Friday, February 29, 2008


I discovered a new word today - it is utilitarianism

It means that a persons actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of the majority, and that an action is right if it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number is achieved.

This word can be perfectly (although not exclusively) used to describe Larry Baldock and his merry men of the Kiwi Party

Larry says his party are staunch advocates of property rights without having a clue as to the real meaning of the words!

What he does have is a rough idea of what they mean, and he has made up the rest.

As an example of the above, Larrys idea of property rights is that if a majority votes that you must paint your house yellow, then the minority must paint theirs yellow also to appease the happiness of the majority.

This is NOT property rights Mr Baldock, it is mobocracy.

If you profess to be a staunch advocate of something as important as property rights, you should first find out what it really means.

Next you will say you are a staunch advocate of individual rights and because the majority have short hair, then everybody must have short hair because its what the majority want.
What a load of rubbish!

A perfect example of the havoc a misguided politician without principles to guide him can inflict upon us.

Now, before all Kiwi Party members get upset, Larry is not alone in the principle-challenged world of the politician - in fact here he will find HIMSELF in the majority.

I have writen this letter with the intention of pointing out the grand-scale hypocrisy which is unfortunately taken as acceptable thinking[sic], in the hope of helping others identify it for themselves.

Thursday, February 28, 2008


Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Steal from your Neighbour - It's OK

I am tired of all the correspondents to the newspaper - not to mention in day to day life - calling for government or council to force people to do this or that, or whatever else tickles their fancy at the time. The cannot seem to comprehend what they are asking for, or how it must be attained.
People who think themselves moral or just stamping their feet and demanding they be given what they want because they are right, or because it is for the good of the majority, or damn it, just because they WANT IT. Here is a letter to the editor on the subject.

I have a question to ask all those people (Mary Brook especially) who think it is OK to use force upon others to get what they want!

Why does THEFT become OK just because you call it a different name (tax!)

Is it OK if I go round to my neighbours house and take his money?

Is it OK to go to all the houses in the street and take their money?

The answer of course is NO!

What makes it OK for council or government to do it then?

What makes some people think this is the only way humans must interact with each other?

If it is not OK to use force on your children with a smack, Why is it ok to use force and threats (of fines or imprisonment) to achieve what you want on other matters?

The use of force is NOT OK unless it is in self defence to protect the life of yourself, your family or your property from threats or force!

The use of force is the most immoral and uncivilised action one human can take upon another.
Intelligent people who think it is OK to get what they want by demanding government or council get it for them by forcing others against their will are immoral unthinking, unprincipled bullies and should be ashamed of themselves.

I challenge these people who consider themselves to have at least half a brain to put it to use and investigate this very simple principle - It is called the "Non-initiation of force."

There is no more moral system than the voluntary interaction between consenting adults when applied to ANY situation.

But then maybe some people don't care about what is moral, and are happy to get their way no matter what!

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Reply from Larry Baldock

Here is a letter I just received from LARRY BALDOCK - Kiwi party Leader

Below that is my REPLY to him today.

See my earlier post to read my initial letter to Larry.


I don't know if you have noticed Graham, but the minority are taking away
the rights of the majority.

I would prefer the majority had some say in all this.

I am well aware that you believe everyone should be able to do as they
like, your theories are often revealed in the paper, and are always just as
ridiculous, unless you live all by yourself on a desert Island.

Our party is a staunch advocate of private property rights, Gordon Copeland
has tried to have that included in the bill of rights.

In any society where there are two or more people there will have to be some
decisions made by the majority.

Of course the majority should do their best
to respect the rights of the minority as best they can. It is not a perfect world, however and someone's rights are going to affected somewhere.


Larry Baldock
Party Leader
The Kiwi Party


Thank you very much for your reply Larry, unfortunately you have only confirmed that you are an advocate of mob rule and brute force, and that you do not have any idea of the true meaning of the words property rights, and for somebody who thinks his party is a staunch advocate of property rights, you have me VERY CONCERNED!

