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.
Good post, I agree 100% with you.
What's Perigo's philosophy on Homosexual bonding when the urge takes
him. Does he think he has the right to confront people in public with
his particular fetish for male bonding. I personaly wouldn't like to
see him butt naked making out with his guy :).
>DMcLoughlin
>
------------
Corky
Christchurch
New Zealand
------------
"Many a true word has been spoken through false teeth"
Alan Beecham
I'm curious about your taxation policy. You want to abolish GST, FBT, ACC levies, etc., but you
would keep income tax of all things. I find income tax and the associated audit and compliance
systems the most intrusive form of state extortion. Why retain it, even temporarily? And what
revenue source do you have in mind for your much reduced state?
Regards
Marine Chemistry Labortory
Larry Timberlake wrote:
>
> Libertarianz leader Lindsay Perigo has heralded the official
> registration
> of his party as the formal beginning of New Zealand's long march away
> from Nanny-Statism.
Mao's long march was more impressive. He and followers revolted (in
part) against the owner class. Lindsaytairians seek only to further
enshrine the rights of the owner class in law. Those with $ will
survive those without better do as they are told or else.
Lindsaytairians don't want an absence of a state, for otherwise the
proles might do something about inequalities. What they want is a
return to (micro)nationalism, the sort of thing where barons were
supreme rulers in THEIR lands and no one could do anything about abuses
of power.
Ha ! The deportation of NZ Firsters by McGillicuddies is nothing
compared to the fate we have lined up for lindsaytarians, we are gonna
give them *exactly* what they want. We will make them work on a
collectivised farm and supply exactly enough food, clothes etc for 15 %
of the people to live as they do now. (But enough for all to *survive*)
But we will distribute the resources in block units, so one person gets
all the shoes, another all the shoe laces etc. Without nanny to look
after them they should sort thing out pretty quickly to the satisfaction
of everybody ..... won't they ??
d'UGH
Larry Timberlake
D McLoughlin wrote:
> [concerning The Libertarianz Deputy Leader, Deborah Coddington:]
> ...Deborah frequently demands the right to
> smoke where she likes and blow her smoke all over everyone
> about her. She insists this is some basic freedom.
It would depend upon where she was. I'm sure Deborah would be the first
to agree that you have every right to ban smoking in your own home,
private office, or whatever. If Deborah choses to ignore your wishes,
then it's your choice whether to put up with it or evict her.
On the other hand, if you were in Deborah's home or office, then The
Libertarianz would say that she has a right to smoke whenever and
whatever she likes, just as any of her guests who find her behaviour
offensive have every right to leave, or to refuse to deal with her while
she's smoking.
> As far as I'm concerned...her right to [smoke]
> ends at my nose. I have the right to breath fresh air...
> So laws which stop Deborah smoking all over me in offices,
> restaurants etc are, IMO, a legitimate balancing of rights
> in a fair society...
We would like to return to the day when restaurants were capitalist,
instead of fascist, enterprises. If a restauranteur wants to declare
his establishment for smokers only or non-smokers only, or to demand
white tie & tails for entry or total nudity for entry, or cater
exclusively for gays or straights, or to fill his place with purple
haze, lingerie shows or dwarf-throwing contests, then so be it, so long
as the owner is prepared to take the economic consequences and not ask
the taxpayers for a handout if his idea goes sour.
I have seen Deborah refrain from smoking when a party member brought a
baby along to a meeting of the party Executive, as the child could not
choose to leave or move elsewhere in the room, so she's not as totally
insensitive on this issue as you suggest. Did you say, "please"?
(Despite persistent rumours to the contrary, we also refrained from
eating the baby for supper after the meeting. As the saying goes: When
they're babies, you wish you could eat them; then when they're
teenagers, you wish you had... But I digress...)
I believe it was Daniel Webster (of Webster's Dictionary fame) who
pointed out that a "right" -- as in the American Bill of Rights --
properly constitutes a LIMITATION on government power, not an EXCUSE FOR
government power. Libertarianz would reject any notion of "balancing
[conflicting] rights in a fair society" as so much New Age waffle. We
would hold that what's "fair" is to grant the same right to everyone;
specifically, "that each individual is the owner of his own life and has
the right to live it as he sees fit, subject only to the requirement to
respect the right of others to do the same."
--
--
Larry Timberlake
l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates."
[Corruptisima republica plurimae leges.] -- Tacitus
David Frame
In article Larry Timberlake <l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz> writes:
> I believe it was Daniel Webster (of Webster's Dictionary fame) who
> pointed out that a "right" -- as in the American Bill of Rights --
> properly constitutes a LIMITATION on government power, not an EXCUSE
> FOR government power.
Actually - and even an arch-libertarian like Robert Nozick would
acknowledge this at the outset - a "right" implies a limitation of
not only a government's power, but of the individual's (who is claiming
the right) power, because rights imply duties (and duties and rights
are matters of reciprocity, so if you claim a right, you also claim a
duty - I think you libertarians conveniently forget that, sometimes).
Personally, I would be far happier with libertarians if they would
occasionally acknowledge that when they say "government" they often
mean "other people".
> Libertarianz would reject any notion of "balancing [conflicting]
> rights in a fair society" as so much New Age waffle. We
> would hold that what's "fair" is to grant the same right to everyone;
Ok...
> specifically, "that each individual is the owner of his own life and has
> the right to live it as he sees fit, subject only to the requirement to
> respect the right of others to do the same."
Who are you to claim this "meta-right"? What "right" do you have to
"force" us to comply with this bare-faced and rather simplistic
philosophical claim?
Why should we accept your normative ethical theory (which is, after all,
all about telling people what rights they have and therefore how (in a
broad sense, perhaps) they should live their lives) ahead of competing
normative ethical theories? And if we do accept you telling us exactly
which rights we do or don't enjoy, haven't we infringed on the rights
of people to live life as they see fit within, say, a less combatitive,
aggressive or Hobbesian but more paternalistic society *of their
choosing*?
The basic question I have for you is this: Why should I accept what
you say about rights any more than I accept what the Alliance voting
paternalists (nanny-statists, perhaps) say about rights? Why should I
accept that the system you're advocating is more moral than any
competing systems? (In order to get people to accept the piece I've
quoted above, that's what you'll have to do, I'm afraid.)
Dave Frame
(Never trust a party that can't spell properly.)
D McLoughlin
Larry Timberlake <l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote (of
the fanatical Libertarianzes):
> We would like to return to the day when restaurants were capitalist,
> instead of fascist, enterprises. If a restauranteur wants to declare
> his establishment for smokers only or non-smokers only, or to demand
> white tie & tails for entry or total nudity for entry, or cater
> exclusively for gays or straights, or to fill his place with purple
> haze, lingerie shows or dwarf-throwing contests, then so be it, so long
> as the owner is prepared to take the economic consequences and not ask
> the taxpayers for a handout if his idea goes sour.
>
those except ones that are full of Deborahs smoking, and ones
that throw dwarfs... I have total antipathy for smoking, but
nothing against dwarfs. I've just never come across a restaurant
that has dwarf throwing on the menu.
But Larry, I have never been into a fascist restaurant. Can you
recommend one? Surely not in the Bay of Island (sorry
Deborah, couldn't resist it). I've only been to
capitalist ones (apart from a few socialist ones in pre-Gorbachev
eastern europe). I have never heard of a New Zealand restaurant
asking for a taxpayer handout and I assure you I would be the
first to oppose such a call on my pocket.
God you don't get the point, do you? What planet are you from?
David McLoughlin
Marine Chemistry Labortory
Larry Timberlake wrote:
> The reason the U.S. Libertarian Party was able to put Harry Browne on
> the ballot in all fifty states (even ahead of billionaire Ross Perot
> his Reform Party) and the reason Browne consistently wins all Internet
> polls is, quite simply,
How shallow of me. I had merely assumed that if he does win internet
polls it was something to do with the typical socioeconomic status of
computer users and the smaller subset of them who would respond to
political polls. (Not to mention the even smaller group who would assert
that such a skewed sampling is at all representative of the entire US
population).
> the Libertarian philosophy is an idea whose time has come.
The idea has been trialed many times in many city states and cultures,
and found wanting; perhaps most famously and recently in the extreme
capitalism of industrial revolution Europe, particularly England and
Scotland.
