The "Rights" of Beneficiaries

Not surprisingly, the MSM has been all over the case recently of some (not-so) "private" information of some beneficiaries being released into the public sector by Paula Bennett. Although one lady has already realised that her little gesture actually did little to compromise her security at all, the other is still unrepentant.

What she, the public and the MSM are forgetting is that the lady in question is a beneficiary -she lives off public money that has been forcibly extracted from taxpayers. As thus, the taxpayer has the right to know about the people they're paying for!

I suggest something like this, to be available online free of charge, for every beneficiary:

name
sex
age
marital status
no. children
which benefit they're receiving
benefit income per month
other income per month (this could be family income for stay-home mothers)
how long they've been receiving government funds.

This would not apply to pensioners, or children under the age of 18. Once an individual has stopped receiving government benefits, their information is removed from public access. Although the information will allow taxpayers to see how their money is being spent, it will not compromise the security of the beneficiaries.

The database will not include money for tax rebates.

Any beneficiary complaining about the new system will be told that they're receiving public funds; the taxpayer has the right to know who they're paying for, and make decisions accordingly.

One Dead (So Far) in London Riots

The riots in London over the G20 meeting have left one protester dead. Frankly, this doesn't surprise me.

The further left you go on the political spectrum, the more violent protests usually are; and in a protest as vehemently anti-capitalist as this one, events were bound to turn violent. Violent protests, far from being a form of free-speech, are in most cases just a lot of angry teenagers and twenty-somethings who:

- have never run a business, let alone the huge businesses they've been protesting against;
-have never had responsibility for their lives assumed by other people. Most protesters are not working-class people with a genuine interest in living independently -they're usually middle class.
-turn not to principles on reality, but the arbitrary to justify their assertions ("everything's relative", "you can't prove reason's relationship with reality", "one man's freedom is another man's chains" etc)
-think their ideas are "rebelling against the system". They think they're "cool" for the lack thereof.

If the protesters are really interested in the plight of the poor, they'll engage in the most noble and greatest of all human actions: the act of production- of which their reckless violence is the opposite.

School's Out

As of today, the school year has ended for High Schools and Colleges all over the country, with Primaries and Intermediates finishing now or next week. Some kids will be out around the towns and cities, but most of them will be at home.

Just today, an article appeared in the Dominion Post warning that New Zealand's "She'll be right" attitude (what attitude? it died out years ago when, mysteriously, crime was on the rise) is to blame for fatal accidents where youths are the victims. However, would it be better to condemn those kids to a life of fear of the outside world?

While it is true that parents can take a worthy role in the education of their children about the outside world, a child must learn about it for himself. Children, more so than the rest of us, have an intrinsic desire to explore and learn about the world around them, and to have fun doing so. Education through experience best helps a child to learn about the world around them. How does preventing them from experiencing the outside world help their development?

Once again, the politically-correct cotton-wool culture of modern day New Zealand is at work, trying to protect their child -and intervening in the lives of other people's children- from the culture of self-loathing and hopelessness that they created, by changing New Zealand culture from one of self-reliance to complete reliance on others.

Perhaps removing politically correct cotton-wool culture from every facet of a child's life may help us rebuild that culture and allow our children to discover the world around them, and to build their own ideas of right and wrong, rather than having those ideas forced down their throats by a politically-correct clique.

Nia Glassie: My Verdict

Libertarian Sus outlines the three main reasons for the continuing murders and abuse of children, such as Nia Glassie, in New Zealand:

"1. loser dads to bugger off and leave Mum with the kids, knowing that the poor old taxpayer - again - picks the tab, and

2. loser blokes to move in with single-Mum-with-kids-on-DPB, to be fed and screwed on demand, and

3. young women to screw anything with no personal regard for future consequences, ending up with children they really don't want, who are treated accordingly."

It's interesting how this coincides with Chris Trotter's new goals for social democracy, outlined on Friday:

"Labour has to understand that its state houses, and the welfare state that built them, was just the first, not the last, stage and crowning achievement of the socialist journey. Social democracy must never be about maintaining vast swaths of the population in perpetual electoral peonage.

State houses, along with our public health and education services, must be regarded as launching-pads for heroes, not stables for Labour's donkey-vote."

In effect, social democracy ought to be so bad that it's good, by getting people who once relied on the state for every whim to try to escape as far away as possible from the state houses in which they grew up!

Also of note, is the typical leftist groups who go around say that "it is our problem", without first addressing the root causes of the problem in the culture of complete and total dependency, and then expecting us to be spies on our neighbours to solve the prolem. Any culture which resorts to the expectation that people spying on their neighbours keeps those neighbours from doing terrible things is well over the edge.