LARRY: "I don't know if you have noticed Graham, but the minority are taking away
the rights of the majority.
I would prefer the majority had some say in all this."

GRAHAM: Here in your first paragraph is where you prove my point.
Please explain exactly WHY or HOW, just because it is a majority it is RIGHT, and WHY they are entitled to take away the rights of the minority!
Please excuse the horrid example, but I wish to illustrate how your thinking, or lack of it, is incorrect:

On an island of 100 people, they have a vote whether it is OK to molest children, and 51 vote YES - does that make it OK?

Of course not

This is your MOB RULE in action is it not?


You may be as you say "well aware" of what I believe, but being AWARE, and actually UNDERSTANDING are obviously two different things. - The rights of the individual, and property rights are NOT as you put it RIDICULOUS - They are the two most important concepts available to human kind - once again, you prove you do not understand the meanings of these words.

I do not wish to take anything away from YOU, but YOU wish to take things away from ME (I am talking about RIGHTS here)
Please explain to me how what I believe is RIDICULOUS - I would really like to hear your theories on this!


You see there are two kinds of people:
Those who have opinions, and those who have ideas! - You appear to be of the former group. OPINIONS are like NOSES - everybody has one!
Opinions are acquired not through a principle, not through facts or scientific calculation, but through feelings, and what the majority think!

IDEAS are based upon research, facts, and sticking to basic moral principles


You stated the following "
LARRY: In any society where there are two or more people there will have to be some
decisions made by the majority. Of course the majority should do their best
to respect the rights of the minority as best they can. It is not a perfect
world, however and someone's rights are going to affected somewhere.:

GRAHAM: This is absolutely NOT TRUE Mr Baldock

This is how it is NOW, but it does not HAVE to be like that! Who says this is the ONLY way for adults to interact - mob rule, brute force and threats!

In a civilised society it would be much more moral to apply property rights, the rights of the individual, and common law principles. THAT WAY the only people who are unhappy, are those who wish to impose their opinions on others, which is an immoral concept.

The most UNCIVILISED thing one human being can do to another is to use FORCE upon them.

THIS is one of the ridiculous principles that I base my life and all my writing on.

Please explain to me how this is RIDICULOUS.

I think this is a very moral principle upon which to base my interaction with other human beings! How is your opinion of mob rule, followed by FORCE and THREATS more moral? - I would be very interested to read your opinion on this!

Thanks for your time Larry - my initial letter to you was simply to point out your lack of understanding (or CHOSING to ignore) the meaning of the concepts of property rights and individual rights, and if you are campaigning on these topics, you really should be better informed


Friday, February 22, 2008

New Zealanders voting for themselves - NOT

Concerning Larry Baldock blowing his own trumpet in a full page advertorial in the Bay News newspaper, Wed 20 02 08

In this advertorial, Larry tells us that there are two reasons why many people have not signed his second petition, calling for a referendum on the anti-smacking bill.

I would like to explain to Larry Baldock there is a third reason why I, and others have not signed his referendum petition. (I did sign the anti-smacking petition.)

The reason being for a concept that Larry would not understand, and therefore has not even considered. (despite the title at the top of this page that says "New Zealanders voting for themselves.")

This concept is called "individual rights!"

A referendum is the counting of heads - not the quality or the content of the thoughts in those heads!

It is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner!

A referendum stands for "mob rule!" where the majority get to vote away the rights of a minority. (the smallest minority of course being the individual.)

For example, lets say out of 100 people, 51 people get to impose what they want over 49 people!

That is a very large amount of people who have been denied their rights because of 1 vote!

If the rights of the individual were protected by law, 49 people would get to do what they believe in, and would be happy, while 51 people could mind their own business!

The 49 people are not trying to take anything away from the 51,
but the 51 want to take something away from the 49!

