Videos on the Stimulus

(Hat tip Not PC and Shane Pleasance for links)

Now that the TARP (Toxic Assets Relief Programme) in the US has cost over $27 trillion (according to the inspector-general for the programme), now seems a good time to post some videos on the subject -they often explain more than many essays.

Here's what 1 trillion (let alone 27 trillion) can buy (sorry for the size):



Here's how the thing started in the first place (although it probably doesn't stress the governmental role as much as it should:

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Ben Bernanke's superb foresight:



And last but not least, Ron Paul in the US Senate, who's currently trying to pass a bill to audit the Federal Reserve.

Should We Get Our Hopes Up?

At his Speech From the Throne today, John Key said :

"In pursuing this goal of economic growth my Government will be guided by the principle of individual freedom and a belief in the capacity and right of individuals to shape and improve their own lives."

There are things that John Key wants to do, that will be applauded by Libertarians. However, as Lindsay Perigo notes, is it all rational to get our hopes up? There are still many anti-freedom elements to the new regime.

Nevertheless, it's still much better having a government that will actually listen to its citizenry (RE: electoral finance act, anti-smacking*) and will at least hold self-responsibility as its ideal, than the all-arrogant and all-pervasive Labour Government of 1999-2008.

*Admittedly, Key had a role to play in this as well.

The Truth About Recessions

The numerous bailouts of financial institutions and "financial stimulus" packages promised by both George Bush and Barack Obama have not stopped the financial crisis from plunging to ever-lower depths. As more and more money is pumped into the economy, the crisis grows worse.

What officials from governments in the US and around the world don't realise is that attempts to increase consumer spending are exactly what you don't want in a recession. Prices need to fall for the economy to start up again. Recessions are caused by overvaluation of products and services, by using a claim on future production to buy those products and services at current levels. Normally, this would be alright, as money would be diverted from other areas of spending to paying off debt. However, government inflation and expansion of the credit supply have led to artifically increased demand for products, and as thus, price hikes.

A recession is a large market correction, putting the prices of goods and services back at their true levels of demand. Therefore, the last thing government should do is to try to keep prices at their overvalued levels, in the interests of preserving an unsustainale economy.

Instead, with falling prices, businesses have the opportunity to rejuvenate themselves, as not only does demand for consumer goods falls, but also capital, natural and human resources. It also means that failed business and economic models can be replaced with better ideas -this is seen in the fact that many great corporations were formed during a recession. If anything, it means that people can start working from the ground, up.

Over the long term, a recession is a boon to the world economy. There is always short-term suffering (caused by the shortfalls of the inflation-induced boon-and-bust cycle), but it is far better than holding off for an even greater doomsday in the future.

The Last Tragedy Of Shakespeare

It could read like a Shakespearean tragedy: using the excuse of their students' personal weaknesses, bureaucrats at the Ministry of Education are trying to remove Shakespeare, arguably the finest mind ever in literature, entirely from the national curriculum. Amidst fears that his works are too removed from the mind of the average High School student to understand, Shakespeare could be scrapped.

Perhaps these bureaucrats should consider the reasons why students in New Zealand are so out-performed in other countries. After years of politically-correct, post modern "teaching" strategies implemented by both Labour and National Governments, students, parents and teachers in this country have been left with the short end of the stick. What we are seeing today is a population so dumbed down that many lack basic skills and knowledge, with many ending up on the welfare state. Indeed, the reason why many students "don't get" Shakespeare has been through the curriculum introduced by the same "education officials" now proposing this measure.

This latest proposal to remove Shakespeare, and letting a student who studies a blog as a piece of English literature obtain the same marks as a student who studies Shakespeare's incredible works, is simply the next piece in the puzzle. Shakespeare's works are the best pieces of literature around, and are still very relevant in today's world.

Teachers in schools are smart enough to know this. Said one, "I am genuinely upset that the amount of literature students are required to study is being reduced and replaced with ambiguous standards which seem to water down the work students are required to do."