> Your choices are to either get onboard or get the hell
> out of our way.
Oh what a compassionate idea it is too.
d'UGH
McGillicuddy whatsit and thingame
Larry Timberlake
Marine Chemistry Labortory [sic] wrote:
> Mao's long march was more impressive. He and followers revolted (in
> part) against the owner class...
(Music Up) LET'S DO THE TIME WARP AGAIN!
The reason the U.S. Libertarian Party was able to put Harry Browne on
the ballot in all fifty states (even ahead of billionaire Ross Perot and
his Reform Party) and the reason Browne consistently wins all Internet
polls is, quite simply, that the Libertarian philosophy is an idea whose
time has come. Your choices are to either get onboard or get the hell
out of our way.
> Lindsaytairians don't want an absence of a state...
You are correct in believing that The Libertarianz are not anarchists.
We would, however, severely limit the power of government to upholding
common law and protecting citizens against the use of force or fraud by
others. Ultimately, taxes would be abolished as a State Lottery could
provide enough revenue to carry out these functions.
David Frame
>> Mao's long march was more impressive. He and followers revolted (in
>> part) against the owner class...
> The reason the U.S. Libertarian Party was able to put Harry Browne on
> the ballot in all fifty states (even ahead of billionaire Ross Perot and
> his Reform Party) and the reason Browne consistently wins all Internet
> polls is, quite simply, that the Libertarian philosophy is an idea whose
> time has come.
I agree that libertarianism is an idea whose time has come - in much
the same way as communism was an idea whose time had come at the turn
of the century, or that fascism was an idea whose time had come about
a third of the way through the century. I'm not saying that as abuse,
but I actually believe that the same forces which brought those
theories to prominence will bring libertarianism to prominence.
Further, like Marxism, libertarianism is a political (and, unlike
fascism, a philosophical) theory with substantial appeal to fairly
educated people. In addition, libertarianism has a streak of self-
interest in it in a way Marxism never did, which is seductive, but
which might possibly prove to be corrosive.
> Your choices are to either get onboard or get the hell out of our way.
This last sentence is frightening. This alone would be enough to convince
me not to vote Libertarianz. It reeks of zealotry and intimidation.
> You are correct in believing that The Libertarianz are not anarchists.
> We would, however, severely limit the power of government to upholding
> common law and protecting citizens against the use of force or fraud by
> others.
But would you provide a means of ensuring that cruelty and exploitation
didn't take place? Or would you be rather more concerned with the "rights"
of petulant journalists to smoke wherever they see fit?
The more I hear libertarians talk about their concept of liberty, the
more I get convinced that libertarianism is nothing more than a sordid
excercise in narcissism, brutality and egoism. When I first read
_Anarchy, State and Utopia_ I thought the minimal state was a fine idea
but I've since modified that, partly on account of the more demented
supporters of libertarianism, whose visions of life under the minimal
state strike me as a grotesque parody of Nozick's rather simple
"utopia". I think they're grotesque because - unlike Nozick - many (most)
of the libertarians I've heard on the subject reveal little knowledge of
how rights and duties actually work, and betray a poor understanding of
the most fundamental aspect of human relations: reciprocity.
In the mouths of these people, libertarianism gets distorted into little
more than an excuse for wantonness, hedonism, narcissism, cruelty and
brutality. Libertarianism seduces by its appeal to the individual, but
I believe that is also its problem: At what point does enlightened self-
interest cease to be enlightened? And at what point does "legitimate"
self-interest degenerate into wanton selfishness? At what point do either
of these mutations cease to be *acceptable* to society?
In case this seems like a tirade, I'll promise now to post the reasons
for my linking of libertarianism with narcissism and brutality later
this week (in case anyone is interested) and why that means that - in
Larry's words - libertarianism is an idea whose time has come.
> Ultimately, taxes would be abolished as a State Lottery could
> provide enough revenue to carry out these functions.
Named in honour of Shirley Jackson, I presume?
Dave Frame
Mark Harris
Br...@hoult.actrix.gen.nz (Bruce Hoult) wrote:
[stuff snipped]
>What I fail to see is why you think that this somehow invalidates the
>Libertarianz ideas. The whole *point* of what they're saying is that
>people should be free to associate with -- or to not associate with --
>whoever they want, and free to join -- or not join -- whatever organisations
>they want.
Does that include Paedophiles Anonymous, or the Man/Boy Love
Association (or whatever it's called), Bruce?
Cheers
Mark Harris
email: mht...@actrix.gen.nz
Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disks?
Bruce Hoult
mht...@actrix.gen.nz (Mark Harris) writes:
> Br...@hoult.actrix.gen.nz (Bruce Hoult) wrote:
>
> [stuff snipped]
>
> >What I fail to see is why you think that this somehow invalidates the
> >Libertarianz ideas. The whole *point* of what they're saying is that
> >people should be free to associate with -- or to not associate with --
> >whoever they want, and free to join -- or not join -- whatever organisations
> >they want.
>
> Does that include Paedophiles Anonymous, or the Man/Boy Love
> Association (or whatever it's called), Bruce?
If they are not planning to commit a crime, then why not?
Of course, other folks might well be interested to see the membership list
of those organisations.
-- Bruce
--
XTRA: wordnumbers a go go
Larry Timberlake
D McLoughlin (itinerant journo and anti-smoking fanatic) wrote:
> ... I have never been into a fascist restaurant. Can you
> recommend one?
All New Zealand Restaurants (Night Clubs, Bars, etc.) are fascist, as
opposed to capitalist, enterprises because, although they remain in
private hands, the State dictates how they must be run. Admittedly, the
restrictions on hours of operation and the serving of alcohol have
become more liberal recently, but even these matters are still under
State control.
To list but a few of the many areas subject to government dictatorship:
how the restaurant runs its kitchen; how it advertises for employees;
the manner and form of its financial records; how many toilets and
parking spaces it must provide, etc. etc.
Try limiting entry to, say, married couples only on Valentine's Day or
charging women less for drinks than men or hiring waitresses that look
good in a Hooters T-shirt or painting your building in a colour someone
doesn't like or putting up a sign (like the Vegas girl in K-Road) that
suggests you offer erotic entertainment -- and you'll soon discover that
your business is really not your own; the government simply allows you
to run it under State control in order to steal a third of the income it
produces.
> God you don't get the point, do you?...
I thought your point was that you objected to Deborah Coddington smoking
everywhere as if it were some basic right. My point, based on The
Libertarianz concept of ownership, was that whether Deborah has an
absolute right to light up or not depends on who owns the property where
she proposes to smoke.
> What planet are you from?
Third rock from the Sun, same as yourself. BTW, where did you find the
nudist restaurant?
Larry Timberlake
David Frame wrote:
>
> Larry Timberlake writes:
>
> > ... "that each individual is the owner of his own life and has
> > the right to live it as he sees fit, subject only to the
>
> Who are you to claim this "meta-right"?
Who are you to deny it?
> What "right" do you have to "force" us to comply...
I don't propose to force anyone to do anything. As I've stated before in
this thread, the crux of Libertarianism is that all adult interactions
should be voluntary. Libertarians abhor the initiation of force.
> ...with this bare-faced and rather simplistic philosophical claim?
We could dress things up in a plethora of obfuscation which might, I
suppose, appeal to some pseudo-intellectuals... but to what purpose?
I'm reminded of the endless medieval debates concerning the number of
angels which could dance on the head of a pin, or the amazing clockwork
universes which were constructed to explain the movements of the stars
and planets before the truth of our heliocentric universe was accepted.
"E=mc^2" is a rather bare-faced and simplistic claim but it does the
job. To paraphrase Jefferson: I'm not here to defend Truth; Truth can
defend itself -- only Falsehood requires the support of the State.
> Why should we accept your normative ethical theory ...
> ahead of competing normative ethical theories?
> The basic question I have for you is this: Why should I accept what
> you say about rights any more than I accept what the Alliance voting
> paternalists (nanny-statists, perhaps) say about rights? Why should I
> accept that the system you're advocating is more moral than any
> competing systems?
This is not a surprising question, since the politically correct vogue
in education for much of this century has been to effectively abandon
rational thought in favour of existential twaddle. We have been taught
that one philosophy (or religion, or culture, or science) is as valid as
another. Pay your money and take your choice; it makes no difference.
