A man was convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 4 months prison without actually committing a crime. Yes, he broke the law but while doing so he never used force or threatened anyone; he was srictly minding his own business. But that is the state of justice in New Zealand, crimes don't necessarily cause hurt to people but are actions that that bunch of seat-warmers in parliament consider not to their liking. Most have never heard of Natural Justice, let alone know what it is. Rather they get whims into their heads and decide to weave laws around them. In this case the man was convicted of growing 82 cannabis seedlings and having a taser gun, which he claimed was for self-defence, his place having broken into several times. Anyone who understands natural law and the Common Law which is the British version of it, will see that, once you allow the police to own taser guns, you are a hypocrite if you then forbid them to the rest of the population. And the possession of cannabis is like any other possession, if it is yours, then it is like any other personal item, unless of course, you pull out a plant and clobber a politician around the head with it. If the man gets parole after a year he will still have cost the tax-payer around $100 000 plus police and court expense, never mind the trauma it costs him. But no politician will lose sleep over that. And that is just a minor newspaper item examplifying the loss of freedom. Before 1936 cannabis was freely available and even formed part of several prescriptions used by doctors. And unless we raise bloody hell we will gradually lose more and more of our freedom.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Sunday, November 18, 2007
INDOCTRINATION
Page E5, Waikato Times 17/11 relates to an entirely different subject but has woven into its story the court case of some drug-traffickers who had planned to import cocaine from Uruguay before selling the bulk to a buyer in Australia. The plan didn’t proceed but the men were found guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison. Most who read this will probably accept the sentence as just. But that is where our indoctrination comes in.
Let us look at it logically. Many governments have banned various drugs. This has been done quite capriciously; tobacco and alcohol are equally undesirable as cocaine but legally available. This shows inconsistency and bad, not just, law.
An owner makes a deal on the open market, without coercion, to sell his cocaine; if not for the bad law there is no crime. The deal falls through; the non-performance accentuates the non-crime aspect. The street value mentioned distorts the non-crime for the same reason as the value of e.g. flour is far less than the bread baked from it. For this exaggerated non-crime the owners are sentenced to 5 years in prison.
Where is the crime? Where are the victims? I don’t see them, unless it is those convicted. It bears thinking about.
Let us look at it logically. Many governments have banned various drugs. This has been done quite capriciously; tobacco and alcohol are equally undesirable as cocaine but legally available. This shows inconsistency and bad, not just, law.
An owner makes a deal on the open market, without coercion, to sell his cocaine; if not for the bad law there is no crime. The deal falls through; the non-performance accentuates the non-crime aspect. The street value mentioned distorts the non-crime for the same reason as the value of e.g. flour is far less than the bread baked from it. For this exaggerated non-crime the owners are sentenced to 5 years in prison.
Where is the crime? Where are the victims? I don’t see them, unless it is those convicted. It bears thinking about.
Monday, November 5, 2007
SELF OWNERSHIP
Since civilization began two great opposing forces have played havoc with mankind. The first is self-ownership, the second is government. For hundreds of years philosophers and jurists have recognized that there is something called natural justice, which I would describe as that interpersonal treatment between human beings that is fair and equal to all; it is universal. This treatment allows each individual several spheres in which he is supreme to act as he sees fit; we call these spheres RIGHTS. The first to mention is the right of self-ownership, the claim to which I established in an earlier blog as:
Without my life, I would not exist, therefore my life is the most important thing that I possess; in a way, it is me. It is more important to me than to anyone else. I am the only one who best knows my needs, my fears, my desires and my dreams; therefore I am the best judge of how to live my life to its fullest. This gives me the strongest claim to ownership of my life
As we all have equal rights to ownership of our lives; none of us can infringe upon others’ lives without their permission. This condemns the use of force on others. Any interaction between individuals can only be acceptable if all parties agree. Blog 03/11/2007
Flowing from this is the right to property that has been lawfully acquired. No one can have self-ownership if he is not allowed to sustain and enrich his life and to do so requires that he has discretion over the resources necessary to do so; ergo has the right to acquire property.
