Saturday, June 25, 2005

Candidate Survey: Twentieth Response

From Luke Howison. Luke is ranked 18th on the LibertariaNZ party list.

If you could ensure the passage of one act on one issue in the next Parliament, what would it be?

An Act establishing the Libertarianz Constitution as the foundation of New Zealand law would be just the thing to kick off our first term in Parliament.


What three other electoral candidates or sitting MPs do you think are most similar to you in their political views?

Philip Howison (Libertarianz candidate for Hutt South)
Bernard Darnton (Libertarianz candidate for Wellington Central)
Julian Pistorius (Libertarianz candidate for Northland)

MMP is about coalitions: What sitting MP who is NOT in your party do you think is most similar to you in their political views?

Rodney Hide (ACT)

Do you support or oppose:

...raising the drinking age?

The argument for raising the drinking age to 20 seems to based on the drinking habits of 15 and 16 years olds

...legalising marijuana (or pharmaceuticals based on it) for medical use?

Support, see next question.

...decriminalising or legalising marijuana for recreational use?

Drugs shouldn't need to be 'legalised' or 'decriminalised' - what one does with one's own body is nothing to do with the government.

...allowing same-sex couples to adopt children?

Any responsible person willing to take on the task of raising a child, with the consent of the child's legal parents or guardian, should be allowed to do so.

...amending the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry?

The Marriage Act will be repealed. There is no reason why the government should be legally sanctioning certain relationships and not others.

...allowing voluntary euthanasia or physician assisted suicide?

The time and method of one's death is again a matter of personal choice. We can certainly ask the person to reconsider, but it is immoral to intervene by arresting them.

...state funding of integrated schools?

All education should be run and funded by non-governmental organisations such as private education companies, foundations, churches and charities.

...the retention of sedition as a crime in the Crimes Act?


...the retention of blasphemous libel as a crime in the Crimes Act?

... duh.

...further restrictions on hate speech?

Free speech is a human right (unlike the "right" to education, welfare and so on - no one has the right to take money from others).

...the use of indefinite detention without trial for those subject to a security risk certificate?

Oppose. Every person has the right to a reasonably short period of detention and a fair trial, regardless of "security risk". Either they have committed a crime, or they have not.

...restoring the death penalty for serious crime?

Some crimes may morally justify a sentence of death, but the state cannot be trusted with an action of this kind. Jail sentences can be overturned, and compensation given, but posthumous apologies are poor compensation.

...Georgina Beyer's Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill?

It is not a 'human right' to
not be discriminated against. Other people are entitled to opinions, even bigoted ones. Look up the difference between positive and negative rights.

...Gordon Copeland's New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill?

In order to provide for ourselves, we must be able to
own and use what we produce - from our shoes, furniture and food to money and land. Private property rights are a basic human right.
"They who have no property can have no freedom. " - Stephen Hopkins

...entrenching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as supreme law?

The current Bill of Rights Act is based on the wrong principles. Certain rights are justified, but not others, eg individuals have the right to life, but not the right to compulsory support from other people.

See the Libertarianz Constitution for a much better Bill of Rights:

...New Zealand's participation in the International Criminal Court?


...lowering MMP's threshold from the present 5%?

Obviously the Libertarianz are biased, but the 5% threshold smacks of the US system which blatantly discriminates against any parties outside the Democrat-Republican monopoly. The threshold should be 0.83%, to allow smaller parties to gain single MPs. The argument that a lower threshold will make it harder to form governments is flawed, because it assumes that a firm government is required. New Zealand does not need a single governing party, and without one, it will be harder to pass laws which infringe on personal and economic freedoms.

With the benefit of hindsight, how should the government have handled the Ahmed Zaoui case?

In general, libertarians advocate an open immigration policy, but not for individuals convicted of serious crimes. It should have decided quickly whether or not Ahmed Zaoui had committed any crimes, and then either allow him to immigrate without prejudice, or ship him right back to where he came from (on his own expense).

As usual, Luke's views are his own, and do not necessarily represent those of the LibertariaNZ.


WTF? How can property be a basic human right, but not being discriminated against isn't? That not only makes no sense, but that's a disturbing bunch of priorities.

Posted by Ghet : 6/25/2005 01:57:00 PM

Because those "rights" are inherently in conflict where private property is concerned. If anyone can use your property then by definition you don't own it, which is far more important than the "right" to use someone elses property. If, for example, you get refused entry to a bar, you simply give them the fingers and go somewhere else. A lot less big a deal than losing property rights.

Posted by Blair : 6/25/2005 02:50:00 PM

Maybe Ghet thought Luke also meant public or government discrimination? All individuals should be treated equally before the law, but private discrimination is an entirely different matter, protected by the right to freedom of association.

Posted by Phil Howison : 6/25/2005 04:52:00 PM

I'd actually argue that there's no hard and fast line between public and private discrimination. If you're just talking about freedom of speech, then yeah, people have the right to say what they want, but I'd argue, only up until the point where what they say does harm. To say that walking up to someone and 'speaking your mind' about their race, their sexuality, their religion, whatever, doesn't do harm just because you haven't punched them in the face, is hopelessly naive.

And no, honestly, I don't agree. But then I belong to two groups that make me liable to be publicly discriminated against and abused, sometimes in front of my children. That's far more affecting than someone being able to, say, walk across my lawn, which I believe is the sort of property right you're talking about.

Posted by Ghet : 6/26/2005 12:37:00 PM

What's the point of having all these responses from LibertariaNZ? They all think the same thing. The irony of that in a party dedicated to the worship of individualism is utterly priceless.

(All together now guys, in time please: "We are all individuals").

Posted by Icehawk : 6/28/2005 12:01:00 PM

I'm not. (sorry)

Posted by Commie Mutant Traitor : 6/28/2005 03:26:00 PM