A referendum means that 51 people get to force 49 people to do what THEY want!
Individual rights mean EVERYBODY gets to do what they want (so long as they do not use force or fraud upon others)

Unfortunately many do not understand this concept, falsely believing that what they think or believe is right (religious fundamentalists and most mainstream politicians and local body bureaucrats being prime examples) , and wish to force their ideas or morals onto others - a prime and topical example being the subject of euthanasia.

I support Larry Baldocks action on the anti-smacking bill because (whether I personally believe in it or not,) it would return rights to those from whom they were stolen.

Unfortunately, Larry would impose his will upon others on different topics - he gives with the right hand, and takes away with the left because he does not understand the very basic principles of property rights and the rights of the individual.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Education System

Teachers need to perform says a report in the BOP Times on 19 02 08

To fix underachievement levels it’s recommended new teachers should only gain full registration after two years if they raise achievement levels of students, when it is the old, tired, teachers, lacking incentive that is the problem, although new teachers (un)educated in the present state school system are not to be overlooked.

New teachers are more likely to put in extra hours, be more enthusiastic etc than old ones who only do the bare minimum that is required.
The best way to increase literacy and achievement levels would be to remove the state from the education system, and watch it flourish.

Let good teachers be headhunted for their skills and achievements in a free market. Let them negotiate a salary to match their skills, just like the private school system which doesn’t turn out underachievers by the thousands.

MPs say NZ had one of the finest systems in the world, but in the next breath “a disproportionate number of students failing” mmmm! No guesses where “most of them” went to school either!.

If a business goes bankrupt, you get a new manager to rectify the problem, you dont get the old manager who made it bankrupt to fix it!
Government is the source of the disease affecting literacy levels - asking them to fix it will only ensure it gets worse.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Bullshit Artist

Described as being inspired by Monet

Here is a little something I found that relates to my story recently concerning an artist exhibiting in the Tauranga ratepayer-funded art gallery.

Please go to the link - the story and photographs are quite amusing, and confirm the observations I made in my own post.

Toddler fools the art world into buying his tomato ketchup paintings To the untrained eye, they appear to be simple daubs that could have been created by a two year old. Which is precisely what they are. But that didn't stop the supposed experts falling over themselves to acclaim them. The toddler in question is Freddie Linsky, who has fooled the art world into buying and asking to exhibit his paintings. Freddie's efforts, which include works using tomato ketchup composed while sitting on his high chair, were posted by his mother Estelle Lovatt on collector Charles Saatchi's online gallery. ********* A couple of comments concerning the above

I'm sorry to have to ask this, but what is wrong with you people? That mother and son have just proven that it takes the skill of a two year old to produce what is called "modern art". A child of two who sings like a pordigy is something extraordinary; such is an actual skill to be applauded. The fact that 'great' artists are still painting with similar ability to a child with a 40 word vocabulary is entirely disappointing, not to mention that other people actually pay large amounts of money.

My mother once told me that modern art is art because it ccame from the artist's imagination, and nobody else's. If that is all that can be thought up by some people, I'm astonished that there even are people with such a narrow imagination.

- Kyle, Chester, UK

Next time someone hands over cash for modern art just laugh at them, toddler art should be free at the point of sale!

- Richard De Gerber, Kingston upon Thames

Art is a method of representing man's interpretation of his environment and communicating that interpretation to others. As such, all art has to be intelligible. It's freedom of stylization is limited by the requirement of intelligibility; if it does not present an intelligible subject, it ceases to be art.

These wild daubs by a two year old child are no more or less artistic than any other works of, so called, "modern art" and merely highlight the fraud of the modern art community.

- Dave, Warrington

Electoral Finances Bill (reprise)

I don't like to regurgitate other peoples writing TOO often, but every now and again when I read something particularly clever or EXPLANATORY, it seems a waste not to share it.

The following piece is from NotPC: I read it on Julian Pistorius's blog - seems like he thought it worthy of a second look also.