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.

Quite Something!

It's not too often you come across something quite like this, from friday's Dominion Post:

"Wrenched away from their homelands; required to learn a whole new language; subjected to grotesque racial stereotyping and often outright verbal and physical abuse; these children, backed by their families, have never wavered in their quest for academic, sporting and cultural excellence.

Who is served by belittling, or condemning, the distinctions conferred upon these children? Who is served by an ideology that refuses to recognise that crucial aspect of the human spirit which refuses to accept the brute statistical reality that many are called but few are chosen?"

So, who said that? Milton Friedman? Ronald Reagan? Ayn Rand? No; those were the words of Chris Trotter -yes, that's right, Chris Trotter- on Friday.

A rather remarkable change of heart for a man who said that "All my life I have given thought only to those with no hope of receiving the glittering prizes. Even when (very occasionally) I received one myself, I could not help feeling that tug of guilt; that blush of embarrassment at being distinguished from my peers." His upcoming columns may be rather interesting!

Full revelation at the Dominion Post.

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)

Don't tell me ...!

According to the latest 3 News poll, yet another term for the corrupt, socialist Labour government currently ruling the country is looking ever-more likely.

National hadn't changed its place since the last poll, polling at 45%, and Labour went down to 37.5% -however, the real problem is the rise of the Greens, who polled at above 8%. So, given that National has a coalition with ACT and United Future (providing both parties stay in parliament), Labour and the Greens have between them only one less seat, but given the extra three "overhang" seats, neither coalition will be able to rule.

Therefore, the Maori Party chooses who will be the next Prime Minister. And although they've said that they could work with National and form the next government, they could more or less goes anywhere.

Which, in effect, means that New Zealand government for the next few years will go to whoever promises the most handouts to Maori, and all the PC stupidity that comes with modern policy surrounding race, regardless of who wins the next election.

Which, in effect, really peeves me off. MMP for you -the most power goes to the small third parties who make up for numbers with, perhaps, only one or two MPs!

Stop Mollycoddling Our Children!

So says one British Early Childhood expert, Tim Gill, who's in the country at the moment, and he's becoming increasingly worried about the state of NZ children. He says:

"If we're constantly telling kids you can't do that, it's too dangerous or you can't talk to strangers or everybody out there is trying to get you, well then it's no surprise that kids are increasingly growing up anxious and afraid", he said.

And he's right. Like their counterparts in Britain, Kiwi kids are growing up being told what they can and can not do, which is damages their self-esteem and causes them to be reckless, and not think about what they're doing. This can be seen in the rising rates of youth crime and teenage suicide around the country, and indeed, around the world.

Back before political correctness got a stranglehold on public opinion, most children were left free at a young age to discover the world. They knew the risks involved, and developed out of their own experiences, not at the discretion of their parents.

Similarly, we did not have the problems facing young people back then as we have today. Many proponents of the welfare state would put this down to increased government welfare spending then (although that's hardly the case; in 1960, government spending as a percentage of GDP was at 27.7%, and 50% in 1990. It would be even more now.*) After all, welfare isn't a great concern if you spend almost the entire day playing games in the back yard!
Also, welfare wasn't something you were "entitled" to. If you could work, you worked, and it was as simple as that.

Instead, as Tim Gill says, it is the mollycoddling of today's society which is preventing them from enjoying life to the full, and political correctness, with its talk of "rights" and "entitlements" is behind that mollycoddling.

*Free Radical #73, page 3.

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.

Te Aro Meeting

The Te Aro Valley Meeting is usually one of the most entertaining political meetings in New Zealand, with good justification. Luckily, I was there on Tuesday to support Bernard Darnton, the Libz candidate running in Wellington Central, and there was a good Libertarianz turn out to the meeting.

The Highlights:

1) Michael Appleby, the candidate for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannibis Party -he was really funny, and said afterwards that he's "a libertarian at heart".

2) The Worker's Party candidate looked like he'd walked straight out of the 1930s.

3) Meeting up with the other Libz (normally, Tuesday's our meeting night, and we did pop around to a local bar for a few minutes) and seeing Peter McCaffrey from ACT on Campus again -he's a great guy.

4) Bernard's answer to the question about which party he'd vote for, if not his own. His answer: Labour -for comedic value! (and to show the NZ public the evils of big government)

Lowlights:

1) Sue Kedgley -there aren't strong enough words that I could use to desribe her! She was (/is) very maternalistic in her demeanor and politics, and someone who wouldn't think twice about controlling every aspect of your life.

2) The United Future Candidate -he was younger than all the other candidates and obviously had no idea about what he was promoting, and performed a highly irritationg song/rap at the end of the meeting.

