Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Another dairy robbed for cigarettes (yawn)

Why is the life of a smoker more important to the government than the life of a non-smoker?

Why do government try to protect smokers while treating non-smokers like sacrificial lambs?

It is Kiwis who want a say in what others can or can't do with their lives who vote these politicians in (appeasers I call them) that give them the power to do make these laws - oh, and the fact that they reap a kings ransome in tax could have something to do with it!

Every time a dairy or servo gets robbed for cigarettes these questions cross my mind.

Armed robbers put the lives of innocent shop-keepers at risk in direct relation to your governments high taxes on cigarettes.
That makes it YOUR FAULT that innocent Kiwis are murdered because YOU gave principle-bereft politicians the power to do it!

In their attempt to save the lives of one group of people who voluntarilly chose to put their own lives at risk (smokers), they are directly putting the lives of a different group in danger.

The sole purpose of government should be to protect its citizens from danger and the use of force, but what does our government do? - It inflicts them upon us itself.
I refuse to vote for any party that purposely makes laws that puts my life in danger, and I cannot understand why anybody would!

I am sick to death of the hand-wringing and headlines of feigned surprise and shock every time this happens, when it would be the easiest thing in the world to end by simply minding your own business, and cease giving power to principle-less bureaucrats
When the so-called cure is worse than the problem it is time to question your motives

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Ban the IRD - One-armed bandits to be banned by two-armed government bandits! That's hardly fair is it?

Did anybody else notice the similarities between Pokie machines and the ird in sub-editor David Smiths editorial?

The following letter (which unfortunately will not make it to print because it is about 390 words long instead of 200) paraphrases his editorial.

The words in RED in brackets are the sub-editors words
Words in GREEN my words


Some taxpayers (gamblers) have been hounded to take their own life by the ird.

Every facet of government (pokie machines) is designed to lure and hook people which explains why those who call for more of it are up 80%.

Well over $2.3 million is taken (by force) by the ird (by pokie machines)every day!(pokies are voluntary!)

There will undoubtedly be resistance to banning the ird (pokie machines) as almost all New Zealanders have become dependants of the system and have become accustomed to calling for government handouts instead of funding things themselves.

A whopping $950 million of other peoples money was lost by government (by gamblers playing pokie machines) last year - wasted on anti-smacking laws, fart taxes, hip-hop tours and god-knows what else.

No doubt the proceeds taken by the ird (pokie machines) do good in our communities but that doesn’t outweigh the harm done in collecting the money (not to mention the fact that money taken from others under threat of jail or fines is blackmail, and theft - they just call it tax because it sounds better.)

The ird (pokie machines) would hardly be a great loss to society. They are programmed to take your money, and addicted citizens are doomed to lose.

They pay users to sit mindlessly in dimly-lit rooms instead of encouraging them to seek employment.

The sub-editor mentions what next? legalise P and share the profits with the Salvation Army? Government don’t seem to mind reaping the profits from exhorbitant taxes on cigarettes! What’s the difference?

What a bunch of hypocrits the Green party are too! They will ban Pokie machines but legalise cannabis!

David say “if sports groups and community organisations need money that desperately then government should be stumping up with more funding! - What are they? - a bloody money tree?

What un-principled arrogance!

To do this, government must first STEAL IT FROM THE PRODUCTIVE!

Therefore this means that David thinks its unacceptable to do something that is “voluntary” but it is OK to take peoples money by force!” That makes sense - NOT!

Something that “is” worth protecting David are the rights of the individual; to do with their life and body they chose so long as they pose no force or threat to anybody else. It should be the SOLE DUTY of government to protect these rights, and not impose force

Save the Kiwi Please (Mr Tegel)

What is it that saves thousands of pet rabbits and other cute furry family pets from being slaughtered by predators?

Let me tell you!

It is property rights!

It is our entitlement to buy or sell, care for, breed, and profit from that gives them a “value” as either a family pet or as a business proposition.

It is property rights that give us the incentive to protect and nurture and develop blood lines and pedigrees etc.

Do we want to save the kiwi, or just “talk about saving the kiwi?”

I reckon if the Kiwi was given the same opportunity of property rights that all the other non-endangered species (such as cows, sheep, chickens, horses, dogs, cats etc) benefit from, and if somebody was to give Mr Tegel or Mr Braemar a cheque for $200,000, the words kiwi bacon (and egg) would soon have a truly different meaning.

40 million sheep say the system works.

It is our insistence on allowing a government monopoly on the health and wellbeing of the species that ensures they remain on the endangered species list!

They cant be trusted to successfully run a health system or an education system for humans, why on earth do we trust them with something as crucial as saving the kiwi from extinction?

