I often blog about the state of the mainstream media, a favourite bugbear of mine. I have complained in the past that the media in most Western countries, and in New Zealand in particular, is facile, politically biased and dishonest in hiding its real motives behind a hypocritical, holier-than-thou cloak of journalistic integrity. Major global news organisations like the BBC and CNN are among the worst offenders, taking strong advocacy positions on issues of the day such as climate change and Middle Eastern politics without the slightest concern for impartiality. The editorial views of such organisations are invariably left-wing - the answer to any problem is always strong, paternalistic, government intervention and individual rights are always dispensible. Sure, they pay lip service to "human rights" but they are always selective about whose rights they are supporting. The rights of Palestinian Arabs, for example, are deemed worthy of their support, those of Syrian protesters just a few hundred miles away, not so much (or those of Israeli families to enjoy life free of missile attacks). Of course, there are a few news organisations that take a more right-wing stance such as Fox News in the United States, but these are very much in the minority and in recent years they have become shrill advocates of religious conservativism rather than supporters of the small-government, maximum individual responsibility views of classical liberals like me.
There have been a couple of promising signs recently that the predominatly Socialist/statist/big-government consensus in the mainstream media is cracking. On climate change, for example, the views of the many reputable scientists who question the consensus of catastrophic, man-made, global warming are finally getting some coverage in outlets previously staunch in their promotion of warmist propanganda - for example, this article in The Independent about Richard Lindzen's speech to a public meeting in the British House of Commons. Even the Guardian, known for its overwhelmingly left-wing stance on all issues, recently reported in this article that the British public doesn't buy the continued expansion of the welfare state. Here in New Zealand, I was surprised to see this opinion piece in The New Zealand Herald questioning why hardworking taxpayers should continue to pay taxes to support unworthy "work-shy drones" (hat tip to Lindsay Mitchell for bringing my attention to this).
I suppose a swallow doesn't make a summer but the signs are encouraging. Perhaps a new wave of young journalists is finally questioning the years of brainwashing they received at the hands of Gramsci-ite journalism school lecturers, or perhaps editors are becoming concerned about their falling circulation figures and are realising they are out of step with mainstream public opinion. I do not know the answer but it is encouraging to see we are finally getting a small degree of balance in the reporting of such issues by major news outlets.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Thursday, December 22, 2011
2011 in Review
2011 has been an interesting year.
Early in the year we had the second severe earthquake in Christchurch and this one killed nearly two hundred and left the city with massive destruction. The earthquake was instructive not so much in terms of what it taught us about the impact of such a seismic event on buildings and lives (which was pretty predictable) but in what it taught us about the behaviour of our Government in such a situation. The dust had barely settled before they had deployed troops and armoured personnel carriers on the streets of Christchurch and were arresting and prosecuting property owners for attempting to gain access to their own properties. Clearly John Key's Government has no respect for individual liberty and property rights.
A month after the Christchurch earthquake, Japan suffered a much more devastating one combined with a tsunami that killed more than fifteen thousand people. In spite of its much greater impact, Japan is well advanced with its reconstruction effort. In the meantime, our national and local governments continue to dither and obstruct those who want to rebuild their lives in Christchurch.
During the year it became blatantly obvious that "spend and hope" economic policies were never going to lift the Western world out of recession. Certainly it is hard to see how more of the same medicine that caused the crisis will cure it. In New Zealand our Government is spending $18B this year more than it takes in revenue, despite increasing consumption taxes and many government charges. Our minister of finance promises we will return to government fiscal surpluses by 2014 but given his projections are based on 4% economic growth and our current rate is about 1%, this seems like very wishful thinking. In the meantime, various ignoramuses camped in parks around the world, under the "Occupy Wall Street" banner, have chosen to scapegoat bankers as the cause of all the world's problems in a slanderous campaign that is reminiscent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that the Nazis used to rally political support in the 1930s.
Governments around the world continued to erode the rights of their citizens with ever more instrusive security and surveillance laws in the name of the so-called War Against Terror. The least you can say for the panjandrums involved is that they are relatively indiscriminate in their abuse of citizens, as this report of the US TSA's actions attests. The US Government finally killed Osama Bin Laden but if the Al Qaeda leader's aim was to destroy the liberties that Westerners enjoy, then he has certainly achieved what he set out to do.