3) All the other leftist candidates proposing the same "all things to all men" policy.

All in all, it was a much more interesting political meeting than the last one I attended (in middle-class Eastbourne)!

What's Keeping Them Behind?

Auckland Mayor John Banks is pledging, that for the 2011 World Cup, $20,000 will be put into "a development plan to manage homelessness", and $197,000 will be spent on cleaning up graffiti around the city.

First off, the $197,000 to be spent on cleaning up graffiti. How do you need $197,000 for the relatively simple job of cleaning up graffiti? The last time I checked, it only takes some cleaning materials, buckets and a few volunteers willing to put their time into cleaning the graffiti up to make a city clean again. Preferably, however, the hooligans who actually do the graffiti should, at any possible chance, be made to clean it up themselves. But rather than cleaning up only the graffiti they've drawn, make it a several day task, at multiple locations in pink overalls. Don't just let them get away with only a light warning.

Secondly, the homeless issue. $20,000 to simply keep them off the city streets during the weeks occupied by the Rugby World Cup will do NOTHING to alleviate the problem. Instead, the labour regulations keeping them from working in a productive job, even if it is for little, should be scrapped.

And even though regulation like that is a national issue, the City (and Regional) Council can do its part as well, by moving restrictive regulations such as "Urban Boundaries", which merely serve to keep house prices artificially high. Don't require buildings to need permits, scrap the RMA, and any other such legislation that makes the idea of owning a home close to work an impossibility, even for the middle class.

More government spending never helps in the long run.

That damn bailout...

The Bush-Paulson bailout, even after being rejected on Monday, successfully went through the House of Representatives on Friday, meaning that American taxpayers will now be an extra US$700,000,000,000 out of pocket (and now have over $10,000,000,000,000 of debt to pay off). The money will be going to try to prop up a flawed financial system, and to delay and magnify further economic collapse.

Over the past few weeks, you undoubtedly would have been hearing, from all political groups and figures, from Sarah Palin to Winston Peters that this collapse has been caused by "greed", capitalism and spectators. Similarly, no one actually tackles the proper root of the problem (artificial credit expansion) and instead advertise great new systems of regulation and government interference. In other words, more power to politicians.

However, in a free market, banks only have so much money to lend out (and if bank prints their own money such as in America pre-civil war, it can quickly become worthless), and are accountable to the people who deposit their money in the bank. Low interest rates signal that people are more willing to take risks for business expansion and economic growth, and that the bank has a lot of money to lend out. High interest rates mean that people want to be more conservative with their money.

Under a free market, interest rates set by banks go up with inflation (as the money gets devalued with time). However, in today's mixed economy, governments set official interest rates. And as thus, they also set inflation at a steady pace, to ensure there's always money on hand to lend out, to ensure economic growth (which is what we've seen during these two decades, with the dot-com bust as an interval).

Unfortunately, this artificial economic growth does not encourage proper, responsible investment, and this can be seen in middle-class America -and New Zealand- with the rise of the McMansion (although many regulatory policies are involved there). The building and buying of McMansions is generally hard work, but, from hearing stories about loans worth hundreds of thousands of dollars with 0% deposits, it's happening alright.

The inevitable result of stupid business decisions is business failures, job losses, and share market crashes, such as we've seen with Lehman Brothers, AIG, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, and many New Zealand finance companies. What this current collapse signals is a market correction, caused by governmental inflation. Also to consider, is the fact that money gets devalued by inflation, which is a double-whammy for everybody.

The Price We Pay

Every day, we hear socialists expounding the benefits of the welfare state, and paternalistic governmental policies. When asked about the expanding social problems within modern New Zealand society, the answer is something along the lines of "more welfare ... more spending ... more intervention in people's lives. Of course, Roger Douglas is always to blame.

The price we pay for letting socialists get away with expanding the government to a size in which it is so concerned with what's happening in the lives of productive, good people that it largely ignores the true problems of the welfare state, is, in the case of one Aucklander, murder.

However, it is not merely big government which is to blame here -the underlying cause of big government is, and why it intervenes in the lives of productive people in order to give money to criminals (this isn't the first case).

The underlying factor, behind the government's size and the sanction of criminals, is political correctness, fueled by the moral equivalency of modern philosophical and political thought. It's the idea that the murderer is the true victim of an "oppressive society", and that the man who was murdered deserved it (considering, after all, that he's a businessman; one of the most hated professions by socialists). If he gets stabbed or shot, moral equivalency says: "so what?"