Definition of an appeaser

An appeaser
is someone who
feeds a crocodile
hoping it will
eat him


An appeaser
is someone who
feeds a crocodile
hoping that it will
eat him

Why is P the Scourge of Society?

I agree with Robin Bishop that P is the scourge of society but it only holds this position because government, and faulty logic by the people who vote for and appease those governments - have put it there.

It is the scourge of society because much better, and safer drugs are unavailable.

P is cheap to manufacture, so why is it so expensive?

Huge amounts of money are made by criminals and drug dealers only because it is illegal.
The Iron law of prohibition guarantees this (google it).

Just because governments make it illegal, doesnt mean it will go away and that will stop doing it - just look at the ineffective squillion dollar war on drugs to confirm this fact.

If you want to blame somebody, blame people like Jim Neanderton and successive governments for refusing to pay attention to history, who continue to ban things they disagree with.

It is hypocritical to demonise P, while alchohol kills people and ruins lives every day, but that is still legal!

Why do New Zealanders continue to vote for governments that condone drinking?

It is governments interfering in the lives of individuals to do with their own bodies what they chose that causes the problem. Yes, anybody “under the influence of drugs” that commits a crime should be jailed, but jailing somebody “because they have taken drugs that “you” dont like” is a worse crime.

Stop prosecuting people for victimless crimes and concentrate on crime with victims.

Although I believe eventually that all drugs should be legalised, We have been conditioned by successive governments to be far too irresponsible for that to take place immediately, and a transition period would be necessary for people to educate themselves on responsibility and drug use before that was to take place.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils is Still EVIL

I had a discussion with workmates recently and we came to the conclusion that when many people vote, they vote for the lesser of two evils!

They said that they did not agree with all the policies of the party they were going to vote for, but it was the lesser of two evils!

This kind of thinking really baffles me! - It’s like being confronted by a bully who says “make a choice - do you want a punch in the nose, or a poke in the eye?”
By chosing either, you are giving them your permission to do both!

I will never give my permission to somebody to do something to me that I disagree with.
By chosing one of the two main parties just because they are the lesser of two evils, you are appeasing them - giving them power to do things you disagree with!

This kind of appeasement is how evil people like Hitler and Stallin were able to cause such terror in the world - by people appeasing them - agreeing with some of their policies but not all of them, and giving them their vote based upon a few things that they agree with.

This is what gave them the power to do such evil!

One person cannot do much by themself, but if enough people give them their vote, just look at the damage they can do! Take Sue Bradford and Jim Neanderton for perfect examples of that
. Why on earth would somebody do such a thing? - Helloooo!

Do you want the punch in the nose or the poke in the eye? - ooooh yes - I’ll have the poke in the eye please!

When I vote in November I shall not be voting for a party who wants to dictate what I can and cannot do - I will be voting for a party that doesn't prevent me from doing what I want to do.

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Tony Wahren is an unprincipled thief and a bully

Recently a much loved and respected member of our community by the name of Bob Addison passed away.

Bob was a lovely man and in his time teaching at Otumoetai College was mentor and inspiration to a huge number of children over the years. He had that very rare quality that endeared students to him and who would remain friends long after they had left school.

After many years as a teacher, Bob became a city councillor, and although we did not share the
same political views, we were still on speaking terms whenever we met.

Anyway, in a letter to the editor, a chap has called for the local council-funded theatre to be named after him, and in the process, named me as somebody who would be against the idea.

Here is my letter in reply!


Tony Wahren makes light of a serious matter at my expense, jesting about me writing “endless letters concerning the theft of other peoples money,” but it doesn’t stop him for calling for more of that theft!

He knows it’s theft, he knows theft is wrong, but somehow because its done by council it’s OK!

To paraphrase Charlton Heston; “I will stop bringing attention to the unprinipled theft and morally bankrupt people like Mr Wahren who think it’s OK to lay claims to other peoples money, when they prise the pen from my cold dead hands!” - Amen!

Not that I think Tony’s idea of re-naming Baycourt Theatre as the Addison Centre is a bad one! It’s not, It’s just how to achieve that goal is where we differ.

Tony would use force, whereas I would use choice!

Let me be second in line (after Tony that is) to donate a cheque towards that goal.

With my way, everybody who thinks its a good idea can add their cheques to ours.

We will all be happy for doing something we value.

All those who don’t agree can keep their money, and they will be happy also.

That makes everybody happy.

With Tonys way a whole bunch of people wont be happy- they will be forced to donate their money to something that they do not value, but Tony doesn’t seem worried about that because he has got what he wants.

To quote Margaret Thatcher “We are going through a period where too many people have been given to understand “I have a problem - it is the government/councils job to fix it!” and so they are casting their problems and demands on society, and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and families. . . People have got their entitlements too much in mind without the obligations.”