Late in the year we had an election and New Zealanders chose to re-elect John Key's National Government in coalition with a motley bunch that including a former National Party minister who was standing for a party whose principles he clearly does not believe in, a former Labour Party minister who jumps in bed with whichever party will give him a seat in cabinet, and a party based on the racist principle that Maori deserve preferential treatment in our society. I cannot see John Key's appeal as he and his government seem to me to be entirely without any political principles.
The political finale of the year was the death of Kim Jong Il, the nutcase who has ruled North Korea since the death of his father who was the previous nutcase leader of that country. Kim Jong Il managed to annoint his third son as his successor, the sole selection criteria apparently being that the third one was the only of his sons who was not mentally handicapped or gay. It is a sad indictment on humanity that we still have such tyrants as leaders of a significant number of countries.
And finally, we have this incident to greet us a few days before Christmas - an horrific crime against a defenseless 5 year old girl in a New Zealand campground. It is no surprise that locals report the perpetrator may be a member of the Mongrel Mob - a predominantly Maori gang whom the authorities treat as a welfare organisation rather than the violent, drug-running, raping bunch of thugs it really is.
On that depressing note, I wish you all a very safe and pleasant Christmas and all the best for 2012.
Early in the year we had the second severe earthquake in Christchurch and this one killed nearly two hundred and left the city with massive destruction. The earthquake was instructive not so much in terms of what it taught us about the impact of such a seismic event on buildings and lives (which was pretty predictable) but in what it taught us about the behaviour of our Government in such a situation. The dust had barely settled before they had deployed troops and armoured personnel carriers on the streets of Christchurch and were arresting and prosecuting property owners for attempting to gain access to their own properties. Clearly John Key's Government has no respect for individual liberty and property rights.
A month after the Christchurch earthquake, Japan suffered a much more devastating one combined with a tsunami that killed more than fifteen thousand people. In spite of its much greater impact, Japan is well advanced with its reconstruction effort. In the meantime, our national and local governments continue to dither and obstruct those who want to rebuild their lives in Christchurch.
During the year it became blatantly obvious that "spend and hope" economic policies were never going to lift the Western world out of recession. Certainly it is hard to see how more of the same medicine that caused the crisis will cure it. In New Zealand our Government is spending $18B this year more than it takes in revenue, despite increasing consumption taxes and many government charges. Our minister of finance promises we will return to government fiscal surpluses by 2014 but given his projections are based on 4% economic growth and our current rate is about 1%, this seems like very wishful thinking. In the meantime, various ignoramuses camped in parks around the world, under the "Occupy Wall Street" banner, have chosen to scapegoat bankers as the cause of all the world's problems in a slanderous campaign that is reminiscent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that the Nazis used to rally political support in the 1930s.
Governments around the world continued to erode the rights of their citizens with ever more instrusive security and surveillance laws in the name of the so-called War Against Terror. The least you can say for the panjandrums involved is that they are relatively indiscriminate in their abuse of citizens, as this report of the US TSA's actions attests. The US Government finally killed Osama Bin Laden but if the Al Qaeda leader's aim was to destroy the liberties that Westerners enjoy, then he has certainly achieved what he set out to do.
Late in the year we had an election and New Zealanders chose to re-elect John Key's National Government in coalition with a motley bunch that including a former National Party minister who was standing for a party whose principles he clearly does not believe in, a former Labour Party minister who jumps in bed with whichever party will give him a seat in cabinet, and a party based on the racist principle that Maori deserve preferential treatment in our society. I cannot see John Key's appeal as he and his government seem to me to be entirely without any political principles.
The political finale of the year was the death of Kim Jong Il, the nutcase who has ruled North Korea since the death of his father who was the previous nutcase leader of that country. Kim Jong Il managed to annoint his third son as his successor, the sole selection criteria apparently being that the third one was the only of his sons who was not mentally handicapped or gay. It is a sad indictment on humanity that we still have such tyrants as leaders of a significant number of countries.
And finally, we have this incident to greet us a few days before Christmas - an horrific crime against a defenseless 5 year old girl in a New Zealand campground. It is no surprise that locals report the perpetrator may be a member of the Mongrel Mob - a predominantly Maori gang whom the authorities treat as a welfare organisation rather than the violent, drug-running, raping bunch of thugs it really is.
On that depressing note, I wish you all a very safe and pleasant Christmas and all the best for 2012.