Said another, "All the challenge and in-depth analysis and skills required at each level are being modified, and in my opinion, made easier. "Is the implication that we should not dare to challenge students, or heaven forbid, ask them to engage with texts that really speak to the human condition in a superbly crafted form? Dumbing down again."

Yet "education officials" who have no idea of how a child's mind works dictate what gets learnt.

Politically-correct, big government dictatorial thinking at work again. Appealing to the lowest common denominator, and not challenging students to think beyond the box of government mandated thinking -the concepts of "sustainability", "equality", or in my English class, "altruism". It is taught much the same in countries such as Britain and the United States -with similar results. The most intelligent students come from countries where they are required to know the facts, instead of writing essays with criteria such as "describe an important scene in [whatever's being studied] and explain why it's important."

In a freer world, schools would be entirely free to teach whatever they want, with the choices of parents and teacher deciding what ought to be taught. As an interim measure, save us from yet more entrenchment of political correctness at school -save Shakespeare.

Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics

Some sense on the US election and politics in general today comes from John Stossel, who does hit show "20/20" in America, from his Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Hope you enjoy 'em! (first three from Not PC)

Corruption of Democracy

A lot has been said recently of Labour's universal student allowances scheme, and it has been thoroughly debunked. The economics behind it is stupid, and so is the justification of "equality", "fairness", etc. So, I have nothing more to add to the general debates -apart from the fact that government hand-me-outs always work to destroy democracy and the political process.

Under a libertarian government which doesn't redistribute wealth, there is little incentive for different special interests and lobby groups (such as unions, businesses, organisations representing different groups of people) to heckle the government for cash -as the government recognises that it is not its job to hand out wealth. "Getting into bed" with government is a waste of resources. Similarly, in elections, the votes of a vast number of people don't go to whoever is promising the most benefits, as is the case today.

However, we have a government which is active in the redistribution of wealth -and when the government has money to give away, there's always going to be fighting about who should get it. Suddenly, it becomes worthy to try and get government to swing your way. The only problem is, that money could've gone to any other group, so different politically -minded groups start competing for money, and the end result is that whoever promises the biggest payouts gets the vote.

This is exactly what we're seeing today in New Zealand, and this "universal student allowance" is simply the latest bribe. And until government gets its hand out of our pockets, we'll continue having different lobby groups fighting and bribing politicians for resources.

July 4th

A happy, belated birthday to the USA -which, since July 4, 1776, has shown the world how the individualist, libertarian principles it adopted can transform a society into one of the richest and most productive countries in the world. Mitch over at SOLO has an excellent article on the subject; the same with PC at Not PC.

A Victory for Liberty

The Supreme Court of the United States has overturned the DC Gun Ban as unconstitutional -which is a big victory for Liberty, and the Right to Bear Arms. The DC Gun Ban, which has been in place for 32 years, has denied the residents the right to own firearms to defend themselves.

As for the criminals, the statistics speak for themselves. DC had 169 homicides in 2006 -most of them gun-related. 2006 was also one of the best years DC has had since the ban was implemented. Clearly, the ban has simply put more power into the hands of criminals and gangs. Just for the record, in 1991 DC had an unbelievable 484 murders -which is a shocking indictment on just how spectacularly the Ban has failed.

The DC Gun Ban hasn't worked -maybe Liberty can do better!

The Right to Protest?

Recently in Social Studies, my class has been assigned a book called "How Many Lightbulbs does It Take to Change a Planet: 95 Ways to Save Planet Earth". The Idea is that we would chose one of the 95 different topics on all manners of leftist ideas about climate change, take notes and do a PowerPoint presentation about it.