The 2nd force is government, which has no claim to being natural or just. It is an institution, organized and controlled by a small group of people that asserts powers to rule over defined tracts of the earth and all it contains. It claims to have sovereign power to do so and will enforce this with an army, police-force and courts. Subjects obey at the fear of their lives.
The first force depends on cooperation, the second on coercion.
Libertarians have adopted the natural-justice philosophy and in New Zealand Libertarianz is the only political party to do so.
Fast forward to the recent raids by a squad of armed offenders, backed by hundreds of police, against alleged trainee terrorists, bears out the havoc mentioned earlier. These ‘aspiring terrorists‘ allegedly planned acts of terrorism across the country to overwhelm the police-forces. It will be months before those charged appear before the courts and little is known about the charges laid thus far. Of course governments can pass any law to make any action illegal but if natural justice is to prevail, and that is the function of the courts, then we will see the whole affair quietly disappear, just like untold other dire events that were supposed to make our lives perilous and governments necessary.
Without my life, I would not exist, therefore my life is the most important thing that I possess; in a way, it is me. It is more important to me than to anyone else. I am the only one who best knows my needs, my fears, my desires and my dreams; therefore I am the best judge of how to live my life to its fullest. This gives me the strongest claim to ownership of my life
As we all have equal rights to ownership of our lives; none of us can infringe upon others’ lives without their permission. This condemns the use of force on others. Any interaction between individuals can only be acceptable if all parties agree. Blog 03/11/2007
Flowing from this is the right to property that has been lawfully acquired. No one can have self-ownership if he is not allowed to sustain and enrich his life and to do so requires that he has discretion over the resources necessary to do so; ergo has the right to acquire property.
The 2nd force is government, which has no claim to being natural or just. It is an institution, organized and controlled by a small group of people that asserts powers to rule over defined tracts of the earth and all it contains. It claims to have sovereign power to do so and will enforce this with an army, police-force and courts. Subjects obey at the fear of their lives.
The first force depends on cooperation, the second on coercion.
Libertarians have adopted the natural-justice philosophy and in New Zealand Libertarianz is the only political party to do so.
Fast forward to the recent raids by a squad of armed offenders, backed by hundreds of police, against alleged trainee terrorists, bears out the havoc mentioned earlier. These ‘aspiring terrorists‘ allegedly planned acts of terrorism across the country to overwhelm the police-forces. It will be months before those charged appear before the courts and little is known about the charges laid thus far. Of course governments can pass any law to make any action illegal but if natural justice is to prevail, and that is the function of the courts, then we will see the whole affair quietly disappear, just like untold other dire events that were supposed to make our lives perilous and governments necessary.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
DIRE EVENTS
Politics: the art of keeping the population alarmed by predicting imaginary dire events, so they beg to be kept safe by the government.
Think of: The coming ice-age in the ‘70s.
The HIV/AIDS SCARE IN THE 1980s
The Y2k scare in 1999.
SARS in the early 2000s.
Bird flue in the early 2000s.
Global warming, at present.
Tuhoe terrorists.
Spurious dietary- supplements warnings.
Running out of oil, ongoing.
And others.
Running out of oil, ongoing.
And others.
THIS I BELIEVE
Without my life, I would not exist, therefore my life is the most important thing that I possess; in a way, it is me. It is more important to me than to anyone else. I am the only one who best knows my needs, my fears, my desires and my dreams; therefore I am the best judge of how to live my life to its fullest. This gives me the strongest claim to ownership of my life.
Life is futile if I may not live it to my best advantage – to enjoy it. To do so, to sustain and enrich it, I need to think and choose; reason and choice allow me to survive and thrive. Only man has the ability to think rationally and conceptually.