And it's precisely because of political correctness (and its predecessors) that we have a big, intrusive government in the first place, and that the government considers wealth an object of restribution -on the basis of need- which:

a) destroys the self-esteem of welfare recipients;
b) provides no economic incentive to produce wealth; and
c) sends out the impression that the "need" of welfare recipients must come before the production of wealth, and as thus the people who produce wealth are viewed with suspicion.

The entire premise of the welfare state is based on the irrational thought that wealth isn't created; it just simply lands in the hands of certain people through luck, or "greed". It pays no attention to the fact that material resources, in the ground, by themselves, mean nothing.

Only man, through the use of his mind, can determine the proper use of resources -through the market's laws of supply and demand. Only man can put a value on a certain resource; and apply his mind in order to make the largest number of uses a resource can have, a reality.

Socialism and political correctness ignores this. The moral standard, according to both, is "need" -not man's life and happiness. Until we finally wake up to this, and realise what a philosophical scam socialism is, the victim count will rise.

Wall Street "Crisis"

No one doubts that Wall Street has been going through some tough times in the last few days, with some major collapses, bail-outs, and bankruptcy claims. Therefore, it is important to re-affirm that, in a free market, people and companies (especially the latter) need to be flexible.

The truth of the matter is, in recent times, both consumers and business owners have been protected, to some degree or another, by a safety net (for instance, the welfare state, or the recent bail-outs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the US). The safety net, by "guaranteeing" economic security, has destroyed the basic need to be flexible; which is one of the most important traits a person or a business could have in a free market. It has also removed much of the need to make intelligent investment decisions (hence, the sub-prime mortgage crisis).

In a time such as ours, when events that happen half way around the world can be known here within seconds, and economic circumstances are constantly changing, more rapidly now than ever. Companies have to continually adapt to the changing circumstances to survive.

This is what we're seeing on Wall Street at the moment. Instead of proper, if drastic, market correction taking place, more and more financial institutions are being bailed out. However, financial assistance only helps to delay the eventual collapse-and magnifies it, as it now impacts the government and its expenditure. Having taxpayers money go to inefficient banks and financial institutions is a waste of money.

There's also interest rates. For a number of years, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates artificially low, which artificially bolstered the home loans market and, as thus, magnified the recent collapses.

The solution to all this madness, is, of course, to get the government out of the way of business, allowing them to succeed and fail based on their merits. By doing that, businesses will be forced to:

a) make smarter investment choices;
b) look for solutions in other areas for their problems, rather than making decisions under the pretense that the Government will bail us out;
c) force consumers to make smarter decisions in which companies to deal with;
d) stop irresponsible lending to people who can't pay it off.

All in all despite the stress that many people will have to endure during the market corrections going on at the moment, government intervention can only magnify the problem.

Referendum At Last

With 310,000 signatures calling for a referendum on Anti-Smacking Legislation, it looks like there's a possibility that the fascist law banning parents from smacking their children might be finally overturned. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

The fact is, in New Zealand, there are still far too many people who believe that the state should care for them from cradle to grave, and that it is necessary and right to take money from the productive to give to the unproductive. There will always be people who think that the government has every right to intervene in their lives -and everyone else's, too. One such person is Sue Bradford, the drafter of the Anti-Smacking Legislation.

Question for you, Sue: how many children has your law prosecuting good parents managed to save?

The answer looks like the letter O.

The Real Issue Here

Recently, a big feeding frenzy has occurred around the New Zealand blogosphere and especially on SOLO and Not PC over Elijah Lineberry's take on the Ministry of Education's $54,000 "Maori Potential" badges, with bloggers of all political leanings either calling him a racist or telling the complainers to grow up. Elijah's badges have been put into pictures by Whaleoil.

But before we go on yelling about Elijah, what could be more demeaning to a Maori person than a phrase such as "Realising Maori Potential -Wassup!", which appeared on one of the actual badges. It's also interesting that none of the badges have one Maori word on them (except "Maori", believe it or not.) The badges are simply worn to make students feel better about themselves, and to make teachers feel that they're actually teaching their students properly.

Elijah, meanwhile, is simply telling it as it is. Crime rates, unemployment, child abuse, etc are appallingly high amongst Maori and in predominantly Maori communities. Yes, Elijah's way of putting it was blunt -and probably not something the Libertarianz Party should officially endorse. But the actions of those who scream "racist!" whenever the badges are mentioned are even more immature- because, in effect, they are denying the problems that Maori are facing today (thanks, primarily to their own actions, which are what Elijah's badges are all about), on the grounds of "racism". How dare you point out that more Maori are in jail, per capita, than Europeans!