One of the ideas in the book is "Protect the Right to Protest". Alright, but this is what the left, through its self-anointed moral supremacy over climate change, has been stifling. If you speak up against the IPCC, the climate change "consensus" or Al Gore, you are thrown out of the climate change debate in days, if not hours. Suddenly, you have all these environmental "scientists" pouncing on you, saying that you're wrong and giving no particular reason, only data that has been spewed up a million times. For proof, look at what happened to the Great Global Warming Swindle -and that's one of the nicer examples.

The right to protest hasn't been stifled directly in the political arena -indeed, it's the politcal arena that the left wants to avoid over opposition to climate change. The left, in all its talk of "tolerance" and "cultural/political/economic diversity", has to maintain a clean, public image of what it is, and what it stands for. To its credit, it has been pretty successful. You're unlikely to see quotes like this on the front cover of a newspaper:

"We have wished... for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us back into the stone age..."

or that:

"You think Hiroshima was bad, let me tell you mister, Hiroshima wasn't bad enough!"*

Admittedly, those two quotes were said a while ago. But if you were to tell any random earth-hugger on the street about those quotes, they'd just shake their head and call you a nutter. There are many more quotes like the two above, but you'd be lucky to find anyone who knows about them.

Consider this fact: the environmental movement has successfully manufactured their ideology around a natural, scientific phenomenon: human-induced climate change. To most people within and supportive of the environmental movement, it's not about the control or the end of industry, it isn't about human quality of life -it's about global warming, or climate change. These people see scientific climate change as a primary -they don't consider anything else in the ideology as a possible primary. For them, it's alright to sacrifice human industry, technology, wealth, comfort, etc to Gaia -because climate change is a primary. Even if that did nothing to the climate, it's still the primary.

It's that idea that has left possible unbiased environmentalists completely open to bombardment by the environmental movement and its theories on climate change.

Also, as it is supposedly based on scientific fact, the supposed primary of climate change is seen as an absolute -for instance, man's mind is an absolute (although his using it is not), reality is an absolute. This is how the environmental movement has made the scientists who are skeptical of climate change seem absolutely crazy. Climate change is neither a primary nor an absolute, but the marketability of it as such has been used to devastating effect.

So, the right to protest against envirofascists? Surely, it exists in the political realm. But the rather simple idea of climate change has been manipulated so much in the philosophical realm that it's crazy to challenge the idea of anthropogenic global warming. To outsiders, you're protesting against an absolute (no matter how many studies say otherwise). The environmental movement keeps its credibility by making climate change its primary -not the end of industry and commerce, and relegating productive man back into the slums.

And as I've said many times before, isn't the idea of us all pitching in to make a collective effort for the good of the planet and future generations just lovely? Perhaps not for us selfish Objectivists, or anyone else who can look behind all the environmental rhetoric, but for the common Joe New Zealander, who has already been brought up with such principles during NZ's socialist era, they sound great. After all, we will all die if we don't -climate change, according to what Joe's heard so many times before, is an absolute.

The only thing getting in the way -productive, selfish man. The man who produces instead of sacrifices himself for the "common good". Sounds like a certain book!

But this is even worse. If you think sacrifice on the altar of the "need" of other people was bad, this is sacrifice on the altar of the environment -the truly unthinking.

Luckily, as Libertarians, we have the chance to hit at (or to protest at) where it hurts. The left for decades, long before the environmental movement arrived, has been going on about the need "tolerance" and "diversity" -which developed into the ideal of "protecting the right to protest". These principles developed as a way to get leftist rhetoric into the classrooms and onto the TV screens, but they have tripped up over themselves. After all, at school, you're not going to get a flogging anymore for expressing an opinion -the teachers have to grin and bear it, at worst. After all, it is in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity" -and when opinions can be put to people so bluntly, no leftist will try to stop you.

So it's on this different set of ideals -originally enlightened ideals from the enlightenment, before having a post-modern spin put on them- that we need to protest to combat leftist ideals. Ironically, what were, and still are some of the most attractive ideals of the left can be used against them. Not just in environmentalism, but everywhere.

*Both quotes from The Free Radical no. 73, page 27.