The Objectivist philosophy which underpins so much of Libertarian
thought this century holds that there is an objective universe "out
there", and that its workings can be discerned through experimentation
and rational thought. We reject the notion that one view of the
universe is as good as another. This contrasts rather starkly with the
level of what passes for debate on campuses today.
A Catholic, a Jew and a Christian Scientist found themselves in Hell.
"Oh woe!", said the Catholic, "if only I hadn't used birth control!"
"Oh woe!", said the Jew, "if only I hadn't been so fond of pork!"
They turned to their fellow sufferer, and the Catholic asked,
"What have you done to be sent here?"
"Oh, don't worry about me", said the Christian Scientist, "I'm not
really here..."
> (Never trust a party that can't spell properly.)
Reasonable advice, although it would seem to rule out National and NZ
First, but then I didn't have any trust in them to begin with. I
suspect this may be a reference to our spelling of "Libertarianz". In
all honesty, I'm still coming to grips with the grammar myself, but
fortunately, it's all set out in a footnote to the party's consitution
which I reprint here, for the edification of all correspondents in the
newsgroup, and with a tip of the hat to TranzRail who gave us the idea:
"The Libertarianz" is a neologism which combines "Libertarians" with the
common abbreviation for New Zealand, to convey the meaning: "the
Libertarians of New Zealand". The final "nz" may be set in a
contrasting typeface, as in the Party logo, in order to emphasise its
intentional use and to assist the reader. The name includes the
definite article [The] whenever the word "Libertarianz" is used as a
collective noun but not when it is used as an adjective: "It would
appear that The Libertarianz have taken the Treasury benches.
Commentators credit the Libertarianz tax reform policy with the
surprising win." In print, plural constructions are most often better
served by the use of a word like "members", in order to better retain
"Libertarianz" as a collective noun. "Many members of The Libertarianz
will be attending..." as opposed to "Many Libertarianz will be there."
Compare usage with other proper names incorporating the definite
article: "Readers of The Sunday Times..." and "Readers of the Times
sports page..."
--
Larry Timberlake
Alan Beecham wrote:
>
> ...I find income tax...
> the most intrusive form of state extortion.
> Why retain it, even temporarily? And what
> revenue source do you have in mind for your much reduced state?
>
It has always been the aim of The Libertarianz to reduce all taxation to
zero in the shortest possible time.
We accept that there would need to be a phase out period during which
some tax would have to be retained for a while. It then becomes a
question of whether to temporarily keep GST or income tax. Although a
good argument can be made for abolishing either ahead of the other, we
came down on the side of abolishing GST first as, combined with our
flat-rate income tax, this should give the greatest boost, (or remove
the greatest drag) on the economy.
Also, by renaming Inland Revenue the Department of Legalised Theft
(DOLT) we would hope to convey a message that would not soon be
forgotten by voters and taxpayers.
Under a Libertarianz government, or a Parliament in which we held the
balance of responsibility, it would only be necessary to fund the
mechanisms of Law and Defense. On the basis of current budgets and
present gambling patterns, we believe these few legitimate functions of
government could be fully funded by a State Lottery.
--
Larry Timberlake
"Put Perigo in his place... Parlaiment!"
Aidan Philip Heerdegen
Larry Timberlake <l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>Also, by renaming Inland Revenue the Department of Legalised Theft
>(DOLT) we would hope to convey a message that would not soon be
>forgotten by voters and taxpayers.
>
>Under a Libertarianz government, or a Parliament in which we held the
>balance of responsibility, it would only be necessary to fund the
>mechanisms of Law and Defense. On the basis of current budgets and
>present gambling patterns, we believe these few legitimate functions of
>government could be fully funded by a State Lottery.
Oh come on Larry!
We don't want the Government (who couldn't organise a profitable
piss up in a brewery) to be involved in running a lottery. It is
simply ridiculous to have the goverment competing against private
gambling concerns. Next you'll be advocating that they own housing
to give somewhere for underachievers to live!
Why bother with all this Law & Order pish posh!? If people don't
have enough responsibility to arrange their own protection, they
deserve to be robbed/raped/murdered etc etc. Simply deregulate
the personal protection industry, free up gun ownership and sales
laws to allow for healthy competition, and anyone who isn't a
lazy slacker will be able to defend themselves.
The same goes for defence. I mean, really, if another country
decides that it would be economically feasible to attempt a
hostile takeover of this country then that it just the market
at work .. surely? If interest groups in the country decided
to counter-attack and try their own takeover then they are
free to do so. Supply and demand Larry me old boy.
UP THE MARKET!
Cheers
Aidan "Woolfie Smith" Heerdegen
Anthony Hobbs
In article <323F87...@auckland.ac.nz>,
Larry Timberlake <l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> We could dress things up in a plethora of obfuscation which might, I
> suppose, appeal to some pseudo-intellectuals... but to what purpose?
To get even *more* drooling, dogmatic Randroids toting copies of _For the
New Intellectual_? It would work. BTW, that book cracked me up so much.
Aunty Ayn claiming with a straight face that professional intellectuals
and capitalists came into being at the same time (what the hell was
Aristotle, apparently Ayn's hero? A stand-up comic?) and saying that the
Founding Fathers of the USA were neither exploiters nor warlords, when
Thomas Jefferson kept slaves and women and Native Americans didn't get a
look-in on the writing of the constitution.
> This is not a surprising question, since the politically correct vogue
> in education for much of this century has been to effectively abandon
> rational thought in favour of existential twaddle.
Never mind that the existential twaddle explains as much, if not more.
> The Objectivist philosophy which underpins so much of Libertarian
> thought this century
...is not so much a philosophy, as Ayn Rand making a bunch of normative
statements, declaring them "axioms" and justifying them. It's much like
all those Jesuit priests who've spent about 500 years trying to make
Catholicism make sense, and almost succeeding.
> Commentators credit the Libertarianz tax reform policy with the
> surprising win."
Oh, and not Lindsay's charisma and good looks? :)
David Frame
>> > ... "that each individual is the owner of his own life and has
>> > the right to live it as he sees fit, subject only to the
>> > requirement to respect the right of others to do the same."
>> Who are you to claim this "meta-right"?
> Who are you to deny it?
I mean who are you to determine what "rights" we have? This is what you're
doing in the claim you make above. You are telling me and everyone else
what rights (and duties) we enjoy. Who are you to do this? Why should we
believe you?
>> ...with this bare-faced and rather simplistic philosophical claim?
> I'm reminded of the endless medieval debates concerning the number of
> angels which could dance on the head of a pin, or the amazing clockwork
> universes which were constructed to explain the movements of the stars
> and planets before the truth of our heliocentric universe was accepted.
> "E=mc^2" is a rather bare-faced and simplistic claim but it does the
> job. To paraphrase Jefferson: I'm not here to defend Truth; Truth can
> defend itself -- only Falsehood requires the support of the State.
Sorry, Larry, but this is all bullshit (eschew obfuscation, right?). The
question I raised was far from theoretical. Why should we listen to what
libertarians say about rights? What arguments do you have to support your
position? So far you have only given us a bare-faced and simplistic claim.
For example, the claim E=mc^2 is anything but simplistic or bare-faced.
It's actually the result of a highly complicated synthesis between
Maxwell's equations, the null result from the Michelson-Morley experiment
and stuff done by Minkowski and Riemann (etc.). The only reason it "does
the job" is because it is supported by _evidence_ and _reason_. Neither
of which have been produced in your posts to tell us why we should believe
you. So if you have any (reasons or evidence) would you mind sharing them?
>> Why should we accept your normative ethical theory ...
>> ahead of competing normative ethical theories?
>> The basic question I have for you is this: Why should I accept what
>> you say about rights any more than I accept what the Alliance voting
>> paternalists (nanny-statists, perhaps) say about rights? Why should I
>> accept that the system you're advocating is more moral than any
>> competing systems?
> This is not a surprising question, since the politically correct vogue
> in education for much of this century has been to effectively abandon
> rational thought in favour of existential twaddle. We have been taught
> that one philosophy (or religion, or culture, or science) is as valid as
> another.
This isn't my point at all. I'm saying "what makes your beliefs
believable?" which is very much the question a rationalist would ask.
