Our unhealthy political landscape

Yesterday the Libertarianz, one of our longer-lasting and more active minor parties, was deregistered at its own request, presumably because it no longer meets the requirement of having 500 members. It is unclear at this stage whether this is temporary, a-la United Future, or permanent - but its worth noting that their website hasn't been active for almost a year. While an unregistered party can still stand electorate candidates, it cannot contest the all-important party list, and its usually a quick path to oblivion. While I don't like the Libertarianz or what they stand for, the number of minor parties outside Parliament is a sign of the health of our democracy, of how involved and willing to participate people are. That number has shrunk significantly since the introduction of MMP, so that we are now down to a handful. And it will probably shrink - the NZ Democrats got a similar number of votes to the Libertarianz last election, and the Alliance (remember them?) got fewer, so they're both probably out the door soon.

Still, its not as bad as it seems: because at the same time the Electoral Commission was deregistering the Libertarianz, it was registering Focus NZ. Formally known as the NZ Rural Party, this is basically a party for farmers and country hicks, promoting a mix of absolute propertarianism and NZ First-style economic nationalism. While it has no real media profile yet, it will be interesting to see how it does in those National-dominated rural seats.

So, the number of registered parties has at least stayed constant - for now. And we've got the Internet Party on the horizon, and possibly some sort of racist or ACT reborn vehicle as well (oh. And The Civilian, of course). Still, our political landscape is far from healthy, and you really have to wonder how much MMP's undemocratic 5% threshold is contributing to the problem.

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.

See: http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/constitution/

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?

Oppose.
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?

Support
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?

Support.
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?

Support.
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?

Support
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?

Oppose
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?

Oppose

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

Oppose
... duh.

...further restrictions on hate speech?

Oppose!
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?

Oppose.
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?

Oppose.
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?

Support.
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?

Oppose.
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: http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/constitution/rights.php

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

Oppose.

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

Support
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.

Candidate Survey: Ninth Response

From Peter Cresswell of the LibertariaNZ. Peter is ranked 6th on the Libz list; he may also be standing in Epsom.

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

Putting a stake through the heart of the Resource Management Act, and resurrecting the common law protection of property rights and environment that planning legislation has buried for half-a-century.

The common law has over seven-hundred years of sophistication in protecting property rights and associated environmental values. The RMA has a failed dozen. Time to kill it.

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

Bernard Darnton, Libertarianz leader and Wellington Central candidate. The cancellation of the Wellington Street Race has made this electorate a battleground over the RMA. As Minister for the RMA Marian Hobbs is presently holding Wellington Central. Presently.

Russell Watkins, Libertarianz Tauranga candidate. Like me he is against the easy bigotry of Winston's followers and in favour of immigration policies in which peaceful people are allowed to move freely, but not at the expense - as long as it is extant -- of State Welfare.

Tim Wikiriwhi, Libertarianz Hamilton West candidate. Tim is vocal in opposing the practice of passing laws and granting largesse or special government favours to anyone or any group, particularly if the favours or largesse are granted on the basis of race. To say that Maori need special favours such as special race-based electoral seats is patronising; to have special race-based clauses in legislation, or to give away taxpayers'money on the basis of race is apartheid. "One law for all, regardless of race," sys Tim, "and without fear nor favour."

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?

None.

Some MPs have a similar commitment to freedom in particular areas in particular areas, but they let themselves down in most others. Nandor Tanczos for instance is a good advocate for drug law reform but is appalling in most other areas -- and even in this area his imperfect commitment to real freedom undercuts him and leads him to advocate only partial decriminalisation rather than full and immediate legalisation.

When it comes to coalitions, Libertarianz recognises that no MMP coalition has yet been successful, and each has ended with the destruction or near-destruction of the minor coalition partner.

How would Libertarianz function in parliament then? Libertarianz wants to drastically roll back the coercive state. We would therefore and as a binding principle commit to supporting every measure in parliament that advances freedom in any measure and - crucially - introduces no new coercion.

On that basis, any party would have our firm and unswerving support for any measure that fits those two criteria.

Do you support or oppose:

...raising the drinking age?

Oppose. Adulthood brings with it responsibility. Raising the drinking age just raises the age at which responsibility is expected, and encourages illegal drinking without the usual social restraints that are in place when drinking is legal.

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

Support. And not just for medicinal use. In order to get criminals and corrupt policemen out of the business of supplying and profiteering from the illegality of drugs, and in order to remove these lowlifes from being the ones who have carte blanche over the quality of recreational drugs, we say that as a matter of urgency consensual drug use should be legalised for adults.

Legalising with an accompanying amnesty would overnight effectively double police numbers and get them on to real crimes, ie., crimes with victims, and would effectively half the prison population.

...decriminalising or legalising marijuana for recreational use?

Support. As above

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

Support. This is not the business of the government. Provided the rights of the children are protected, then whatever agreements adoption agencies and responsible adults choose to make is their own business.

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

Support. The business of government in this respect is simply recognising agreements that adults voluntarily agree to. Whatever agreements adult couples choose to make is their own business. Government's job is simply recognising and protecting their agreement as they should with any contract.

...allowing voluntary euthanasia or physician assisted suicide?

I support voluntary euthanasia. If you own your own life then you have the right to end it at the time of your own choosing, should you wish to do so. Others assisting with your choice should have the protection of the law. I would expect that should the courts be asked to do so, they could quite easily set some basic legal tests in place to ensure that if these are followed, then it is clear that the process has been a voluntary one and help has been offered on that basis.

