Such an erudite piece of writing, and can you please write another one explaining Libertarian policy and philosophy because, as you say, the Act Party most definitely is not a Libertarian Party. In so many ways - supporting government funded roading, health, education, welfare (I could go on) - makes Act far, far removed from Libertarian philosophy. There is no way in hell a Libertarian Party would make it within a bull's roar of Parliament in New Zealand. I think I know something about this - I stood for the Libertarian Party in NZ about 40 years ago and I think we got about minus 200 votes! Well, I was young and .... what can I say? David you can explain much better than I can but in a nutshell, true Libertarians only support the state spending taxpayers' $$ being spent defending a nation's defence from attack, invasion, and individual's safety. In other words, freedom from coercion and force. Even taxation is considered theft. It's all very idealistic, unrealistic, and most people would say, airy fairy.
Most people use the word today to attack Act supporters, but they don't know what the word means. They also confuse it with Libertines, but that's another story. Sigh.
I am travelling at the moment. Just out of the Panama Canal and heading for Cartagena.
I will have a look at a users guide to libertarianism and see what I can do. We have a couple of at sea days which could be usefully employed plus I have access to my research archives in the Cloud.
You may enjoy the piece on the Select Committee out tomorrow
Thanks for asking Deborah, this was a very helpful comment. I had to Google the finer differences as I’m sure most of us conflate libertarian with (classic) liberal. It doesn’t help that the term ‘liberals’ is also often conflated with ‘progressives’ which itself is also a considerable misnomer! Or maybe I just need to read some more.
ps your elsewhere comment about Dr Harvey & Chris Trotsky was half right at least…. One of these two is indeed brilliant & insightful. The other is more like the proverbial broken clock… just imho.
Thank you David. It's obvious that not all AFS returnees of more than half a century ago were infected with the free speech principles we hold so dear!
I can't tell you how much my morning improved with reading this. Many years ago Anne Salmond used to be one of my heroes then she seemed to have got captured by the prevailing critical theory ethos and became a paid-up member of the Jacinda Ardern Hagiographic Society. Early this year she posted a piece on Newsroom rubbishing the misinformation being promulgated by the anti-vaxers and I watched the fawning comments being published in response and her fulsome replies. Finally it all got too much and I put a comment rebutting the false premises that were once again being flourished, but did it get published? Of course not. Apparently OIAs don't count as evidence. So by the end of the life of the piece there were about 10 responses, all bending over backwards to join the laudatory chorus.
From what I've so far read about the Select Committee hearing Deborah Russell picked the wrong person to challenge on their understanding of "liberty"!
The people whom Seymour held up as examples of having "derangement syndrome" were, in fact, highly educated and knowledgeable people who have a much better understanding of society than Seymour ever will. Seymour's behaviour was rightly labelled as unethical, unprofessional and dangerous. It was a stupid, childish and deliberate attack from someone who is paid by the New Zealand taxpayers and should be expected to uphold certain standards of professional behaviour.
He is someone in a position of power who used his platform to mock anyone who spoke up against his bill. In a democratic country we expect to be able to criticise proposed legislation and hold our policticians to account.
I think that your advice to Anne Salmond should be directed at David Seymour, if he cannot stand the heat of people disagreeing with his politics, then he should do us all a favour, and get out of the kitchen.
Ella, you say "The people whom Seymour held up as examples of having "derangement syndrome" were, in fact, highly educated and knowledgeable people who have a much better understanding of society than Seymour ever will".
I say, it was established a long time ago that there is a yawning gap between intelligence and common sense in many people. I've contemplated handing back my (inconsequential) degree from Auck Uni in protest at how far they have wandered from reality.
As to understanding society! If those "elites" ever had anything to do with the real world, they lost touch with it many years ago, living in their Ivory Towers.
Good for you on voicing an opinion Ella. Sadly though, yours here was short on supporting argument. ‘But those (wokester) people are really smart academics’ does not cut it. Instead it smacks of what Halfling referred to in his article, a circular, self-referencing argument. ‘As a superior genius with these qualifications, I can tell you…’. This is up there with ‘speaking as a person of colour’…. Both are intellectually lame.
ps your comment about ‘holding politicians to account’ was spot on, but I’m guessing we’re going to have a different view on the specifics thereof!. And hey, you must have liked his comments about Geoffrey Palmer? A more cringeworthy out-of-touch-with-reality ivory tower academic you will not find than our Sir Geoff. His ‘Treaty Principles’ clauses alone have caused this country irreparable damage and achieved no benefit.