Anyway, I believe modern libertarianism actually owes a lot to
existentialism. Many of the claims made in Rand (for example) echo
claims made by Sartre. If you don't accept that, I'd recommend Mary
Warnock's _Existentialism_ as a good place to start. I'm sure you'll
find a lot there with which you can agree.
> The Objectivist philosophy which underpins so much of Libertarian
> thought this century holds that there is an objective universe "out
> there", and that its workings can be discerned through experimentation
> and rational thought.
> We reject the notion that one view of the universe is as good as
> another.
So do I. So tell me why I should accept _your_ view of the universe.
(If I thought all views were equal I wouldn't ask that - I'd just say "ok,
there's a competing interpretation, fair enough..." or some such thing.)
All I'm asking for, Larry, is _why_ we should becoime libertarians.
Dave Frame
Larry Timberlake
David Frame wrote:
>
> Larry Timberlake writes:
>
> > out of our way.
>
> It reeks of zealotry and intimidation.
Libertarians are rather passionate when it comes to people trampling on
their personal freedoms, but "frightening"? I don't think so, Dave.
Look at the context: I was responding to Doug Mackie's suggestion that
The Libertarianz should all be sent to slave labour camps when the
glorious revolution comes. In that context, I thought my response was
remarkably restrained. (Perhaps I should use more smiley faces, in
order not to disturb those younger readers who have never before seen a
politically incorrect declarative sentence.) The comment was actually
an allusion to remarks by a character in a novel by Ayn Rand. My prose
may occasionally "shine" if I'm having a good day, but on no account has
it even been known to "reek"! :-)
> ...would you provide a means of ensuring that cruelty and exploitation
> didn't take place?
Don't be silly. No government can ensure an end to cruelty and
exploitation. We would ensure, insofar as any government could, that
citizens were protected against violence, theft, intimidation and fraud.
> [Most...] libertarians...reveal little knowledge of
> how rights and duties actually work, and betray a
> poor understanding of the most fundamental aspect
> of human relations: reciprocity.
Libertarians are staunch supporters of free market capitalism which is
totally dependent upon the reciprocity of the quid pro quo,
value-for-value exchange. It is the altruistic value-destroyers who
lack any real understanding of reciprocity. As others have said, if it
isn't your own money that you want spent on the needy, then it isn't
charity you're suggesting; it's theft.
> ... At what point does enlightened self-interest
> cease to be enlightened?
> And at what point does "legitimate" self-interest
> degenerate into wanton selfishness?
I certainly wouldn't presume to tell someone else whether their level of
so-called "selfishness" should be classified as "legitimate",
"enlightened" or "wanton". What possible concern of mine (or yours) is
that?
> At what point do...these mutations cease
> to be *acceptable* to society?
Do you mean, "How successful can someone become in NZ before some
bastard tags their house or puts a brick through their window?"
I think your moral dilemma here has more to do with jealousy and envy,
than selfishness. That, and a dose of Puritanism -- that deadly fear
that somehow, somewhere, someone may actually be having a good time.
Anyone seriously interested in learning more about Libertarianism
(including Dave) could start with
The Libertarian FAQ, online at Advocates for Self-Government
<http://www.self-gov.org/>
or the entire manifesto (platform) of the U.S. Libertarian Party at
<http://www.lp.org/lp/platform/>
or the "gateway to freedom" on the net
with many links to many Libertarian organisations at
<http://www.free-market.com>
or visit The Free Radical site below.
--
Larry Timberlake
l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz
"Put Perigo in his place... Parliament!"
Visit The Libertarianz at <htttp://freeradical.co.nz>
David Frame
In article ant...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Anthony Hobbs) writes:
> In article Larry Timberlake <l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>> The Objectivist philosophy which underpins so much of Libertarian
>> thought this century
> ...is not so much a philosophy, as Ayn Rand making a bunch of normative
> statements, declaring them "axioms" and justifying them.
Well put. One of the points I was trying to make in one of my earlier
posts was that the libertarian claim about what rights we have or don't
have is actually a very hefty normative claim. It's as much of a moral
claim as (say) the liberal claim (to use Rorty as an example) "that
cruelty is the worst thing we do". More than simply telling us that a
thing is (or isn't moral) it's a moral axiom, and, as such, tends to be
pretty hard to justify ("oughts" generally have a normative axiomatic
base) on purely rational grounds. This is a point made by Hume who said
something like "You can't go from *is* to *ought* without breaking the
offside rule." I reckon axiomatic bases of this sort (libertarianism,
liberalism in the sense Rorty in which meant it above, even
utilitarianism) are very hard to justify rationally, which tends to
render as hollow any claims made by libertarians that theirs is the
one true rationanlly derivable moral code.
Dave Frame
David Frame
In article Larry Timberlake <l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz> writes:
> David Frame wrote:
>> [Most...] libertarians...reveal little knowledge of
>> how rights and duties actually work, and betray a
>> poor understanding of the most fundamental aspect
>> of human relations: reciprocity.
> Libertarians are staunch supporters of free market capitalism
> which is totally dependent upon the reciprocity of the quid pro quo,
> value-for-value exchange. It is the altruistic value-destroyers who
> lack any real understanding of reciprocity.
So if *your* children are, say, drowning or lying crippled in a burning
car-wreck, would there be any point in my rescuing them? Under your
code, it doesn't sound like I get anything out of it, so why should I
bother? And if everyone thinks as you do, I'm not even likely to get
that intangible inner glow of which do-gooders are so fond, so why
would I bother helping people? Does it matter? Does a society need
or even want people to look out for each other _even if they have
nothing to gain_?
> As others have said, if it isn't your own money that you want spent
> on the needy, then it isn't charity you're suggesting; it's theft.
A couple of hundred years ago, people said "property is theft." I reckon
both are bullshit. Property rights are no different to any other rights;
none are truly "inalienable". You are only accorded them on the basis of
your fulfilling duties to other people. One of those duties, under a
modern western democracy, is the duty to chip in for others not so well
off. That sounds fair enough to me.
>> ... At what point does enlightened self-interest
>> cease to be enlightened?
>> And at what point does "legitimate" self-interest
>> degenerate into wanton selfishness?
> I certainly wouldn't presume to tell someone else whether their level of
> so-called "selfishness" should be classified as "legitimate",
> "enlightened" or "wanton". What possible concern of mine (or yours) is
> that?
Even on your analysis it becomes my concern when their wantonness or
greed impinges on the way in which I choose to live my life. If I have
a wild and crazy belief like "that sharing things with people you don't
know isn't such a bad thing" and you refuse to come to the party
(because you don't believe that), we have a problem, don't we?
>> At what point do...these mutations cease
>> to be *acceptable* to society?
> I think your moral dilemma here has more to do with jealousy and envy,
> than selfishness.
Not at all. If I were jealous of the wealthy I would probably be taking
greater steps towards the accumulation of material wealth myself.
I think you're being too dismissive. The "You're just jealous" argument
is pretty childish and ignores some fairly serious concerns. We (those
of us who disagree with you) aren't all Perigo's demons of PC-ness,
puritanism and ignorance. Some of us have read - and rejected - Rand
and her more eloquent and persuasive counterpart, Nozick.
> That, and a dose of Puritanism -- that deadly fear
> that somehow, somewhere, someone may actually be having a good time.
Interesting choice of words, Larry. Might I (since you were so forth-
coming with web sites) suggest you read a couple of books by Christopher
Lasch - _The Revolt Of The Elites)_ and, more importantly for this
point, _The Culture Of Narcissism_. Interesting stuff.
Dave Frame
Larry Timberlake
David Frame wrote:
>
> So if *your* children are, say, drowning or lying crippled
> in a burning car-wreck, would there be any point in my
> rescuing them?
Only you can answer that question;
you're the one who must live with the consequences of your decision.
> [No rights] are truly "inalienable". You are only accorded
> them on the basis of your fulfilling duties to other people.
> One of those duties, is... to chip in for others not so well off.
> That sounds fair enough to me.
Now we're getting somewhere!
At least in terms of defining our differences...
Earlier, you wrote:
> You are telling me and everyone else what rights (and duties)
> we enjoy. Who are you to do this? Why should we believe you?
The matter rests squarely with the answer to this question:
Who owns you?
If God owns you, then no free will or moral choice is possible.