There is no free speech under a tyrant

November 20th, 2007

Reproduced from PC's Blog:

If it moves, they've taxed it. If it keeps moving, they've regulated it. When it stops moving, they've subsidised it. If they don't like it they've banned it, and if they do like it, they've made it compulsory.

They've taxed you to hell, regulated you into the ground, and turned nearly two-thirds of New Zealanders into welfare beneficiaries. And they've lied to you about it all.

In times of tyranny the only relief from dictatorship is through free and fair elections -- the right retained by the people to throw the buggers out -- and the right -- the right! -- to raise your voice in protest.

Both forms of pressure release are now being taken away.

Elections are now being fixed to favour the ruling party -- and the so called opposition is so spineless in any case as to be no real alternative -- and for one year in three political protest is being muzzled, requiring registration with a censor's office.

To raise your voice in protest you'll have to ask permission first.

It's the last straw.

There is no free speech under a tyrant.

Friday, February 15, 2008

Is It Art?

I enjoyed the article in the BOP Times on artist Mark Braunius, but there was so much SPIN going on, I had to check I wasn’t reading the washing machine manual!

It read like a press release from the emperor’s spin doctors, desperately trying to convince the public on the magnificence of his new clothes.

It did contain several interesting observations.

Mr Braunius has not made much profit from his art” - which I take to mean few people deem it worth exchanging their money for! and “the people of Kawhia call him the bullshit artist.

Marks work has the hallmark of somebody desiring the lifestyle of an artist and pursues that path despite having no real ability in the field.

By displaying work of this level of competence in a ratepayer-funded gallery, council is forcing me to sponsor mediocrity, to which I am vehemently opposed.

In a free market I would be right behind Marks right to pursue this chosen path, regardless of his ability, and if Marks work was exhibited in a private gallery, he would have my best wishes, but displayed in the council-owned gallery, of which I am a shareholder (ratepayer) I claim the right to comment on its quality and suitability, to which I find it lacking on both accounts.

Mark says likes to question peoples taste, and that is fine!

What is NOT fine, is when they are forced to pay for the privilege to do so!

All I can say is “People dont need a weather man to know which way the wind blows!”

You don’t have to personally like something to "know" it is quality! -

Just like music for example, I don't particularly like Pavarotti, or U2, but I recognise that what they do is very good, and when left to the free market to decide what is good and what is not, people vote or show their appreciation via their wallets.

I think this very simple phrase actually sums this entire thing up.

If it looks like a turd, and smells like a turd, chances are . . .!


This from the Tauranga Art Gallery site:

VISUAL BANK: Mark Braunias

20 Oct 2007
An installation in which the artist has created an internal world of brightly coloured comic figuration across the walls of the Gallery’s Atrium. Paintings on canvas, board, paper, acetate and plywood cut-outs converge towards the central wall where directly hand
painted imagery integrates with film footage of the painting process and an animation.

The result is a frenetic energy of humour, play and a sense of the irreverent which delivers an explosion of colour. Braunias has raided his scores of drawing books (his 'visual bank') to translate images which reference art history (past and present) popular culture (70's pop and film stars etc) with a disneyesque hybrid of biological and cartoon forms to present picture puzzles similar to stream of consciousness thoughts.

The artist refers to his work as a "cultivated 'silliness' which disguises layered meanings of how we perceive visual language".

Sponsored by K.D. Kirkby Charitable Trust / Guardian Trust

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Gangs recruiting at Waitangi Celebrations

The Labour Gang, National Gang and the Tribesmen Gang Recruiting at Waitangi

Tribesmen Gang more efficient and Cut Out The Middleman!

I had to hold back the bile to prevent myself being sick after reading Labour Party MP Shane Jones report on Waitangi Day.

He was complaining about gangs - the Tribesmen motorcycle gang in particular.

He said that he was opposed to them because they used force and threats!

Does anybody else see the hypocrisy in this statement?

Please explain why The Tribesmen gangs force and threats are any different to the Red gangs force and threats?