I wish Prime Minister Luxon and the rest of his cabinet would read your wise opinion and learned demolition of the emotive, ideological opposition to this very sensible and well researched and prepared Bill which is essential for the good of everyone in New Zealand.
I drove our daughter home in absolutely torrential rain one evening last week.
On arriving home, she noted the weather.
I replied, without mentioning Sir Geoffrey's name, that "Well, New Zealand is an irremediably pluvial country."
She paused.
Then she provided critique. My paraphrase, but it gets the gist of it. "Dad, don't talk like that. It makes you sound stupid. You sound like one of those people who uses big words to sound smart but it only makes you sound dumb."
Thanks David It really is a concern, that there is such a concerted effort to object (without providing rational reasons) to anything that might upset the status quo, and risk undermining privileges that some currently enjoy. As with the TBP, media are emphasising there are more submissions against than in favour, as if that reflects some form of democracy.
Such an erudite piece of writing, and can you please write another one explaining Libertarian policy and philosophy because, as you say, the Act Party most definitely is not a Libertarian Party. In so many ways - supporting government funded roading, health, education, welfare (I could go on) - makes Act far, far removed from Libertarian philosophy. There is no way in hell a Libertarian Party would make it within a bull's roar of Parliament in New Zealand. I think I know something about this - I stood for the Libertarian Party in NZ about 40 years ago and I think we got about minus 200 votes! Well, I was young and .... what can I say? David you can explain much better than I can but in a nutshell, true Libertarians only support the state spending taxpayers' $$ being spent defending a nation's defence from attack, invasion, and individual's safety. In other words, freedom from coercion and force. Even taxation is considered theft. It's all very idealistic, unrealistic, and most people would say, airy fairy.
Most people use the word today to attack Act supporters, but they don't know what the word means. They also confuse it with Libertines, but that's another story. Sigh.
Thanks Deborah
I am travelling at the moment. Just out of the Panama Canal and heading for Cartagena.
I will have a look at a users guide to libertarianism and see what I can do. We have a couple of at sea days which could be usefully employed plus I have access to my research archives in the Cloud.
You may enjoy the piece on the Select Committee out tomorrow
Thanks for the comment.
Cartagena is great. Enjoy.
Thanks for asking Deborah, this was a very helpful comment. I had to Google the finer differences as I’m sure most of us conflate libertarian with (classic) liberal. It doesn’t help that the term ‘liberals’ is also often conflated with ‘progressives’ which itself is also a considerable misnomer! Or maybe I just need to read some more.
ps your elsewhere comment about Dr Harvey & Chris Trotsky was half right at least…. One of these two is indeed brilliant & insightful. The other is more like the proverbial broken clock… just imho.
that one had me chuckling away over my morning coffee .......
Thank you David. It's obvious that not all AFS returnees of more than half a century ago were infected with the free speech principles we hold so dear!
Thanks for the comment Peter. Can’t imagine who the uninfected returnee might be.
Oh heck, you’re right. I just checked. Her AFS experience ‘life learnings’ were clearly of a different type to mine. The woman is quite mad.
I love it. I just so love it. Lord knows how you find time to write them all but so glad you do.
I can't tell you how much my morning improved with reading this. Many years ago Anne Salmond used to be one of my heroes then she seemed to have got captured by the prevailing critical theory ethos and became a paid-up member of the Jacinda Ardern Hagiographic Society. Early this year she posted a piece on Newsroom rubbishing the misinformation being promulgated by the anti-vaxers and I watched the fawning comments being published in response and her fulsome replies. Finally it all got too much and I put a comment rebutting the false premises that were once again being flourished, but did it get published? Of course not. Apparently OIAs don't count as evidence. So by the end of the life of the piece there were about 10 responses, all bending over backwards to join the laudatory chorus.