Poor Candidates For the US

With Rudy Guiliani slipping further in the polls and Hillary Clinton winning every primary in the US minus Iowa, the US election at the end of this year is shaping up to be one of the worst yet:

-The Republican nomination is a toss up between Mike Huckabee, an evangelist who promises to deliver America back to the time when Christianity was taught as the true religion and to give in to God, Mitt Romney, a mormon who thinks he did wonders for Massachusetts (the most socialist state in the Eastern US), and John McCain, who continually votes for bigger, more intrusive government and one of few senators to vote against the Bush tax cuts TWICE. McCain won the South Carolina seat, which almost always determines who gets the nomination.

-Hillary Clinton, self-described "government junkie" and all round totalitarian collectivist worshiper has won all primaries minus Iowa for the Democrat nomination, and shows no sign of abating. One of her principles, "there's no such thing as other people's children" is far removed from the true American principles of the founding fathers.

-Guiliani's policy of appealing to the states further down hasn't worked, and his consistent showing of 4th or 5th place in most state's polls won't help come Super Tuesday, when 20 states vote.

So, whoever gets the Republican vote may be just as bad as Hillary, or worse. Once again, a less-of-two-evils campaign. In which case, it may simply be best just to vote for the Libertarian Party after all.

"The Libertarian Front" A Year Old

I'm happy to report that "The Libertarian Front" turned one year old on December 4 - a year of being on the front lines for liberty on the internet. Said Rick Giles in response to my very first post:

"9/10 bloggers burn out in their first 2 months."

"We'll see."

Not me, Rick. And to celebrate, I'm restarting my series on skyscrapers, starting out with the Sears Tower.

~Callum

Back Off, Nanny State!

There is a new activist site dedicated to destroying Nanny State that everybody in NZ who cares for our future should get behind: Back Off!

The people at Back Off! concern themselves with activism in the name of freedom in NZ. Right now, they are planning a march in Wellington, against Nanny State and any organization who wants more power and control over NZers.

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left
to speak up for me."

...And the people at Back Off!, just like freedom lovers all over NZ, are determined to stop that.

http://backoffnz.blogspot.com/

Simply Beyond Words

I might have to change my view on the Libertarian non-aggression principle after 600 Swiss leftist idiots (and that really is a polite way to put them) stripped themselves down to nothing in front of the Aletsch glacier in Switzerland in a campaign against climate change, somehow trying, as PC puts it, "attempting to move mountains full of ice by means of just their genitalia and their convictions".

Put simply, the whole thing is an appeal to emotion as opposed to reason. If looked into properly, anyone who participated in this event would rightfully be a laughing stock for the rest of their life. Unfortunately, the all-too-large majority of humanity today and throughout history are completely ignorant of the hell on Earth environmentalism wishes to bring down on us, and many teenage and young adult idiots have no sense of reason at all (reason generally kicks in late, at about thirty). The only exceptions I can think of in NZ are all in the Libertarianz party, or are supporters.

Perhaps one thing that libertarians and objectivists have yet to touch on about the environmental movement is the fact that most environmentalists, especially the high-up ones, do absolutely nothing to protect the actual environment. It is instead about making the general public feel guilty about their actions, and from that point "giving in" to the movement.

All to reminiscent of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot. But, of course, "real communism hasn't been tried" (This is a very common argument amongst members of the left. Yet strangely no one mentions the environmental catastrophe the USSR went through before break-up).

News story: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/18/2008810.htm

Philosophical Leftist Theft

What has the Left stolen from us that has had the greatest impact? Is it the tax money that recently helped to terribly abuse a child? Is it the production that's been lost from leftist regulations from preventing people and businesses from be innovative and creative? Or is it the theft of higher standards of living from the third world by means of enviro-commie-ism and "fair trade" policies?

No, none of those thefts, as heartless as can be, were the biggest theft of the modern left. The biggest theft, in fact, was the theft of words.