If Society or the State owns you, as you seem to suggest,
then you are not a free man but a slave.
But if you own you, then you are blessed with certain inalienable
rights; "inalienable" because -- if you own you -- then, so long as you
don't infringe on the rights of others, no one else has the moral
authority to take your rights away.
I appreciate that you've read up the philosophers on this one, and if
there were worlds enough and time, we could revise the subject starting
at Hegel and spending six months to pass Kierkegaard in order to reach
Heidegger and Heisenberg -- although either our final position or our
momemtum would be uncertain, but again, I ask, to what purpose?
I reject the idea that I am owned by the State.
I reject the idea that because someone, somewhere has a need,
that I am under some sort of involuntary obligation to meet that need.
You seem to be looking for some sort of conclusive proof, one way or the
other, that can finally resolve this question for you.
Sorry. Not my job. Believe what you like, so long as it works for you.
> If I have a wild and crazy belief like "that sharing things with
> people you don't know isn't such a bad thing" and you refuse to
> come to the party (because you don't believe that),
> we have a problem, don't we?
[Tonto to Lone Ranger:]
"What do you mean, "we", white man?"
I don't have a problem.
You're problem is to either convince me to share voluntarily,
(possibly by targeting my kids with adverts of starving children on the
telly after school each day and badgering them to "sponsor" a child... )
Or else you could mob together with your mates... If you persuade enough
of them that your compulsory sharing scheme "sounds fair" then you can
steal my money via the tax system and give it to people (like gang
members in Christchurch) that I would never dream of "sharing" with.
Then I have a problem.
Which is why I'm promoting The Libertarianz now.
--
Larry Timberlake
l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz
"Put Perigo in his place...Parliament!"
David Frame
In article Larry Timberlake <l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz> writes:
> The matter rests squarely with the answer to this question:
> Who owns you?
I don't believe this is a sensible question. "Ownership" isn't something
which is relevant to human life, as far as I'm concerned. If what you
are saying by "Who owns you?" (please correct me if I'm wrong about this)
is "Who determines morality?" (since what we're talking about is moral
freedom), I'd be inclined to be pessimistic and reply "The strongest."
Might might not always be right but it has a nasty habit of making the
rules. If you asked me "Who *should* determine morality" I'd answer
"The rational."
> If God owns you, then no free will or moral choice is possible.
Granted.
> If Society or the State owns you, as you seem to suggest,
> then you are not a free man but a slave.
I'm not suggesting that at all. What I'm saying is that rights and duties,
in fact, all of ethics, concerns the relationships *between* people. You
can't arbitrarily set the moral ground rules for all people by simply
producing a Randian canon and saying "right, folks, here's what consitutes
morality..." and expect other people, who perhaps have their own ideas of
what consitutes morality, to immediately accept it. The whole purpose of
*rational* moral discourse is to get people who disagree about morality
to sit down and agree about it (or at least, to agree about what is
rational). You're trying to set the ground rules for all moral discourse
in exactly the same way as, say, a dogmatic Marxist or Klansman might.
I just want to know why I should pay you any more attention than I pay
them.
> But if you own you, then you are blessed with certain inalienable
> rights; "inalienable" because -- if you own you -- then, so long
> as you don't infringe on the rights of others, no one else has the
> moral authority to take your rights away.
Hmmm... there are several points of contention here.
(1) Inalienable in what sense? You *can* be aliented from any and all
rights *by other people*. It's their choice if they accord you rights,
remember? And they're only likely to do that if you fuflill duties.
(2) The idea of "inalienable right" doesn't necessarily drop out of the
claim "you own you", which is why I've tried to rephrase your question
into one about "moral authority" (nice phrase, BTW). I don't think your
argument above is sound, because rights and responsibilities are matters
of agreement, not unilateral declaration. For example, I could declare
that "I have a right to watch footie on SKY during Pride And Prejudice"
but unless my flatmates share the same moral scheme, it's ultimately up
to *them* whether my claim to that right is taken seriously. You can
claim whatever rights you like but it's ultimately in the hands of other
people whether these rights "exist" or not.
Personally, I think you can determine what *duties* you are bound by
to a greater extent than you can what *rights* you have (since duties
concern your own actions in the same way as rights concern other peoples
actions TOWARDS YOU).
(3) I'd hate to be unduly negative but from what you've said later in
your post I don't think you're really concerned with "moral authority."
I think you're concerned with power. You want to set the rules and set
them (the moral rules) for everyone else as well (because you want to
tell them what they can and can't do to each other (especially you)).
> I reject the idea that I am owned by the State.
So do I. I haven't heard anyone round here say it.
> I reject the idea that because someone, somewhere has a need, that I
> am under some sort of involuntary obligation to meet that need.
As it stands, I'd agree with you there as well, though certain contexts
might see us disagreeing.
> You seem to be looking for some sort of conclusive proof, one way or the
> other, that can finally resolve this question for you.
That's right. Unless you can satisfy me that your claims about rights and
duties are reasonable, I won't respect your claimed rights and I'll (or
*we* (other people who disagree with you) will MAKE you do as we wish).
And you have no problem with that process, apparently. What you have a
problem with is the result.
> Sorry. Not my job. Believe what you like, so long as it works for you.
So this collapses into pragmatism? That's very odd - just the other day
I could have sworn I heard you letting rip about those flaky "all
interpretation is open, all things are equally valid" types. Now you
turn out to be one of them... very sneaky.
> You're problem is to either convince me to share voluntarily,
> (possibly by targeting my kids with adverts of starving children on the
> telly after school each day and badgering them to "sponsor" a child... )
> Or else you could mob together with your mates... If you persuade enough
> of them that your compulsory sharing scheme "sounds fair" then you can
> steal my money via the tax system and give it to people (like gang
> members in Christchurch) that I would never dream of "sharing" with.
> Then I have a problem.
So you're tacitly acknowledging that Might Is Right? Interesting. You've
been a bit reticent in providing *reasons* for why we should accept your
scheme. You say above that I should go with "whatever works for me", even
though what works for me might not work for you... Finally, you decide
that coercion is usually the determining factor in the ascendence of a
particular moral scheme. This would seem to imply that you don't think
reason is particularly important in moral discourse. Perhaps reason is
not, say, a better pair of glasses to see with but rather more like a
better set of guns to fight with?
Dave Frame
Brian Paul Lilburn
In article <51kqb6$p...@asgard.actrix.gen.nz>, mht...@actrix.gen.nz (Mark Harris) says:
>
>Br...@hoult.actrix.gen.nz (Bruce Hoult) wrote:
>
>[stuff snipped]
>
>>What I fail to see is why you think that this somehow invalidates the
>>Libertarianz ideas. The whole *point* of what they're saying is that
>>people should be free to associate with -- or to not associate with --
>>whoever they want, and free to join -- or not join -- whatever organisations
>>they want.
>
>Does that include Paedophiles Anonymous, or the Man/Boy Love
>Association (or whatever it's called), Bruce?
It's possible I agree with the Libertarianz on this, as my answer
would be "Yes". People who join such associations as you mention,
are not free to break the law, and joining does not mean they
intend to do so or expect to do so and be excused the consequences.
They join presumably for the purpose of agitating for a law change,
and in a society which purports to be as free as ours, there's no
justification for clamping down on them for that.
Brian
Larry Timberlake
David Frame wrote:
>
> In article Larry Timberlake <l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz> writes:
>
> > The matter rests squarely with the answer to this question:
> > Who owns you?
>
> I don't believe this is a sensible question.
I don't believe your objection is sensible. Where does that get us?
> If what you are saying by "Who owns you?"
> is "Who determines morality?"
> ...I'd be inclined to be pessimistic and reply "The strongest."
> ...If you asked me "Who *should* determine morality" I'd answer
> "The rational."
The rational... what? (If a rational falls in the forest and persuades
no one, does it make a sound?) If you insist that I rephrase my
question, try:
"Who knows better than you do, how to direct the course of your life?"
> > If Society or the State owns you, as you seem to suggest,
> > then you are not a free man but a slave.
>
> I'm not suggesting that at all. What I'm saying is that...
> all of ethics, concerns the relationships *between* people.
> You can't arbitrarily set the moral ground rules
> for all people...