Friday, December 9, 2011
The Morality of Welfare
This blog incorporates the comments I posted on Karl du Fresne's blog this week. Karl posted about a documentary that aired on TV3 during the last week of the New Zealand general election campaign (and of course TV3's timing was not coincidental - it was just part of their on-going pro-Labour, pro-Greens editorial campaign). I didn't see the documentary but in Karl's view it was "very one-sided", presenting the "message...that the welfare state has failed our poor."
This sort of overtly left-wing polemic always tries to cast the rest of us (i.e. those other than the 'deserving poor') as uncaring and immoral. How could we in good conscience possibly let one child anywhere go hungry? It never asks the same question of the parents and extended families of such children, assuming that they must be victims of circumstances like their children.
Those who oppose further extension to the already ubiquitous welfare state, and who oppose further taxation increases to pay for it, are often put on the back foot by such arguments. They seldom challenge the de facto position that there is no moral argument that could possibly be put forward to justify less state intervention in the welfare of poor children.
Well, I am not afraid of entering the moral debate on the side of the oppressed taxpayer. My comments on Karl's blog follow.
I guess you could call the welfare state 'compulsory altruism', if that is not too much of an oxymoron. The system of taxation and redistribution through welfare is enforced by the state's exclusive legal mandate to use violence (and if you don't believe this, then let's make taxation voluntary tomorrow and see what happens).
So, the moral argument in regards to welfare is whether it is right for the state to threaten and use violence against some people to force them to support others (whether such people are deserving or not may change the weight of the argument but not the principle).
I believe that a rational, moral society is one where families and communities look after those less fortunate than themselves. I also believe that a rational, moral society is one where no man or woman is forced to work for the benefit of another (or another's children).
I don't believe these two things are mutually exclusive, but so long as the taxation and welfare system is based on the threat of violence, it will lack any real moral mandate in my view, no matter how many heart-rending documentaries appear on TV.
Forcing people to work for someone else's benefit is slavery. The needs of others do not justify this slavery no matter how compelling that need. The only choice we have is to submit to the slavery or join the ranks of those benefiting from the corrupt welfare system. The system may make most New Zealanders feel like they are part of a 'caring society' but we should not pretend it is anything other than extortion based on the threat of violence. It is certainly not moral.
This sort of overtly left-wing polemic always tries to cast the rest of us (i.e. those other than the 'deserving poor') as uncaring and immoral. How could we in good conscience possibly let one child anywhere go hungry? It never asks the same question of the parents and extended families of such children, assuming that they must be victims of circumstances like their children.
Those who oppose further extension to the already ubiquitous welfare state, and who oppose further taxation increases to pay for it, are often put on the back foot by such arguments. They seldom challenge the de facto position that there is no moral argument that could possibly be put forward to justify less state intervention in the welfare of poor children.
Well, I am not afraid of entering the moral debate on the side of the oppressed taxpayer. My comments on Karl's blog follow.
I guess you could call the welfare state 'compulsory altruism', if that is not too much of an oxymoron. The system of taxation and redistribution through welfare is enforced by the state's exclusive legal mandate to use violence (and if you don't believe this, then let's make taxation voluntary tomorrow and see what happens).
So, the moral argument in regards to welfare is whether it is right for the state to threaten and use violence against some people to force them to support others (whether such people are deserving or not may change the weight of the argument but not the principle).
I believe that a rational, moral society is one where families and communities look after those less fortunate than themselves. I also believe that a rational, moral society is one where no man or woman is forced to work for the benefit of another (or another's children).
I don't believe these two things are mutually exclusive, but so long as the taxation and welfare system is based on the threat of violence, it will lack any real moral mandate in my view, no matter how many heart-rending documentaries appear on TV.
Forcing people to work for someone else's benefit is slavery. The needs of others do not justify this slavery no matter how compelling that need. The only choice we have is to submit to the slavery or join the ranks of those benefiting from the corrupt welfare system. The system may make most New Zealanders feel like they are part of a 'caring society' but we should not pretend it is anything other than extortion based on the threat of violence. It is certainly not moral.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Launch of Mars Rover Trumps Political Mediocrity
I could get quite depressed at the outcome of New Zealand's general election - a triumph of mediocrity if I've ever seen it. But it is a lovely Sunday morning in Wellington and news has come through of the successful launch of NASA's Curiosity mission to Mars. This incredibly advanced robotic rover, if it lands successfully on Mars, will significantly push forward our understanding of the Red Planet and whether any form of life is, or has been, sustainable there.
