Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Take me to your leader

Here is a letter in the BOP Times concerning me.


I am puzzled by the letter from Graham Clark where he accuses the IRD of stealing money by way of taxes.
Perhaps Mr Clark wishes to tell readers how the government can run the country without receiving money from taxes.

Here is my reply - making use of numerous quotations from Ayn Rand

The child molesters of the mind have done a grand job brainwashing people like Lawrence Woods (with money taken from them under threats and force), into believing  they cannot function without their interference in their lives.

"The man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap."
I don’t need a leader to tell me how and where I may educate my children, or when I am sick enough to go to hospital, or what I may or may not put into my body, how I may reprimand my children, or if I may or may not end my own life! This is a myth perpetrated by government - "your leader"  to make its citizens think they cannot function without them.

The function of government should be to protect its citizens from the use of force and fraud, - not inflict those things upon them - something I am sure we would all pay for voluntarilly.

Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

So to answer Mr Lawrences question HOW can they run it without taxes, the answer is "they can't, and nor should they." Unfortunately they "DO" and they WILL continue to do so all the while they have the minds of our children in their grasp, as is perfectly illustrated by Mr Lawrences question.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Tall Popp[y-choppers alive and well in Tauranga

As is the tendency of all good socialists, Bruce Little manages to overlook one minor fact in his letter complaining about the pier that the Kestrel Restaurant was moored to on the Tauranga Waterfront.

That in order for the council to steal money from its citizens (oops I mean tax), first of all they must be able to earn money. This little inconvenience is achieved by the productive of our society - ie if money is not first created, then there is nothing for council to steal (I mean tax).

The little monument to commercial narcisism as he snidely calls it was an attempt to create commerce and income - not only for the entrepreneur, but for others employed in the area.  Without adventurous, nacisistic entrepreneurs, people like Bruce Little probably wouldn’t have a job. This was a private speculation and would have been undertaken at no expense to ratepayers, and should be encouraged at every opportunity - not denigrated by the choppers of tall poppies.

The council are parasites on the backs of the productive. They create nothing. The more commercial narcisism undertaken means less that council have to steal from ratepayers, forcing them to pay for things some do not wish to pay for.

I may not like everything developers build, but I don’t have to pay for them, as opposed to council forcing ratepayers to pay for things like them or not.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

BOP Times editorial on Drugs

I constantly find myself being in disagreement with the opinions of the editor of the BOP Times, and here is just another example I feel it necessary to comment on.

I disagree with your rationale in your editorial "Drugs must be stamped out." 
and it is statist misinformation and propoganda like this that will ensure they continue their popularity and continue to have an adverse effect on those who chose NOT to take recreational drugs.

As editor of the newspaper, you are in the position to state your opinion at will, and so I would assume that you would inform yourself of all the facts before presenting your opinion to the public, and I ask if you have ever read Nobel prize winner Milton Friedmans "Law of prohibition?" If you have not, then you should do so immediately, for without having read this you are at a serious disadvantage to present a balanced editorial.

First of all you say: "Illegal drugs give people a reason to commit crime and hurt others."
Assuming that statement is true, then the opposite is also true ie. if they were legal, those who wish to use drugs would have "no reason to commit crime, and no reason to hurt others." That is immediately a reason for them NOT to be illegal.

While they are illegal, those who demand they are so, are the "reason" people commit crime and hurt others. That makes YOU part of the problem - not the solution that you seek.

If they were legal, those being harmed by the drugs would be hurting themselves - not others.
A more rational solution would be a truthful education programme to teach people not to harm themselves, and the truthful consequences of taking recreational drugs, which would not place other peoples lives and property in danger.

People commit crime because they "want" drugs - not because they are "on" drugs.

Your argument concerning alchohol is not only irrational but also immorral.

I agree that what you say about any political power would not be able to stay in power should they try to ban it, but then you try to justify it being legal by saying the following: "Thousands use it responsibly!"

Thousands also use illegal recreational drugs responsibly.