Thanks Aroha
You may enjoy tomorrow’s piece on the Select Committee. I assume you have seen Trotters piece of yesterday.
Currently transiting the Panama Canal. Fine weather and 30 degrees. Cartagena Colombia tomorrow.
From what I've so far read about the Select Committee hearing Deborah Russell picked the wrong person to challenge on their understanding of "liberty"!
what a crock of ....
Not sure if you are referring to the article, Salmonds piece or my analysis of it.
Your article.
It's just a one-sided, biased opinion piece.
The people whom Seymour held up as examples of having "derangement syndrome" were, in fact, highly educated and knowledgeable people who have a much better understanding of society than Seymour ever will. Seymour's behaviour was rightly labelled as unethical, unprofessional and dangerous. It was a stupid, childish and deliberate attack from someone who is paid by the New Zealand taxpayers and should be expected to uphold certain standards of professional behaviour.
He is someone in a position of power who used his platform to mock anyone who spoke up against his bill. In a democratic country we expect to be able to criticise proposed legislation and hold our policticians to account.
I think that your advice to Anne Salmond should be directed at David Seymour, if he cannot stand the heat of people disagreeing with his politics, then he should do us all a favour, and get out of the kitchen.
Most of my pieces, by the way, are opinion pieces. Opinion by its very nature contains seeds of bias.
True.
I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it. Thanks for your comment.
I think Salmond et Al as Chris Trotter has said are frothing at the mouth on this or, as Shakespeare said “doth protest too much methinks”
People have disagreed with Seymour before but he stuck to his guns e.g. the End of Life law.
Seymour’s derangement approach was street politics to which personally I would not subscribe. I prefer sweet reason.
But hey, he got his message out. The indignant self-satisfied response was entirely predictable.
Ella, you say "The people whom Seymour held up as examples of having "derangement syndrome" were, in fact, highly educated and knowledgeable people who have a much better understanding of society than Seymour ever will".
I say, it was established a long time ago that there is a yawning gap between intelligence and common sense in many people. I've contemplated handing back my (inconsequential) degree from Auck Uni in protest at how far they have wandered from reality.
As to understanding society! If those "elites" ever had anything to do with the real world, they lost touch with it many years ago, living in their Ivory Towers.
Good for you on voicing an opinion Ella. Sadly though, yours here was short on supporting argument. ‘But those (wokester) people are really smart academics’ does not cut it. Instead it smacks of what Halfling referred to in his article, a circular, self-referencing argument. ‘As a superior genius with these qualifications, I can tell you…’. This is up there with ‘speaking as a person of colour’…. Both are intellectually lame.
ps your comment about ‘holding politicians to account’ was spot on, but I’m guessing we’re going to have a different view on the specifics thereof!. And hey, you must have liked his comments about Geoffrey Palmer? A more cringeworthy out-of-touch-with-reality ivory tower academic you will not find than our Sir Geoff. His ‘Treaty Principles’ clauses alone have caused this country irreparable damage and achieved no benefit.
Loved this! About time some of these named individuals got put in their place.
One of your very best, thanks David
I wish Prime Minister Luxon and the rest of his cabinet would read your wise opinion and learned demolition of the emotive, ideological opposition to this very sensible and well researched and prepared Bill which is essential for the good of everyone in New Zealand.
She proclaims herself a “trained” socio-linguist;
But the Dame doesn’t seem to know her liberals from her libertarians.
So did she achieve a “Pass”;
Or does she make it up as she goes along?
The latter I am led to believe.
I drove our daughter home in absolutely torrential rain one evening last week.
On arriving home, she noted the weather.
I replied, without mentioning Sir Geoffrey's name, that "Well, New Zealand is an irremediably pluvial country."
She paused.
Then she provided critique. My paraphrase, but it gets the gist of it. "Dad, don't talk like that. It makes you sound stupid. You sound like one of those people who uses big words to sound smart but it only makes you sound dumb."
And I chuckled to myself...
Thanks David It really is a concern, that there is such a concerted effort to object (without providing rational reasons) to anything that might upset the status quo, and risk undermining privileges that some currently enjoy. As with the TBP, media are emphasising there are more submissions against than in favour, as if that reflects some form of democracy.