Amongst the self-indulgent political squabbles, the economic problems that beset the Western world, and the trivialisation of serious issues by the media, such news sticks out like a beacon of hope. Mankind continues to push forward with the use of its intelligence to make better tools that will one day take that intelligence into deep space. This news should cheer the most cynical of us.
Amongst the self-indulgent political squabbles, the economic problems that beset the Western world, and the trivialisation of serious issues by the media, such news sticks out like a beacon of hope. Mankind continues to push forward with the use of its intelligence to make better tools that will one day take that intelligence into deep space. This news should cheer the most cynical of us.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
I Won't Pay!
Labour is proposing to fund its election bribes with increases in income taxes and the introduction of a capital gains tax.
I calculate that with the top income tax rate at 39%, GST at 15%, capital gains tax at 15%, ACC at around 4%, plus FBT, rates and exorbitant user pays charges for every government service, I will be paying well in excess of 50 cents in every dollar I earn to the government.
As a self-employed businessman and a member of the 17% of households who pay 97% of the income taxes in this country, I think I pay far too much tax already.
I refuse to pay any more. I will leave New Zealand or stop working altogether rather than hand over more than half of my income to the government. And I think I speak for many of the 17% of New Zealanders who already pay for everything.
So who is going to pay for these Labour Party bribes once those of us in the 17% shrug off the burden of supporting the other 83%? No one.
Think about it, Labour Party voters.
I calculate that with the top income tax rate at 39%, GST at 15%, capital gains tax at 15%, ACC at around 4%, plus FBT, rates and exorbitant user pays charges for every government service, I will be paying well in excess of 50 cents in every dollar I earn to the government.
As a self-employed businessman and a member of the 17% of households who pay 97% of the income taxes in this country, I think I pay far too much tax already.
I refuse to pay any more. I will leave New Zealand or stop working altogether rather than hand over more than half of my income to the government. And I think I speak for many of the 17% of New Zealanders who already pay for everything.
So who is going to pay for these Labour Party bribes once those of us in the 17% shrug off the burden of supporting the other 83%? No one.
Think about it, Labour Party voters.
Monday, November 14, 2011
New Zealand's Mendacious Media
I have blogged before about the state of New Zealand's news media but several recent examples of the depths to which they plunge have prompted me to blog on the subject again:
1) The Wellington daily The Dominion Post opened its coverage of the election campaign by asking the party leaders what they would do if they found themselves caught short without a clean pair of underpants. Another media outlet asked which of the candidates voters would rather sleep with. They consider this appropriate coverage of a parliamentary campaign at a time when New Zealand faces some its biggest challenges - a deteriorating world economic situation, a burgeoning government spending deficit and a country struggling to recover from its biggest natural disaster in decades.
2) The Auckland Sunday paper, The Herald on Sunday, has been caught illegally taping a private meeting between the Prime Minister and a leading candidate of one of the other political parties. The Prime Minister has referred the matter to the police.
3) The Dominion Post (again!) runs on its front page a banner headline (in the sort of typeface that used to announce war being declared or man landing on the moon) announcing the drunken antics in a foreign bar of a prominent New Zealand sportsperson. I was in the country concerned at the time and the incident occasioned no comment in the local press there, so obviously it wasn't particularly serious.
I was discussing these incidents with a business colleague of mine and he told me the story of his niece, a bright young woman who was studying journalism at one of this country's universities. This young woman has decided to drop out after nearly two years of the course. Was it because she wasn't getting good marks? Was it because she couldn't cope with the workload? Or perhaps it was because she decided she didn't want to be a journalist after all?
It was none of the above. The reason she dropped out was ethical - that is, the unethical behaviour being taught and encouraged by the journalism lecturers. She was taught that any means justified the ends of a scandalous story and the advancement of the (left wing) political agenda that the lecturers supported. She had expected to learn that journalism was a noble calling to uphold the truth and to act responsibly but she was disillusioned to discover that precisely the opposite was being taught.