I never claimed to. I said, 'these are the moral ground rules that most
people who call themselves "Libertarian" accept.
> You're trying to set the ground rules for all moral discourse
> in exactly the same way as, say, a dogmatic Marxist...
Except that we don't give a damn whether you agree with us, or Karl (or
Groucho, for that matter...)
> I just want to know why I should pay you any more attention
> [to you] than I pay them.
We won't shoot you, or send you to a slave labour camp for disagreeing
with us. Qualification: If your belief system suggests to you that you
are morally justified in breaking into one's home in order to rape,
steal or pillage by force and violence, then one would be compelled to
shoot you.
> You want to set the rules and set
> them (the moral rules) for everyone else as well
> ...because you want to
> tell them what they can and can't do to each other...
I'm afraid you have us confused with The Alliance, or possibly ACT... or
even The Christian Coalition. The ONE salient feature that sets The
Libertarianz apart from ALL other parties (with the possible exception
of the ALCP), is that we have absolutely no desire to dictate to anyone
what they "can and can't do to each other..."
Larry Timberlake
In message hefferch.1...@cc.cit.ac.nz, heff...@cc.cit.ac.nz
(Chris Heffernan) writes:
>
> mate, as a strong socialist and left winger i oppose mr perigos plan to get
> rid of human rights and democracy so this is what i think of lindsay perigo
> and the libertarianz
> ********************up yours lindsay perigo you racist, hitler loving bum***
Thank you for sharing that, Chris.
Did Dave ask you write?
--
Larry Timberlake
"When looking for a reason why things go wrong,
never rule out sheer stupidity."
Ted Howard
Larry Timberlake <l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> The ONE salient feature that sets The
>Libertarianz apart from ALL other parties (with the possible exception
>of the ALCP), is that we have absolutely no desire to dictate to anyone
>what they "can and can't do to each other..."
Larry,
Not quite true. You do support the right to human life, the right to
property, and enforcement of contracts freely entered into - as you
referred to earlier.
In other words, you don't like cheats, thieves and murderers. You're
not alone in that, I don't know too many who do - but such a stance is
a restriction on individual liberty (of those who would cheat, steal
or murder).
I'm not arguing against any of them, just pointing out what they are.
I know the consequences of ignoring those basic rights.
I believe the ultimate end point of most philosophical, religious and
political systems is a state in which all individuals are sufficiently
aware of themselves, their environment and all other people, that no
"external" regulation is required.
That is certainly my target, though I don't see us reaching it for a
decade or five yet. Perhaps we never will. Still doesn't stop it
being a good target to aim at.
My choice is ACT - as a "current best path".
Cheers
Ted Howard
Ph (+64) 7 867 3366 Fax 867 3181
Possibility == (Visionary Leadership)
ACT New Zealand - Coromandel Candidate
http://www.wave.co.nz/pages/act/
Postal: R.D.6, Thames, NEW ZEALAND
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing
over and over again, expecting a different outcome.”
Rita Mae Brown
Think about it, then ACT ;)
David Frame
>> In article Larry Timberlake <l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz> writes:
>> If what you are saying by "Who owns you?"
>> is "Who determines morality?"
>> ...I'd be inclined to be pessimistic and reply "The strongest."
>> ...If you asked me "Who *should* determine morality" I'd answer
>> "The rational."
> The rational... what? (If a rational falls in the forest and persuades
> no one, does it make a sound?) If you insist that I rephrase my
> question, try:
> "Who knows better than you do, how to direct the course of your life?"
Is this still a question of moral authority? I had the impression that
the last one was, but this seems a little more practical... anyhow...
I'd still say rationality is the "thing" (you could read "a rational
advisor" if you insist on a "person" to your "who..." question) which
is best suited to "directing" actions.
>> > If Society or the State owns you, as you seem to suggest,
>> > then you are not a free man but a slave.
>>
>> I'm not suggesting that at all. What I'm saying is that...
>> all of ethics, concerns the relationships *between* people.
>> You can't arbitrarily set the moral ground rules
>> for all people...
> I never claimed to. I said, 'these are the moral ground rules that most
> people who call themselves "Libertarian" accept.
Quite, but how about the vast majority of people in society who *aren't*
libertarians? By telling us what "rights" you have you're specifying how
we should act towards you (directing our actions), and by telling us what
duties you'll accept, you're trying to specify our rights. So in fact, for
those of us who *don't* accept your moral scheme, you're no different to
Karl, Groucho, or anyone else who'd try to foist an unwanted morality on
us.
>> You're trying to set the ground rules for all moral discourse
>> in exactly the same way as, say, a dogmatic Marxist...
> Except that we don't give a damn whether you agree with us, or Karl (or
> Groucho, for that matter...)
But all the same, you try to tell us what our rights are, and how we are
to behave towards you...
>> You want to set the rules and set
>> them (the moral rules) for everyone else as well
>> ...because you want to
>> tell them what they can and can't do to each other...
> I'm afraid you have us confused with The Alliance, or possibly ACT... or
> even The Christian Coalition. The ONE salient feature that sets The
> Libertarianz apart from ALL other parties (with the possible exception
> of the ALCP), is that we have absolutely no desire to dictate to anyone
> what they "can and can't do to each other..."
I don't think you understand all the implications of what you're saying,
that's all. Don't they teach basic philosophy at Auckland?
Dave Frame
David Frame
>> mate, as a strong socialist and left winger i oppose mr perigos plan to get
>> rid of human rights and democracy so this is what i think of lindsay perigo
>> and the libertarianz
>> **************up yours lindsay perigo you racist, hitler loving bum***
> Thank you for sharing that, Chris.
> Did Dave ask you [to] write?
No way. The Libertarianz are just about the last people who could be
accused of Nazism. And I'm neither a socialist nor a left-winger. Actually,
it's probably only die-hard socialists who could possibly see
libertarianism as being similar in any sense to fascism, and that's just
because some of them seem incapable of seeing beyond the old left/right
polarity of earlier in this century. Which is quaint, but not very helpful.
Horrifying though the prospect may seem to you, Larry, I suspect I have
a lot more in common with your views than with those of this Heffernan
rooster.
Dave frame
Marine Chemistry Laboratory
> >> **************up yours lindsay perigo you racist, hitler loving bum***
> > Thank you for sharing that, Chris.
>
> > Did Dave ask you [to] write?
> Horrifying though the prospect may seem to you, Larry, I suspect I have
> a lot more in common with your views than with those of this Heffernan
> rooster.
> Dave frame
Ha ! I got a message from this guy telling me to lay of being rude
about the McGillicuddies !
d'ugh
Larry Timberlake
David Frame wrote:
>
> Larry Timberlake writes:
> > ...'these are the moral ground rules that most
> > people who call themselves "Libertarian" accept.
>
> Quite, but how about the vast majority of people in
> society who *aren't* libertarians?
> By telling us what "rights" you have, you're specifying how
> we should act towards you (directing our actions),
Wrong.
In stating "rights" which I claim for myself, I have said *nothing*
which can be interpreted as directing your actions.
If I say, "I have a right to privacy in my own home", this in no way
*directs* your actions. At best, it may *circumscribe* your actions, in
the sense that if it had been your intention to invade my privacy, you
might reconsider.
> and by telling us what duties you'll accept,
> you're trying to specify our rights.
True, but only in the sense that your rights are being specified with
respect to *me*. If you think you have some claim over me, then there
are only two options open to you: either persuade me as to the validity
of your claim, so I act on it voluntarily, or else compel me by force to
comply with your request, even if I think it is unjust.
> So in fact, for
> those of us who *don't* accept your moral scheme,
> you're no different to anyone else who'd try to foist
> an unwanted morality on us.
If I say, "Leave me alone," and you say,
"Not until you give me some of your money", then who's attempting to
foist their belief system on whom?
> I don't think you understand all the implications of what
> you're saying, that's all.
According to "chaos" theory, I doubt that any of us is in a position to
comprehend *all* the implications of our actions -- butterflies
flitting today; tropical storms tomorrow -- call taxation "theft" today,
get a taxpayers revolt tomorrow; one never knows. I think you may be
suffering from "analysis paralysis"; if none of us ever acted without
omniscience, we would have to be gods before we could act.
> Don't they teach basic philosophy at Auckland?
Not so's you'd notice, but we do have a damn fine Diploma in Pulp and
Paper Technology.