Words, especially adjectives, are important because they can stir up a crowd, or silence the majority (think of words like "sustainable", as opposed to what many people now think of AGW). They are the way by which we communicate our thoughts and ideas, and rationalize them. Anyone who's read Orwell's 1984 will know what the true philosophical consequences of words, catch phrases, quotes, etc can have.

Anyway, back onto the point, there are certain lefty words which, properly, don't belong to them and their opinions. Of the words I'll post, all of them have been turned on their heads, and don't anymore mean what they're supposed to.

First Leftist word-theft: Progressive. Put simply, how are many policies that are openly advocated by leftist leaders possibly be coined as progressive? How can policies that at times openly advocate the return of the world to third-world living conditions and forcing people to give up what's properly theirs ever be called progressive? Even some of the more moderate leftist policies are far from "progressive".

Libertarian policies are truly progressive; Libertarians advocate policies which are designed to advance the world when it comes to development and society in general, not, at the least, stall it. (RMA?)

Second Leftist word-theft: Welfare. Consider this: on the constitution, rather than saying "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Welfare", Thomas Jefferson could've written "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Welfare". If we use the term properly (aka, not applying to the Welfare State), it could be said that the West have achieved the best welfare of anywhere in the world.

Nowadays, the term simply applies to the welfare state. Despite the fact that the welfare state has actually proven itself to be much, much different. If used properly, the Capitalist societies of today could be called "the ultimate welfare states!"

Third Leftist word-theft: Fair trade. How is trade "fair" if you put a tariff on what the Third World (!) imports into any country? How is trade "fair" if it is simply punitive government protection of a First-World country's industries, despite the fact that they already have a quality of life incredible to people in the Third World? How is trade "fair" is it delays a country's development one decade?

"Fair trade" policies were implemented to protect third-world workers and suppposedly guarantee them a reasonable standard of living. Instead, what it's doing is in fact restricting the flow of capital into the third world country. This means that production can't be as efficient as under a proper free market, and infrastructure can't develop-at least for a long time-as well. Because "fair trade" policies restrict what can be sold, they also restrict production, and a Third World country's chance to have a decent standard of living.

'Nuff said there.

Fourth (and arguably most important) Leftist word-theft: Liberal. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Locke, Voltaire, Adam Smith, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, all (many extreme) liberals. Why should we compare these great people to a random hippie drunkard on the street under the term "liberal"?

"Liberal" was once a truly grand word. Although in Europe its meaning has stayed intact, thanks primarily to Socialist Swine FDR (and it should be noted that Europe got out of the Great Depression much earlier than America!) using the term for his own self-promotion it has well and truly far from its real meaning in America. "Liberal" was a term to describe the great ideas of the great thinkers of the enlightenment. Not the Socialist ideals portrayed by FDR. It's only one of the many reasons I hate FDR. He pulled off the greatest word theft of all time.

Expect more word-thefts as Political Corrections continues us on the path to oblivion.

Interesting Article on "Libertarian Anarchists"

Although the two words, put together in their proper use is an oxymoron, I have recieved an interesting article put together by an Objectivist (in the USA, of course-he takes the word "Libertarian" completely different to us) called "Anarchism vs Objectivism. The article can be viewed in the link below:

http://www.hblist.com/anarchy.htm

Libertarianz Alternative Budget 2007

The Libertarianz have released their annual alternative budget-a rather good alternative to the useless pile o' crap released by Michael Cullen. The Libertarianz budget can be viewed at their site, here.

I agree with all of it, and I do think that government should be rolled back progressively-not from under the carpet like in some situations. In the transition to a Libertarian state, we need to make sure that no one is affected badly to a major degree by making sure that private charity goes in conjunction with the rolling back of government welfare.