This is why I no longer subscribe to a daily newspaper or watch television news or listen to radio news in this country. They are almost without exception a bunch of mendacious scumbags. If you agree with my assessment, I urge you to cancel your newspaper subscription and vote on the broadcast media with your remote control. You can get all the news that matters on the Internet - news that is more timely, accurate and balanced than anything that comes out of New Zealand's mainstream media propagandists.
1) The Wellington daily The Dominion Post opened its coverage of the election campaign by asking the party leaders what they would do if they found themselves caught short without a clean pair of underpants. Another media outlet asked which of the candidates voters would rather sleep with. They consider this appropriate coverage of a parliamentary campaign at a time when New Zealand faces some its biggest challenges - a deteriorating world economic situation, a burgeoning government spending deficit and a country struggling to recover from its biggest natural disaster in decades.
2) The Auckland Sunday paper, The Herald on Sunday, has been caught illegally taping a private meeting between the Prime Minister and a leading candidate of one of the other political parties. The Prime Minister has referred the matter to the police.
3) The Dominion Post (again!) runs on its front page a banner headline (in the sort of typeface that used to announce war being declared or man landing on the moon) announcing the drunken antics in a foreign bar of a prominent New Zealand sportsperson. I was in the country concerned at the time and the incident occasioned no comment in the local press there, so obviously it wasn't particularly serious.
I was discussing these incidents with a business colleague of mine and he told me the story of his niece, a bright young woman who was studying journalism at one of this country's universities. This young woman has decided to drop out after nearly two years of the course. Was it because she wasn't getting good marks? Was it because she couldn't cope with the workload? Or perhaps it was because she decided she didn't want to be a journalist after all?
It was none of the above. The reason she dropped out was ethical - that is, the unethical behaviour being taught and encouraged by the journalism lecturers. She was taught that any means justified the ends of a scandalous story and the advancement of the (left wing) political agenda that the lecturers supported. She had expected to learn that journalism was a noble calling to uphold the truth and to act responsibly but she was disillusioned to discover that precisely the opposite was being taught.
This is why I no longer subscribe to a daily newspaper or watch television news or listen to radio news in this country. They are almost without exception a bunch of mendacious scumbags. If you agree with my assessment, I urge you to cancel your newspaper subscription and vote on the broadcast media with your remote control. You can get all the news that matters on the Internet - news that is more timely, accurate and balanced than anything that comes out of New Zealand's mainstream media propagandists.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Roger Kerr - the Courage of His Convictions.
I have just read that Roger Kerr has died.
This was a man with the courage of his convictions, who did not shy away from his strong belief that economic rationalism and free enterprise were the correct path for New Zealand to return to prosperity. He held the unorthodox view in today's society that most people are intelligent and capable enough to make their own decisions on how they should earn a living, care for their loved ones and others in the community, and provide for their own retirement. He believed that we would all be better off without an interfering, authoritarian government bossing us around in all areas of our lives.
Unfortunately we live in a topsy-turvy world where conventional wisdom considers an interfering, authoritarian government to be moral, and leaving people to make their own decisions on what is best for them and their communities is considered immoral. Roger was often on the wrong side of what are considered politically acceptable views in this country and was vilified for it. But he stuck to his guns to the end, posting this blog defending New Zealanders' saving record against politicians who want compulsory savings the day before he died.
Roger Kerr had the courage to espouse his views, unpopular though they may have been. I can think of no other prominent New Zealander who did it so convincingly.
I extend my deepest sympathy to his family and friends.
This was a man with the courage of his convictions, who did not shy away from his strong belief that economic rationalism and free enterprise were the correct path for New Zealand to return to prosperity. He held the unorthodox view in today's society that most people are intelligent and capable enough to make their own decisions on how they should earn a living, care for their loved ones and others in the community, and provide for their own retirement. He believed that we would all be better off without an interfering, authoritarian government bossing us around in all areas of our lives.
Unfortunately we live in a topsy-turvy world where conventional wisdom considers an interfering, authoritarian government to be moral, and leaving people to make their own decisions on what is best for them and their communities is considered immoral. Roger was often on the wrong side of what are considered politically acceptable views in this country and was vilified for it. But he stuck to his guns to the end, posting this blog defending New Zealanders' saving record against politicians who want compulsory savings the day before he died.
Roger Kerr had the courage to espouse his views, unpopular though they may have been. I can think of no other prominent New Zealander who did it so convincingly.
I extend my deepest sympathy to his family and friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)