Anthony Hobbs
In article <324C54...@iprolink.co.nz>,
David McLoughlin <dav...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
> Well that's simply not the case, Larry. As I've noted before, the No 1
> policy of the Libertarianz appears to be giving Deborah the right to
> blow her filthy smoke all over me,taking no note of my right to fresh air.
Yeah, and another thing. Larry's right in saying that the correct
Objectivist attitude to people who don't agree with them is "Who gives a
shit?" (viz: H. Roark in _The Fountainhead_), so why does Lindsay fill up
so much of the _Free Radical_ with cheap shots and name-calling against
everyone who disagrees with him?
And another thing. Would it be legal to drive drunk in New Freeland?
Larry Timberlake
Anthony Hobbs wrote:
>
> ... why does Lindsay fill up
> so much of the _Free Radical_ with cheap shots...
I assume by *cheap shots* you mean the editor's comments on news
clippings in the *Horror* and *Hope* files. These typically occupy only
about 5 percent of the mag. Even if you included Lindsay's editorial in
this description, it would still amount to less than 10 percent of the
contents. But if you think the clippings speak for themselves, write to
Lindsay <edi...@freeradical.co.nz> and suggest this. Amongst other
things, he is out to sell magazines by keeping his readers happy as well
as enlightened.
>
> And another thing. Would it be legal to drive drunk in New Freeland?
That would ultimately depend on who owned the road you were driving on
after they were privatised.
If you'd like to put your questions to the man himself, Lindsay will be
holding forth on Radio Pacific TODAY (3 Oct) from 12 noon until 2 pm.
Tune In! (Turn On! Drop Out!)
Anthony Hobbs
In article <3252FE...@auckland.ac.nz>,
Larry Timberlake <l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> I assume by *cheap shots* you mean the editor's comments on news
> clippings in the *Horror* and *Hope* files. These typically occupy only
> about 5 percent of the mag. Even if you included Lindsay's editorial in
> this description, it would still amount to less than 10 percent of the
> contents.
Didn't answer my question. Why does Lindsay *care* so much? That's against
Objectivist ethics, innit?
> But if you think the clippings speak for themselves, write to
> Lindsay <edi...@freeradical.co.nz> and suggest this.
You know, I just might.
> Amongst other things, he is out to sell magazines by keeping his readers
> happy as well as enlightened.
Doesn't entertain me. The sheer poverty of spirit involved in such
unintellectual substitutes for rational argument puts me off buying it. I
always flick through the articles, though, except anything that madman
Trevor Loudon writes.
> > And another thing. Would it be legal to drive drunk in New Freeland?
>
> That would ultimately depend on who owned the road you were driving on
> after they were privatised.
But how would the owners of the roads enforce any anti drunk-driving
rules? Would they have private cops doing random stops on their roads?
Larry Timberlake
Anthony Hobbs wrote:
>
> But how would the owners of the roads enforce any anti drunk-driving
That would be entirely up to the owner of the road as well, (whether
individual, corporation or trust). I think it more likely that road
mangers who wanted to ensure drivers were _compos mentis_ would offer
some quick electronic reaction time test at the toll gates.
Alternatively, one might post a bond indemnifying the owner against
financial loss through any accident you might cause. I'm sure other
schemes could be devised...
The Liberatarianz view is that you are most welcome to be drunk as a
Lord or high as a kite whenever you like, but if you drive in that
condition, you should be held financially responsible for any damage,
death or injury attributable to your condition. We think it's appalling
that drunkeness is so often used now as an excuse: "He never would have
run off the road, (beat up his wife, thrown out his kids, or whatever)
if he hadn't been drinking." We say, he chose to drink; he elected to
voluntarily impair his judgment. He's responsible for whatever
consequences result.
David McLoughlin
Larry Timberlake wrote (re his party's policy of allowing drunk driving):
> The Liberatarianz view is that you are most welcome to be drunk as a
> Lord or high as a kite whenever you like, but if you drive in that
> condition, you should be held financially responsible for any damage,
> death or injury attributable to your condition. We think it's appalling
> that drunkeness is so often used now as an excuse: "He never would have
> run off the road, (beat up his wife, thrown out his kids, or whatever)
> if he hadn't been drinking." We say, he chose to drink; he elected to
> voluntarily impair his judgment. He's responsible for whatever
> consequences result.
>
>
It's barely worthwhile debating with you Larry, because you simply cannot comprehend
other viewpoints. But I give it yet another go.
It's like Deborah's smoking. Libertarianz policy as you've explained it is that "freedom"
means she has the freedom to blow her filthy smoke all over me. I argue that "freedom"
means she is free to smoke, but her freedom to do so ends at my nose. I have the right to
breath fresh air. Therefore laws preventing her from smoking all over me in offices (I
have worked in one with her) restaurants (I've never been to one with her but she has a
passion for them) aircraft and other public confined places are, I argue, a legitimate
use of government powers to delineate respective freedoms. She can smoke anywhere she
likes as long as it's not over me and good luck to her.
The same with drunk driving. I do not use Deborah as an illustration here, because
knowing her well, I know that she would no more countenance driving drunk than I would.
But Larry, you are arguing that someone should be free to drive drunk as long as they pay
financially for the consequences. Again I ask, on which planet do you live? And don't
answer earth this time.
I argue that I should be free not to be run over by drunken drivers. My children should
be from not to be run over by drunken drivers. Deborah's children should be free not to
be run over by drunken drivers. I am certain even Deborah would agree with me on this
one. There is no "freedom" to drive drunk because doing so is a fatal compromise to the
freedom to live of other people. No amount of financial compensation would compensate for
the lives of my children. Do you have any children, Larry? If so, how much would you
exchange their lives for? I'd love to hear the price. Let's hear it.
By all means, Larry, set up your own private road for drunken drivers and let you and
them kill each other on it. As long as there's nobody else involved. That would be your
prerogative. It would be your choice. I support it heartily. I await eagerly your doing
it. But keep off the roads the rest of us have to use.
Yours in timewasting
David McLoughlin
Anthony Hobbs
In article <3255C6...@auckland.ac.nz>,
Larry Timberlake <l.timb...@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> That would be entirely up to the owner of the road as well, (whether
> individual, corporation or trust).
Uh-huh. So, what would be perfectly all right carried out by some private
individual or organisation becomes a drastic crime against liberty when
carried out by the state?
--
Anthony "Slug of Doom" Hobbs, GCP: musician and amateur ranter, Wellington, NZ.
Also at: nor...@ihug.co.nz http://shell.ihug.co.nz/~norway/hobbs.htm
McGSP spokesthing on Electrickery and candidate for Invercargill
"...and it's too late to lose the weight you used to need to throw around."
Larry Timberlake
David McLoughlin wrote:
>
> Larry Timberlake wrote (re his party's policy of allowing
The Libertarianz have no formal position on drunk driving. We honour a
basic principle that individuals are free to live life as they please,
subject only to the requirement that they respect the right of others to
do the same. This last requirement, in my view, encompasses not killing
people carelessly with a motor vehicle.
>
> It's like Deborah's smoking. Libertarianz policy as you've explained > it, is that "freedom" means she has the freedom to blow her
> filthy smoke all over me.
Sorry, David, but not everything in the world relates to Deborah's
smoking, ubiquitous though it may be. Perhaps I explained it badly. What
I said was that she had a right to smoke in her _own_ home, or _private_
office, or in a public restaurant in an area approved for smoking by the
owner, and that if this offended you, you had every right to take your
nose and righteous indignation elsewhere.
> I argue that I should be free not to be run over by drunken drivers.
Right. I agree. No problem. But you apparently believe your safety is
better ensured by having the police stop drivers at random to check
their blood alcohol. I'm suggesting that if the roads were privatised
then the owners of those roads would be responsible for determining what
criteria must be met before one could drive on them and further, since
each and every driver and vehicle on those roads would be required to
meet some minimum standard, this approach is much more likely to lessen
your risk than the present lottery in which less than 1% of drivers are
vetted on any given day.
> It's barely worthwhile debating with you Larry,
> because you simply cannot comprehend other viewpoints...
I can comprehend them. I simply don't agree that all viewpoints are
equally valid. I think one determines what is rational by the practice
of reason, not by having a vote or reaching a consensus.