More Evidence Against Gun Control

Some facts for the Gun-Controlists:

-In the last thirty years in Amerca, Gun circulation doubled. However, that has gone hand-in-hand with a drop in violent crimes by about 33%.
-In individual states, with every 1% increase in gun ownership, the violent crime rate drops 4.1%.
-Roughly 460,000 gun crimes occur in the US every year. But guns are used for defense 1,300,000-2,500,000 times in a year, which means guns are used in defense 3-5 times more than crimes committed with them.
-In crime situations, the criminal is more than 80% likely to flee if the defendant has a gun, even if he has a gun himself!
-Evidence has been done by American Government Departments into gun-control laws, and in one circumstance, researchers looked into 395 publications about 80 gun-control laws, and concluded that none have any effect at lowering the violent crime rate.

Perhaps the New York Times, who wrote this awful piece of crap, ought to listen:

"What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage."

What's actually needed is less gun-control laws. And better journalists in the Big Apple, too.

(From the Cato Institute)

National Roles in Today's World

This very intriguing graphic has got me thinking about the roles nations play in the world today, about recent wars, and about how all-encompassing force of Globalisation is reshaping national rolls in the turbulent world we live in today.

In the graphic, some pictures are shown of American cemetaries in France, where soldiers died in both World Wars. In both, America had an isolationist policy of "don't get involved unless completely necessary".

-In World War I under President Woodrow Wilson, America stayed neutral to the conflict until 1917, when it decided to get involved, on the side on the Allies against Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After the war, America along with member of both sides decided to sign the "Peace Treaty of Versailles". Because of the Treaty, Germany had to pay reparations. An armed force was banned and much of Germany's former territory was lost. America was one of the founding members of the League of Nations.

-In World War II, America once again had a neutral position (although it was widely believed that President Franklin Roosevelt was looking for a justification to enter). In the end, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and it was Hitler who declared war on America, not the other way around. Just as in World War I, America decided to join France on the Western Front, while also fighting the Imperialist Japanese in the Pacific and in Asia. Once again, Germany was on the losing side.

The two World Wars had something very, very similar. In both, the nations in Western Europe-particularly France-were losing out badly to Germany. America, which remained Isolationist well into both wars managed to change all that. By no means is America wholly responsible for winning both World Wars. But if America had decided not to get involved, France would've been far more destroyed the Germans than what it was, on two different occasions.

In all conflicts America has gotten into until the Iraq war, America had been on the defensive. In the Korean war, and in Vietnam, America had always been defending the attacked nation. One of the reasons for this is the fact that the Cold War was on. America and the USSR had been locked in a rivalry for superiority. Neither wanted to be destroyed, so neither-with the exception of Soviet involvement in Afghanistan-neither nation dared lift a finger.

The Cold War is over. There is no more rivalry between Capitalism and Communism. Communism was destroyed. Millions of people across the world were liberated. Great deals of them rejoiced.

However, with Communism destroyed, a new problem arised. It was not Al-Qaeda, which, with some serious effort on the West's behalf, could be stomped out. It was the fact that there was only one remaining superpower in the world. I'm certainly not anti-America, but America, being the only state in the world today that is a superpower, is, as its latest actions in Iraq have shown, can be dangerous. I refer to Ayn Rand's famous quote on government's relation with human rights:

"A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights; it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims."

That applies not only to government power at home; governments can be just as tyrannical overseas.

A solution to the problem of only one superpower is to create another superpower, to become a Pluralist world again. This could potentially work well if one keeps the other in check and both respect Civil Liberties. However, there is no other nation in the world today that could fulfill that role sucessfully. The EU might be a candidate. But do we really want a continent that has been been through two world wars and will do, ultimately, do little to keep the world in order as a superpower?

The Libertarian solution is to create a Constitutional Amendment restricting government power overseas, not just in America but in all nations. And war, isn't the best way to create countries. Instead, nations should focus more on developing markets in once restricted economies. Capitalism, as history has shown us so many times before, is best at getting a country out of poverty, its government in order, and for it to introduce more Civil Liberties and Liberal Democracy. War only makes a nation go backwards. American intervention in Iraq has shown that. And I'd be willing to bet that the Iraqi people will be controlled by another dictator in 20 years time.