I would prefer this form of court-based precedent as a protection than any legislation drawn up by a government, but provided the necessary protections are in place the latter would be an improvement on the present situation.

...state funding of integrated schools?

Don't support. I don't support state funding of schools. I advocate all schools be given back to taxpayers; the Ministry of Education be disbanded and NZQA closed down, and keys and shares to schools given to existing parents, teachers and trustees to do with as they see fit.

Taxes should of course be cut to reflect education being free of the state's shackles.

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

Oppose. As John Locke argued, government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. As such, the present laws against acts of violence are sufficient to protect against violence against the government.

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

Blasphemous libel? I would strongly support its removal. No argument for it, for God's sake.

...further restrictions on hate speech?

Oppose. I would oppose all restrictions on free speech. Free speech is the 'safety fuse' of liberty. 'Hate Speech' is a nonsense. Let people open their mouths and be shown to be a fool.

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

Oppose. Charge or release. Or in the topical case, charge or deport.

...restoring the death penalty for serious crime?

Oppose. While a murderer morally deserves death themselves, the possibility of judicial error and killing an innocent person outweighs out the argument for the death penalty for murder. You can't sew back on a head once the innocent party's lawyers have won their case on appeal.

Arthur Allan Thomas would be the poster boy for opposition to the death penalty.

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

Oppose. People should be entitled to discriminate as they choose. Moral persuasion is the way to change opinions, not the big stick of the law.

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

Support. And would also support making the New Zealand Bill of Rights supreme law, superseding all other legislation and allowing law that violates the Bill of Rights to be struck out. This would be the death knell for the Resource Management Act.

As I blogged at the time, it was a pleasant surprise to find that a United MP had enough gumption to introduce such a bill.

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

Strongly support, but would want to amend it severely first. For a model of what I would support see the Bill of Rights in the Libertarianz' proposed Constitution For New Freeland. http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/constitution/index.php

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

No opinion.

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

No opinion.

Finally,

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

Charge, deport or release.

As usual, Peter's views are his own, and may or may not represent the opinion of the LibertariaNZ.

Second response

From Philip Howison, the LibertariaNZ candidate for Hutt South:

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

This is a difficult question because parts of the Libertarianz agenda have to stand together - for example, privatising health and education would be unjust unless supported by massive tax cuts, and abolishing tax while not privatising would leave health and education without funding. Given that, I would pass a bill allowing freedom in education, but leaving education funding in government hands until I'm allowed to pass another act! The parents at Orauta School in Northland would benefit, as would all other parents who care about their children's education and want more choice. Basically we would hand the keys of each state school to the individual Boards of Trustees.

Education is a particular concern of mine especially since I sat the NCEA a couple of years ago and I know how stupid it is. That's one of the reasons why I chose to stand against Education Minister Trevor Mallard in Hutt South.

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

Rodney Hide (Act)
Bernard Darnton (Libertarianz)
Stephen Berry (Libertarianz)

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, as in the previous question. He is a strong libertarian though not in a libertarian party. Libertarianz policy is not to support coalitions, however. We will not compromise on matters of principle but will support any law change that increases freedom or rule of law (including the principle of equality before the law).

Do you support or oppose:

...raising the drinking age?

Oppose.

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

Support.

...decriminalising or legalising marijuana for recreational use?

Support

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

Support.

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

Support, because of the principle of equality before the law. But ultimately the Marriage Act should be repealed. Keep the government out of my bedroom!

...allowing voluntary euthanasia or physician assisted suicide?

Support.

...state funding of integrated schools?

Oppose. But it's unfair that people who pay for private education are taxed for public schools. While public schools and taxation are phased out over 2 or 3 years, Libertarianz would give these parents tax breaks.

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

Oppose. The government must maintain the rule of law, but violating freedom of speech won't help it achieve that goal. Throwing an axe through a window should be illegal because it's vandalism, not because it's the Prime Minister's window.

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

Oppose.

...further restrictions on hate speech?

Oppose.

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

Oppose.

...restoring the death penalty for serious crime?

Oppose.

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

Oppose. I don't agree with gender-identity discrimination personally but if other people want to be bigoted that's their own business. The government, though, should never discriminate - equality before the law.

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

Support. Freedom is nothing without the right to own property

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

Oppose. We need a bill of rights, but a constitution, perhaps based on the US constitution, should be our starting point, along with the English common law.

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

Oppose. The court is toothless and this sort of international organisation is pointless in my opinion.

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

Support. Obviously this would benefit the Libertarianz, but we believe having a threshold is undemocratic, too. Minor parties have a place in the system and they should not be excluded if they have significant support but it falls below an arbitrary level.

Finally,

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

Sent him back unless he was prepared to undergo a fair trial for his alleged crimes - which are serious. He was convicted of associating with the terrorist group responsible for killing several people in the Paris subway bombings and hijacking an airliner which they threatened to fly into the Eiffel Tower. Those charges may not be true, but they should have been publicly investigated before we let a suspected terrorist into the country. Holding the man without trial for so long, however, was a terrible violation of the principles of justice and the rule of law.

Anyone without a serious conviction should face no obstacle in immigrating - the Libertarianz believe in open borders.

So, I wonder who else is going to come forward...

Irony

The LibertariaNZ have also come out for scrapping Parliament's "opening prayer", but propose replacing it with one to Ayn Rand...