RIGHTS enable me to live rationally. Rights allow only me the sole and absolute moral discretion about matters that affect only me. No one can or did grant me those rights; they are an integral part of my rational being. They also morally prohibit me from using force or any substitute for force against anyone else whose behaviour is non-coercive.
Among my rights are the right to life, to personal freedom, to free expression, to own property and to pursue happiness as I see it. There may be others, not stated
All human beings anywhere in the world can make equal claims to their own lives. As we all have equal rights to ownership of our lives; none of us can infringe upon others’ lives without their permission. This condemns the use of force on others. Any interaction between individuals can only be acceptable if all parties agree.
If others infringe in contravention to my rights, or it is clear that infringement is imminent, I may use reasonable force to prevent or remove the infringement. I may also assist others to remove infringements upon their lives, unless the other party rejects my assistance.
Words such as “society”, “community”, “government”, the common good” etc. describe constructs that are not rational and homogeneous entities. Rather, they are made up of groups of individuals, each of whom has his own agenda. By its definition, these groups have no rights; but the individuals who make up these groups do have rights.
Governments are formed by and on behalf of groups of individuals and act as their agents. They derive their powers from the individuals. As agents they cannot have powers that the individuals don’t have; they are not theirs to give. This means that no government or any of its members or agencies can have more power than the individual has pursuant to his rights.
Morally these governments should only exercise those powers that protect our rights, but instead, they are the worst infringers, and they are thus in breach of their just functions.
If you agree with my beliefs, which I think are incontrovertible, you would act against your better judgement if you did not apply them in your own life. And because they are just, apply them whether it is to your advantage or not. You will be a person of principle and honour.
Steve Hoefsloot My Credo (amended) 14 / 03 / 2007
.
Life is futile if I may not live it to my best advantage – to enjoy it. To do so, to sustain and enrich it, I need to think and choose; reason and choice allow me to survive and thrive. Only man has the ability to think rationally and conceptually.
RIGHTS enable me to live rationally. Rights allow only me the sole and absolute moral discretion about matters that affect only me. No one can or did grant me those rights; they are an integral part of my rational being. They also morally prohibit me from using force or any substitute for force against anyone else whose behaviour is non-coercive.
Among my rights are the right to life, to personal freedom, to free expression, to own property and to pursue happiness as I see it. There may be others, not stated
All human beings anywhere in the world can make equal claims to their own lives. As we all have equal rights to ownership of our lives; none of us can infringe upon others’ lives without their permission. This condemns the use of force on others. Any interaction between individuals can only be acceptable if all parties agree.
If others infringe in contravention to my rights, or it is clear that infringement is imminent, I may use reasonable force to prevent or remove the infringement. I may also assist others to remove infringements upon their lives, unless the other party rejects my assistance.
Words such as “society”, “community”, “government”, the common good” etc. describe constructs that are not rational and homogeneous entities. Rather, they are made up of groups of individuals, each of whom has his own agenda. By its definition, these groups have no rights; but the individuals who make up these groups do have rights.
Governments are formed by and on behalf of groups of individuals and act as their agents. They derive their powers from the individuals. As agents they cannot have powers that the individuals don’t have; they are not theirs to give. This means that no government or any of its members or agencies can have more power than the individual has pursuant to his rights.
Morally these governments should only exercise those powers that protect our rights, but instead, they are the worst infringers, and they are thus in breach of their just functions.
If you agree with my beliefs, which I think are incontrovertible, you would act against your better judgement if you did not apply them in your own life. And because they are just, apply them whether it is to your advantage or not. You will be a person of principle and honour.
Steve Hoefsloot My Credo (amended) 14 / 03 / 2007
.
NATURAL RIGHTS
Nanny, a word heard more and more to describe a government that has lost sight of its essential function: to honour and protect our natural rights. A simple definition of a natural right is that right that can be enjoyed by each one of us without using force on others. Thus the right to paint my house pink is a natural right, while receiving a state-benefit forces someone else to provide it, so is not a natural right but called a human right. I simplified the explanation for this essay, but it is clear that human rights can never be universal, which would mean that everyone else would have an obligation; a bit like each of us doing our neighbour’s washing.