Not that the Left would want the problems to go away -it's areas like South Auckland and Porirua that provide most of their support. And if you look at any of Labour's recent economic moves and policy, they hate productivity -because productivity is contrary to Labour's socialist philosophy, and unproductive slobs always looking for an extra buck out of the government are a major source of Labour votes.

Good on you Elijah -you're actually telling it as it is. And accepting the problem is the first part of solving the problem. No, not all Maori are child abusers and unemployed -far from it. But the statistics speak for themselves.

Another Assault on Kiwi Education

Another Assault on Kiwi Education is on its way with Labour's recent legislative maneuver to raise the legal school leaving age to 18, unless the student attends Polytech or University. In response, 15 High School Principals on Auckland's North Shore have said that, should the act pass, they will deliberately violate it.

It is not hard to understand why. Why would a school principal want to keep students who have already expressed an intention to leave school -usually to go into the workforce- and who would simply cause violence if they were kept back? Why would a school want to waste money on the hiring of new teachers, adjusting wages to compensate for the extra stress put on already-existing teachers, extra school teaching material, and new classrooms for students who don't want to learn?

On top of that, keeping students in school prevents them from getting productive jobs out in the workforce, where they could truly be productive. Jobs and apprenticeships also provide the best education for more hands-on students looking for a career in the trades -which can provide an excellent source of income, but the current Labour Government believes that education can only be done in big, monotonous buildings, at little desks, subject to whatever the teachers says. It's this failure to differentiate between schooling and education where Labour fails miserably. What it all comes down to, is more resources required from a less productive economy.

As thus, the responsibility falls onto the parents and taxpayers to pay for the extra students, who don't to be there, and get no value out of the education system. Parents and taxpayers are getting more for less -and the strain on schools could jeopardise their own child(ren)'s education.

The same deluded principle has also been applied to Universities. For various reasons, the Left has taught New Zealand that everyone has a right to go to University. As a result, more people have come out of the University system with degrees which are worth nothing to an employer, thanks to everyone else having one. More money is being used to fund students who go and produce less, on the whole, and who would be more successful in the trades -where New Zealand has a major deficit.

However, University is hardly compulsory -whereas this current proposal will make school attendance compulsory.

In the end, all this stupid proposal boils down to is election-buying, and trying to pretend that education under Labour has not been pitiful. As proof, John Key is also supporting the proposal. Now try to argue that it ISN'T election buying!

A Tale of Two Budgets

Two budgets were released on Wednesday this week. One was the typical tax-and-spend budget promulgated by Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, promising a "tax cut" of $16 a week that will be eaten up shortly by inflation and the rising cost of living; the other was the Libertarianz Alternative Budget, that was put out by Libertarianz Leader Bernard Darnton. (A full spreadsheet outlining the budget in detail can also be downloaded from that page.)

Libertarianz will cut government spending and give back public money in the form of a true tax cut, $220 dollars per week. Libertarianz will slash the regulations and taxes on our economy, allowing New Zealand to truly surpass Australia in living standards and a growing economy; and help the poor and disadvantaged in society -by giving them back the money that was took from them, and regurgitated out in the form of "benefits."

Libertarianz will also enable New Zealand to defend itself properly, by buying new military equipment, such as brand new fighter jets. Libertarianz believes that a free nation should be able to defend itself, and works towards that end.

Libertarianz will paying no-hopers on the welfare state to breed, allowing voluntary charity and a work ethic to take its place. By legalizing victimless crimes, Libertarianz will put more resources into fighting real crime, and getting New Zealand away from the #1 spot in sexual assault, property crime and child abuse, in the world.

As well as the things mentioned above, Libertarianz will create, within a few years, one of the most dynamic, diverse and flexible economies in the world being able to adapt to changing market conditions rather than stumbling behind the rest of the developed world in GDP.

It's enough to make you vote Libertarianz!

Doctors' Strike... Again!

When will these strikes end? There have been more in 1 year alone than I can count. The most recent example is the Junior Doctors' Strike, taking place this week.

I'm not a unionist, but for this time I have to ask: who can blame them? The New Zealand public hospital system is in a wreck -there's no flexibility, work hours are very long, and wages are low compared to other countries. If you're a top doctor in this country, you either enter the private sector, as Wellington's top heart surgeon did last year, or you go overseas, usually across the ditch to Australia or further abroad, to the United States.

And it's this reality that sees NZ health services fall increasingly behind every year. Constantly, more and more money goes into these services, and constantly, the same results. The same socialist shoddy planning and negative results.

With a health system like ours, it's no wonder why so many people are off to Australia. At least people there have the good sense to go to the private health service for most things.

Oh yes, and Australians are paying their arms and feet for their private health care!