Anthony Hobbs wrote:
> So, what would be perfectly all right carried out by some private
> individual or organisation becomes a drastic crime
> against liberty when carried out by the state?
Random stopping may become a drastic crime against liberty, simply
because it is _random_. As someone else has remarked, only God can
generate a random number or, in this case, select drivers at random.
No one wants to drive on a road with the uncertainty that at any moment
an oncoming drunk (or druggie, or hoon, or suicidal maniac) might
suddenly come around the next bend and swerve directly into your path.
The question is whether road users are likely to be safer travelling on
public roads with police protection or on private roads with whatever
vetting and surveillance systems the owners wished to impose. My guess
is that in New Freeland, some vistigial public system might remain but
that most drivers would find the private roads safer to drive in all
respects.
Lila Richards
In article <532d19$l...@asgard.actrix.gen.nz>, ant...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Anthony Hobbs) says:
>Doesn't entertain me. The sheer poverty of spirit involved in such
>unintellectual substitutes for rational argument puts me off buying it. I
>always flick through the articles, though, except anything that madman
>Trevor Loudon writes.
Now *there's* a name I haven't heard in a while ... Trevor Loudon, one-time
ZAP (Zenith Applied Philosophy, these days known as Zenith Applied Science,
- originally an off-shoot of Scientology) afficionado, and involved with
the anti-Lada campaign, and the mercifully short-lived 'Sunday Miracle'
newspaper I use the term advisedly). I'm not in the least surprised to
hear that he's crawled out of the woodwork and under the wing of another
rabid Ayn Rand fan.
L Richards.
Peter Metcalfe
On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Lila Richards wrote:
: Now *there's* a name I haven't heard in a while ... Trevor Loudon,
: one-time ZAP (Zenith Applied Philosophy, these days known as Zenith
: Applied Science, - originally an off-shoot of Scientology) afficionado,
: and involved with the anti-Lada campaign, and the mercifully short-lived
: 'Sunday Miracle' newspaper I use the term advisedly). I'm not in the
: least surprised to hear that he's crawled out of the woodwork and under
: the wing of another rabid Ayn Rand fan.
What really puzzles me was that Trevor campaigned against the Homosexual
Law Reform Bill. How does he reconciles his beliefs with the orientation
of Lindsay Perigo?
--Peter Metcalfe
Anthony Hobbs
In article <aa7cc$16292c.3a9@MARLI>, Lila Richards <li...@lynx.co.nz> wrote:
> In article <532d19$l...@asgard.actrix.gen.nz>, ant...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Anthony Hobbs) says:
> >I always flick through the articles, though, except anything that
> > madman Trevor Loudon writes.
>
> Now *there's* a name I haven't heard in a while ... Trevor Loudon, one-time
> ZAP (Zenith Applied Philosophy, these days known as Zenith Applied Science,
> - originally an off-shoot of Scientology)
It was a cross between $cientology and Objectivism, wasn't it? Like
Neo-tech?
> afficionado, and involved with the anti-Lada campaign
Ah, the Campaign for a Soviet-Free New Zealand, famous for describing
glasnost as a hoax (SURE HAD ME FOOLED, TREV!) Last heard of reluctantly
expressing satisfaction when the USSR split up, with the proviso that they
didn't trust Yeltsin (who does?). According to one of his mad articles, in
which he blamed all Maori nationalism on a Maoist conspiracy (does he have
any idea how many Maoists there are in this country? NOT FUCKING MANY!),
he's switched from "right-wing conservatism to right-wing libertarianism",
which is an improvement, I suppose. He's a Randroid instead of a fascist
now, and at least Randroids don't want to shoot you. They just want to
TAKE OVER YOUR BRAIN. :) The difference might not be obvious to some, but
at least Ayn Rand supported the right to strike, which is more than ZAP
did.
>, and the mercifully short-lived 'Sunday Miracle'
> newspaper I use the term advisedly). I'm not in the least surprised to
> hear that he's crawled out of the woodwork and under the wing of another
> rabid Ayn Rand fan.
Whenever I think of Ayn Rand, the music to "Tom Sawyer" by Rush goes
through my head. Rush did a lot of lyrics based on Ayn's teachings, and
they're far better than anything she wrote herself. Do you know, _The
Fountainhead_ is about the only novel I've ever read where there isn't one
single joke? She shows exactly what she thinks of jokes by making her main
antagonist very proud of his sense of humour, but he never cracks any
jokes either.
--
Anthony "Slug of Doom" Hobbs, GCP: musician and amateur ranter, Wellington, NZ.
This account expires on October 13 - use nor...@ihug.co.nz instead
McGillicuddy spokesthing on Electrickery and candidate for Invercargill
David McLoughlin
Lila Richards wrote:
>
> >Trevor Loudon
>
> Now *there's* a name I haven't heard in a while ... Trevor Loudon, one-time
> ZAP (Zenith Applied Philosophy, these days known as Zenith Applied Science,
> the anti-Lada campaign, and the mercifully short-lived 'Sunday Miracle'
> newspaper I use the term advisedly). I'm not in the least surprised to
> hear that he's crawled out of the woodwork and under the wing of another
> rabid Ayn Rand fan.
>
Lila, he's not the only ZAPper about. David Henderson, another big-time
Zap man from Christchurch, was the "businessman" who funded "Radio
Liberty," the Ayn Rand radio station Perigo and Deborah Coddington ran in
Auckland for a time until it went belly up, unable to pay its bills, a
few months ago.
Radio Liberty's short and bankrupt life was the ultimate proof that free
enterprise includes the freedom to go bust.
Their other old mate from ZAP, Gerald Henry, got his just deserts
recently when an American court sentenced him to many years in jail for
fraud. Pity about all the New Zealanders he ripped off with his
Energycorp, Ye Old Plum Duff Christmas puddings, etc.
David McLoughlin
Lila Richards
In article <53kqp2$s...@asgard.actrix.gen.nz>, ant...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Anthony Hobbs) says:
>
>In article <aa7cc$16292c.3a9@MARLI>, Lila Richards <li...@lynx.co.nz> wrote:
>> In article <532d19$l...@asgard.actrix.gen.nz>, ant...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Anthony Hobbs) says:
>> Now *there's* a name I haven't heard in a while ... Trevor Loudon, one-time
>> ZAP (Zenith Applied Philosophy, these days known as Zenith Applied Science,
>> - originally an off-shoot of Scientology)
>
>It was a cross between $cientology and Objectivism, wasn't it? Like
>Neo-tech?
It was started by John Dalhoff (latterly self-styled John 'I am not a god,
and I would not want to go down to that state' Ultimate) after Scientology
chucked him out. In my opinion, it subsequently became even weirder than
Scientology, but without Hubbard's eccentricity and humour, and even more
extremely right-wing (and sexist and racist). Much of their literature
came from the John Birch Society, which is where the great
Jewish-Communist (!!???) conspiracy to rule the world via the banking
system seems to emanate from. Interesting, then, that the actual inroads
into world domination via banking seem to be coming from the right-wing
element. The fact that ZAP now calls itself Zenith Applied Science (it's
listed in the Chch phone book as such) does, perhaps, suggest a Neo-tech
bent these days. Still, what's in a name? It stills stinks!
Lila.
Lila Richards
In article <53uubk$8...@asgard.actrix.gen.nz>, ant...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Anthony Hobbs) says:
>
>In article <ae7cc$1698.34b@MARLI>, Lila Richards <li...@lynx.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> It was started by John Dalhoff (latterly self-styled John 'I am not a god,
>> and I would not want to go down to that state' Ultimate) after Scientology
>> chucked him out. In my opinion, it subsequently became even weirder than
>> Scientology, but without Hubbard's eccentricity and humour,
>
>office prepared for Hubbard, should he rise from the dead at short notice
>and need to get some work done in a hurry.
>
>> and even more extremely right-wing (and sexist and racist).
>
>account like mainstream Objectivism?
I suppose it depends on what you mean by active, but as far as I
know, it was more in expressed attitudes such as that if certain races
were oppressed or enslaved, it was because they were inferior anyway,
otherwise they wouldn't have let it happen. In many ways, it was like the
New Age 'you choose your circumstances, therefore it's your own fault if
you get a bad deal in life' attitude.
Lila.