RoR: Forum

Well done PC! Am faxing my vote for Libertarianz today.

Thanks
David

PS For other NZers like me overseas, the process of faxing a vote is simple if you are already on the electoral roll. Go to www.elections.org.nz

Post 1

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 1:49am

Well said Peter.

Just curious, but what does your research tell you about the change in Libertarian sentiment/attitude since the last election?

Go the Libz...

Daniel

Post 2

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 10:23am

Interestingly, New Zealand was just ranked no. 1 in the world for ease of doing business. (USA was third, after Singapore.)

Post 3

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 1:16pm

What's that mean -- pull-peddling?

Post 4

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 1:34pm

No no, it's intended as a measure of how hard the government makes it for a business to get something accomplished (such as fire an employee, convey real estate, form a business entity, etc.). The more hoops the country's government makes you jump through, the lower its rating.

So my point was that, notwithstanding how things may appear to New Zealanders themselves, they are apparently better off interference-wise than anyone else in the world.

Post 5

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 2:22pm

Wah, wah, wah... I live in New Zealand and it's cool, but I still feel intruded upon. Wah, wah wah.

If Only I Lived Somewhere Different, Or The World Would Just Change, I would be happy. Wah, wah, wah.

If it's not perfect, I'm gonna have a hissy. Even if it is, I'm gonna have a hissy. Wah.

rde
tired of the bitching

Post 6

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 5:21pm

Thanks for the intelligent comments, guys.

DANIEL: "Just curious, but what does your research tell you about the change in Libertarian sentiment/attitude since the last election?"

I've noticed a lot of lip-service given to "individual liberty, "personal responsibility, "property rights" etc, though with little or no real understanding of what these things mean. But lip service is a start.

We even had the co-leader of the Greens, Rod Donald, telling Kim Hill the other night that he is "a radical capitalist," and wanting that to be viewed as a good thing. That's some progress, making the world safe for people to boast about being a capitalist, even if they aren't. :-)

JAY: 'Ease of doing business' is not quite the same thing as protection of or respect for property rights. And I have to say that in many cases these surveys such as the one you quote look slightly odd to those on the ground. In some cases (many) the local estimations are for example made by organisations with some significant axes to grind.

The petulant RICH apparently has an axe to grind. I have no idea exactly what it's about, but it appears to involve having a stick up his arse. I'm sorry for you, Rich, that you can't see the universality of an argument for property rights. Your loss.

Post 7

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 5:37pm

Rich-

So do you feel that if there are injustices and the world is not perfect that we should just quietly acquiesce? Sorry man, but I have no idea wher you are coming from with that post.

Post 8

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 11:23pm

I do have an idea where Rich is coming from -- though I don't agree.

If you examine Joe's All or Nothing speeches (recent articles here), then you will find references to folks who act like Chicken Little and say that the sky is falling whenever hit over the head with a brick. I am one of those alarmist "Chicken Little"s. I rant and roar about an obvious increase in statism (tax+inflation+deficits+military deployment) in the US -- under Bush -- and I find myself on the receiving end of disciplinary tirades such as Rich's here.

Apparently, if you care enough about the ideals that your country was founded upon -- you're a heretic. Apparently, if you scream/shout whenever something unconstitutional is done -- you're an America-hater.

I'm still working out what the proper balance is (between loving the ideal, and supporting the homeland), but, as I said above, I do have an idea where Rich is coming from. It's a damn tight-rope, I tell ya' -- but I'm consigned to walk it as best as I can.

Ed

Post 9

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 12:58am

Ed -- I don't think that you need to be walking a tight rope.

You are correct to pass stern judgement about issues pertaining to violations of individual rights by the U.S. government. In contexts like this you are applying ethical principles that entail "either or" dicotomies. Either force is being initiated by the government or it is not.

At the same time it is logical and non contradictory with the first judgement to conclude that the U.S.A. still does a better job of recognizing individual rights and provides us with the opportunity to acheive a better quality of life then other countries. Thus, by degree the U.S. is superior.

So there is no tight rope, these are simply two different types of judgements.

- Jason

Post 10

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 1:20am

Jason,

Argh! Ye' ole' degree-worshippers. I fear I'm (unwillingly) becoming one of thee!

Is the standard of morality of a nation properly judged via reference to the contextual morality of other nations? I have trouble with this 'comparative' ethic.

If every other nation allowed state-approved murder of its citizens (such as Hitler's party-platform point about death penalties for those charging interest), would it -- and I mean would it 'necessarily' -- make me feel better to live under more absolute statism (even though, relatively, I was so much more free than others are)? I still wrestle with this conundrum.

The way I see it, it all comes back to J. Kilbourne's point about politics being about the feasible. What is feasible now? Is minarchy feasible? I say -- emphatically -- yes (and cite Rand for support), but so many say no. Am I to judge my nation via reference to other nations -- or is there a more absolute standard, say, alluded to within our own US Constitution?

Indeed, we may be the most moral -- but can we, then, consign to resting on our laurels?

Ed

p.s. I still envision a tight-rope scenario (please, if you think you can, rescue me from this vision of politics and ethics).

Post 11

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 1:58am

"Is the standard of morality of a nation properly judged via reference to the contextual morality of other nations? "

No, the standard of morality is "Which nation (if any) best serves my long term self interest?" This question cannot be decided based upon "either or logic" though various instances of "either or" logical judgements may be required within the confines of the ultimate decision.

"Indeed, we may be the most moral -- but can we, then, consign to resting on our laurels?"

Of course not, we should work to chip away at the immoral elements of the United States government and we should be outraged at specific rights violations and laws that promote them. However, the key is keeping things within their proper context. I am not going to flee America because of seat belt laws or eminent domain. Based upon the alternatives it isn't in my interest to do so. This is the type of judgement that involves degrees.

- Jason

Post 12

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 8:50am