Jones says "When you are trying to establish your brand in the marketplace, the first thing you do is give away freebies. The fact people were getting something for free is a very sinister ploy designed to attract young vulnerable whanau."

Well, blow me down with a feather!

Is this guy that damn STUPID that he cannot relate this DIRECTLY to what HIS OWN GANG do? There is NO DIFFERENCE - It is EXACTLY THE SAME!

Now, before all red gang supporters get upset, here are the definitions of the words “force” and “threats.” “To make someone do something against their will.”

and “the intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something.”

Try not paying your tax (government use of force), and see what happens (threats will come thick and fast!)

The tribesemen have simply cut out the middle man! Their use of force and threats benefits them directly, and everything they steal goes directly to them, as opposed to the governments force and threats, where over half of what they steal is syphoned off before it reaches those it was stolen for.

What's the difference to the Tribesmen handing out free food and drink to attract members, and Labour offering handouts or tax cuts - they are both bribes

Here is a bit of friendly advice Mr Jones!
When you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, the best thing to do is STOP BLOODY DIGGING!

Bloody Hypocrits!

Sunday, February 10, 2008

All those in favour say "aooooowww!"

In a socialist democracy where people get a say in spending money that does not belong to them - here are the rules of the game!

People vote. The majority win. 51% are happy - 49% are unhappy!

This is democracy at work! The counting of heads - not the quality of the THOUGHTS in the heads, but MOB RULE!

Tauranga voted in its majority- small as it was - against a museum.

Now, you would think that those in favour of democracy would say “ OK, fair enough - the majority have spoken!

But because the result is not what Graeme Purchase desired, he is complaining about it!

Those who would have us governed by people or political parties without principle should quit complaining when they actually get what they asked for - that, or put a little more thought into who they vote for.

Under a Laissez-fare (hands-off) capitalist style government you can spend your money on what YOU want. Everybody is happy except those who want a say in what others do with theirs!

Mr Purchase wants the benefits of capitalism by socialist means. (which is morally impossible!)

He wants HIS, but ALSO wants to tell you what to do with YOURS!

So what’s it to be Mr Purchase? - I chose property rights every time!

Saturday, February 09, 2008

Will the REAL opposition PLEASE STAND UP!

I have just read one of the most outrageous and sickening things I have read all year, and which only goes to further justify my comments to Dr Ingram (see my post a couple of letters earlier) concerning the die-while-you-wait health system.

National party MP Tony Ryall informed us that the BOP District Health Board has increased the “medical” staff (Drs, surgeons etc) by 29 . . . and the “administration and office workers” by 174!

What will kiwis do about this flagrant waste of taxpayers money?

Most will just go “bbaaaaaa” and roll over again, but those who are annoyed will probably vote for National as a protest to get rid of the Labour government, which is responsible for this outrage, (amongst countless others) but this is a complete waste of time, as voting for National under their new leader (sic) is the same as voting for Labour! - It is no alternative - it is more of the same!

This is why the National party have justifiably earned the nickname recently of “Labour-Lite.”
They are supposed to be the “opposition” yet as highlighted by voting for the anti-smacking law, are just part of the problem, as opposed to standing by their principles and voting against it!, which is about as much opposition to anything as a wet paper bag!

Will the REAL opposition PLEASE STAND UP!

Friday, February 01, 2008

How to boil a kiwi alive

This is interesting!

Must be the first victim of Hard Labours Anti freedom of Speech legislation the Electoral Finance Bill.

Andy Moors site called DONT VOTE LABOUR has been shut down by the FREE SPEECH POLICE.

This government could write the definitive instruction book on "How to boil a Kiwi alive."

Very carefully, bit by bit, they are removing the rights and responsibilities of the individual, until before too long nobody will be able to do ANYTHING without the consent of one of nannys minions.

New Zealand it appears is well on its way to Miz Clarkes Socialist Utopia, and once there, it is only a hop step and a jump away from what must be her ultimate goal - the BIG C.
kia-ora comrade