Don't get me wrong. I do not condone the use of recreational drugs.
All drugs are dangerous, although some more so than others
For this reason I do not take them myself, although I have known hundreds of responsible, everyday people who do, and persecuting them because "you" do not agree with what they chose to put into their body is first of all none of your business, is hypocritical, and makes no sense at all.

Because of your personal irrational, prejudiced opinion, you would also deny those ailing from certain medical conditions from receiving the best treatment for their condition. Not a thing I would like to have on my conscience.

You state the Law Commission would be better off spending its time working out how to cut crime.

What is crime?

Is it possible to commit a crime against yourself?


Therefore to answer your statement, refer to my paragraph above about exactly who "is" the victim of crime.

It should be the governments job to "protect" its citizens from acts of force, fraud and violence and crime with a victim - not inflict those things upon us.

Your paragraph concerning "legal  highs" such as Kronic also shows a poor understanding of the issue.

It  "should be" any employees right to unequivocally state that "any" mind altering substances will not be accepted as an employee of their company (if they so wish of course). That includes "legal" or "illegal" substances - including alcohol.

Your final statement: "If anything drug laws should be tightened." will have exactly the opposite effect to the end result you wish to achieve. That is not my opinion - its a historical fact which you will read about when you read Milton Friedman.

Tightened drug laws will have the following effect:

Illegal drugs will become smaller and more potent (to aid in concealement, manufacture  and distribution.)

Drug prices will increase, and therefore make them more worthy of the risk to manufacture and sell them.

Those manufacting and selling the drugs will resort to more EXTREME measures to protect their valuable product (ie they will invest in bigger, nastier guns and methods of protection)

It will be in these peoples interest to get children hooked on drugs to increase their customer base, and increase their profits

More dangerous, un-regulated, un-tested drugs will be developed, sold and used when people cannot get hold of less dangerous recreational drugs of their choice.

I could go on - please ask me for more examples - I will be happy to furnish them.

I have the same end goal at heart as you do. ie to see less people harmed through using dangerous substances.
To reduce crime (real crime with an involuntary victim)

I suggest the methods used to achieve our mutual goal have proven ineffective, and have squandered more than they have achieved, while you suggest we continue with the squillion dollar tried and failed war on drugs, which in all the years in operation has achieved the results you are unhappy with today.

Thursday, May 12, 2011

Who is John Galt?

Who is John Galt?

I am really excited to hear that a New Zealand Actor - one Grant Bowler has one of the lead roles in the Atlas Shrugged movie that has just premiered in the USA. Atlas Shrugged is of course the best selling book (OVER 7 MILLION COPIES) by philosopher Ayn Rand.

If there ever was a movie to be made compulsory in schools, council chambers and government offices around the country it should be this. Forget Al Gores creative fairytales about Global Warming and movies by Michael Moore.

Unfortunately the concepts illustrated in this movie will go over the heads of a population steeped in state and council dependancy and will be like playing War And Peace to kindergarted children, but if it teaches just 1 person the meaning of the words property rights and personal responsibility our country will be better off.

This movie or better still the book - should be made compulsory reading or viewing for every council and government candidate.

The book Atlas Shrugged is a life-altering experience, and I urge everybody to go and check it out when it arrives - but before it gets here, get busy and read the book to help your enjoyment of the movie.

Dole Bludgers NZ Wide now have a new pin-up Girl.

Dole Bludgers NZ Wide now have a new pin-up Girl.

Leanne Hardy has spent a great deal of her life stealing from me and you because she couldn’t be bothered working. She denied our children time with their parents while they had to work and earn enough money to keep themselves alive and pay for her to sit at home. Our children were deprived of things because a portion of the wages we earnt were taken from us (under threat of fines or jail) so that the likes of Leanne could do nothing and get paid for it.

How do these people live with themselves knowing this? The answer is they are not taught otherwise. They are brought up to believe they have a right to this money, and not taught where it comes from.

The irony is, Leanne is back on a benefit (god knows how or why) and the courts or whoever it was, have the temerity to say she is paying the stolen money back!

With money she has not had to earn! Stolen from its rightful owners (the taxpayer / worker) and given - unearned - to Leanne - so that she can give some of it back! All those who condone such a system should qualify for a sickness benefit. - What a farce.