There are about four million New Zealanders, all individuals with their own outlook on life, no two exactly alike. It would be hard to think of any action that would not find one or more people disagreeing with. But we couldn’t outlaw them all and so developed the concept of natural rights, which allows all acts that don’t breach the natural rights of others. This requires tolerance, but is easy to understand and follow. It is time to send Nanny back to minding children.
There are about four million New Zealanders, all individuals with their own outlook on life, no two exactly alike. It would be hard to think of any action that would not find one or more people disagreeing with. But we couldn’t outlaw them all and so developed the concept of natural rights, which allows all acts that don’t breach the natural rights of others. This requires tolerance, but is easy to understand and follow. It is time to send Nanny back to minding children.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
STEADY AS SHE GOES
The new Council is so much like the old one that we can safely assume that there will be no change of direction. This means rate increases for the rest of the ten-year plan and wild spending for projects pushed by lobby-forces of the sports- and arts communities. And although there will be much gnashing of teeth, this is apparently what the great unwashed want.
Is there any hope for greater efficiency in the process? There is. Anyone who ever worked for a large organisation, which the council is, will know the time wasted by staff “being in meetings”. Although there are many professional and technical people usefully working on projects, there are also those whose time is absolutely wasted by going from one meeting to the next. Then there is the paperwork that seems to increase as Parkinson Law predicts. Report and memos that only create more reports memos, all needing attention and processing. It is possible to not do any useful work and still advance through the ranks and salary scales. The cost of all this inefficiency is borne by the ratepayer.
Someone who knew how much I detested meetings gave the following poem to me:
Oh, give me some pity; I’m on a committee,
which means that from morning to night:
We attend and amend, and contend and defend,
Without a conclusion in sight.
We confer and concur, we defer and demur,
and reiterate all of our thoughts.
We revise the agenda with frequent addenda,
and consider a load of reports.
We compose and propose, we suppose and oppose,
and the points of procedure are fun.
But though various notions are brought up as motions,
There’s terribly little gets done.
We resolve and absolve, but never dissolve,
since it’s out of the question for us,
What a shattering pity to end our committee,
where else could we make such a fuss?
Studies have shown that it is often more efficient to delegate the responsibility for a project to one person instead of a committee.
Dare I suggest that Michael Redman appoint a committee to look into and come up with a recommendation to this effect?
Is there any hope for greater efficiency in the process? There is. Anyone who ever worked for a large organisation, which the council is, will know the time wasted by staff “being in meetings”. Although there are many professional and technical people usefully working on projects, there are also those whose time is absolutely wasted by going from one meeting to the next. Then there is the paperwork that seems to increase as Parkinson Law predicts. Report and memos that only create more reports memos, all needing attention and processing. It is possible to not do any useful work and still advance through the ranks and salary scales. The cost of all this inefficiency is borne by the ratepayer.
Someone who knew how much I detested meetings gave the following poem to me:
Oh, give me some pity; I’m on a committee,
which means that from morning to night:
We attend and amend, and contend and defend,
Without a conclusion in sight.
We confer and concur, we defer and demur,
and reiterate all of our thoughts.
We revise the agenda with frequent addenda,
and consider a load of reports.
We compose and propose, we suppose and oppose,
and the points of procedure are fun.
But though various notions are brought up as motions,
There’s terribly little gets done.
We resolve and absolve, but never dissolve,
since it’s out of the question for us,
What a shattering pity to end our committee,
where else could we make such a fuss?
Studies have shown that it is often more efficient to delegate the responsibility for a project to one person instead of a committee.
Dare I suggest that Michael Redman appoint a committee to look into and come up with a recommendation to this effect?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)