BZP ban won't stop stupidity

From the Libertarianz' latest press release:

"In the wake of a tragic incident in Greymouth which has left a young man in an induced coma in Christchurch Hospital after taking BZP, Libertarianz Drugs Spokesman Dr. Richard Goode reiterated his party's opposition to a ban on BZP-based party pills."

It's very true that bad things can happen if you take drugs-but it's also very true that a ban on drugs doesn't make those effects disappear. People still continue to use them. Control goes to the gangs, who thrive off the huge prices drugs sell for in the black market. To obtain their drugs, people will steal to pay for their usage. Police resources are seriously drained, making serious real crimes-like murder, rape and burglary-all the easier to commit. Prisons get seriously overcrowded. The whole system becomes a complete and total mess.

In a free market, however, these things will be subject only to the laws of supply and demand. Drugs become far cheaper, meaning gangs will have a harder time trying to survive. Police resources aren't diverted to drug crimes, and serious crimes are paid more attention to. Prisons don't get overcrowded. People don't need to steal to pay for their usage. Crime goes down.

And despite the whole "war on drugs" mania around NZ and abroad, especially in America, the percentage of underage users is far lower in the drug-tolerant Netherlands than it is in "war on drugs" America and New Zealand.

In America, the numbers of 15 and 16 year old's who've used cannabis is 38%. In New Zealand, they are only slightly lower at 35%. England's rate is 36%. Meanwhile, the Netherlands does well at only 8%. Drugs are a rebellion factor in America, NZ and England, and therefore the percentage of teens using them is far higher than in the Netherlands, where they aren't a rebellion factor.

We shouldn't forget that 52% of New Zealanders are criminals, 52% of New Zealanders have used cannabis. A higher number, 62%-ten percent higher-said they would support decriminalisation, according to the TVNZ/TNS poll.

So what about all the drug labs we hear about so often on the news? Wouldn't they be rampant if we decriminalised cannabis?

No, they wouldn't. In fact, they would be non-existent. They would be unprofitable in a free market for drugs. They are only profitable thanks to the huge price for illegal drugs on today's black market.

Medicinal Marijuana should be the first to be legalised. Simply put, it saves lives. If you want proof, take a look at the Libertarian Party of America's Libertarian heroes section. The first story is about a man with cancer. His doctor prescribed him a whole heap of medical drugs. He couldn't keep them down. After trying many different substances, he found one that worked: marijuana.

Afterwards, he was charged with possession of marijuana and subsequently thrown in jail. He died weeks later, thanks to prohibition.

Cannibis, Marijuana and indeed the whole concept of drug prohibtion has been a complete failure. It has had all the wrong implications on society and has actually increased drug consumption. It simply has not worked. Drugs need to be legalisated, in order for them to be subject to the laws of the free market and their levels to be dramatically reduced. After all, what do law-breakers care about the law?

Note: Richard Goode has a site, Stash.co.nz.

Richard Goode, Libertarianz webmaster, launches petition against BZP ban

On January 14, Richard Goode, webmaster for the Libertarianz and Libertarianz spokesperson on drugs, launched a petition against the BZP ban. The petition can be downloaded here.

"The petition calls on the New Zealand House of Representatives not to ban or further restrict the sale of benzylpiperazine (BZP) and BZP-based party pills." Mr Goode said. "One in five New Zealanders has used BZP and they do it because they enjoy it. Banning BZP will deprive these people of a pleasurable, legal pastime.Alcohol causes more grief and mayhem than all illicit drugs combined".

Mr Goode went on to say "Adults own their own bodies. What adults put into their own bodies is their own business, and no-one else's. BZP is a relatively sensible choice."

I wish Richard the best of luck for this petition. It will also become a "Libertarian Crusade".

Once again, best of luck Richard.