In my last blog post on the fast approaching new Zealand election I said something about where we are now as a nation, politically speaking. I covered just a small part of the rather bleak landscape that we inhabit, but essentially the political environment is one of very strong statism and government intervention, wealth redistribution and disincentives for many people to work hard and try to get ahead. “Share the wealth” might sound like a nice idea, only in this case it’s not a case of someone saying “why don’t you share your wealth,” but rather a case of the state saying “I am going to share your wealth – with everybody else.”

There’s more to it than just this. The involvement of the state with our finances is part of the intervention into private lives, but it’s not the only form of such intervention. Marriage in New Zealand is now essentially a legal construct, and as such those who make the laws inevitable end up telling people what does and does not count as marriage. We’ve recently been told (by lawmakers) that we must – regardless of our own views on the matter) treat same sex couples as having a relationship that is the same as a married relationship, if they have a civil union. Now, you might personally think that’s fine. The point here is that it wouldn’t be an issue if the state didn’t own marriage. If marriage was a private affair, perhaps accompanied by a private contract, there would be no “same sex marriage” controversy. Let churches marry who they are prepared to marry, and let anyone have a public gathering to celebrate what they will. But as soon as the state gets involved and starts bestowing its blessing, they have started forcing other people to endorse forms of relationships.

Take another example: The notorious (at least in new Zealand) “anti-smacking” law. Assault is a crime in New Zealand, however there have always been exceptions – scenarios where you are permitted to use force against other people (within reason). You can use reasonable force in self defense, the captain of a ship can use reasonable force to subdue and contain a passenger who poses a risk to other passengers, and up until recently, a parent could use reasonable force in the course of disciplining a child. The has always said that the force must be reasonable, so you couldn’t injure your child, for example. But you could use force – for example – to place your child in confinement (which would normally be illegal – I can’t confine another person under normal circumstances), or to smack your child (again, with the proviso that the force is reasonable and not harmful), or any other kind of force along those lines. However, section 59 of the Crimes Act, which allowed for this exception in the case of disciplining children, has now been repealed. The state can use force against you if you need correction, but you cannot use force against a child if that child needs correction. As has frequently been noted, this as the unambiguous consequence that any person who uses any amount of force on a child for any reason is a criminal. If you place your child in “time out” when he doesn’t want to be there – you’ve commit a crime, and a crime for which there is literally no legal defense. If you did this and the police laid charges, you’d be guilty, no matter what the circumstances, because the law has been changed so that absolutely no amount or type of force can be considered reasonable. When challenged with this fact, the member of parliament who proposed this law change, Sue Bradford, explained that yes, it’s true that nearly all parents would technically become criminals, but we should trust the police to use discretion. It’s sometimes hard to convict people who physically abuse children, she explained, so this way everyone is prosecutable, meaning that the genuine abusers can be successfully prosecuted without hindrance like pesky defences of “reasonable force.” Think I’m exaggerating? Not even close. I was physically present (and almost physically sick) at Bradford’s public meeting here in Dunedin when she happily explained this.

Another example is the Electoral Finance Act, which I discussed recently here. This is, in effect, an attack on the free speech of political spokespeople who do not wish their personal address to be provided to the new Zealand public.

Another example is Labour’s re-write of the Immigration Act. The new version gives immigration personnel (not even police officers) powers to invade private property, seize belongings and detain people, without the need of a warrant. Oh, and the detainees do not have to be given the specifics of why they are being detained, either.

Then of course there was the notorious Seabed and foreshore Act. The government, one side of a dispute over ownership and governance of parts of New Zealand coastline, decided by legislation that the dispute could never be taken to court, and it declared by fiat that the state owned all of the disputed pieces of land. Case closed. No compensation required (oh, and no due process either).

And then there’s the general all-powerful thuggish behaviour of Labour’s members of parliament over their last few terms of government, including the Prime minister herself, to whom ordinary laws and principles of conduct simply don’t apply – whether it’s the leaked fabrications she used to end the career of the Police Commissioner, the artwork she falsely signed for an auction, the speeding that she apparently required of her driver to get to a rugby game on time – and then let him take the fall for it, as well as the more general reputation she has earned for being a controlling bully who allows no dissent (or free thought). Then there are the cabinet ministers (note: not just members of parliament but cabinet ministers) who, the police agreed, had prima facie cases to answer for assault, but against whom the police, for some reason, chose not to press charges. And then there was the cabinet minister who abused police power by literally calling them up to go and advise a citizen of a request to pay damages (i.e. a civil matter, and even before a civil suit had been filed). The Prime Minister did literally nothing about any of this. There was also the case where an application to build a marina in Whangamata was approved by the environment court, after much effort and expense by the applicants. But then cabinet minister Chris Carter overturned the decision. Again, no due process, no separation between the legislature and the courts, just heavy handed intervention to overthrow the normal process because a government minister didn’t like the outcome of the court.

There’s little doubt that Clark has had a clear vision for the type of society she wishes to engineer. The society towards which the policies of Clark’s Labour government are geared is a society that eschews traditional morality, sees solo parenting as normal and provides financial support to make it no more difficult than two parent parenting, a society where “sexual norms” is a judgemental term and same-sex unions are absolutely no different from traditional marriage between a man and woman, where authority and to some extent, responsibility, are transferred out of the family home into into the hands of the state (it is the state’s role to discipline, educate, or use force to punish, etc), a society where it is fundamentally the role of the state to see that your family is provided for, a society where healthcare and educational choices are made by the state and funded by the taxpayer whether they use those options or not, a society where the type of free expression that finds acceptance is that which upholds all these norms, and expression that call into question the moral acceptability of these things is frowned on, a society where the idea of promiscuity as something abnormal or unhealthy is itself seen as something abnormal, unhealthy and oppressive, a society where the defence of all these values is described as tolerance, and the defence of different values is presented as intolerance. Of great importance, amidst all this, is that the wise, benevolent state faces no opposition to its decisions, and if there is ever public opposition to its intentions (as was the case with the Civil Unions Bill and the Anti Smacking Bill), these complications are simply ignored.

Why, exactly, would a Christian vote for a government like this? I’ve asked a few, and I think that, unfortunately, the reason some Christians might vote for a party like this is that “if they become the next government, they will give me X.” What about their impact on laws relating to marriage, or prostitution, or their immoral solutions to land disputes, or their threat to free speech, or their thuggish and unaccountable influence over civil servants, or their disregard for human rights, whether in its treatment of immigrants or in other cases (such as their rejection of the freedom of association for students)? Don’t any of these give my fellow Christians pause before voting them back into power? “They’ve going to give me X.” Whether that X is a cash payout via some sort of state welfare, or a bonus for people working in the state sector, or something else, how in the world could anyone be so short sighted as to snap at a cash carrot and to ignore the wider picture of what is happening?

One answer has to do with the basic human condition: I’m greedy and envious. If the government gives me money, then regardless of whether I deserve it, my first inclination is to take it and enjoy it. Other people make much more money than I do, so why shouldn’t I be able to get my snout to the trough as well, right? And if the way to get this present is to vote for a particular party, then that party will get my vote.

There are less cynical ways of looking at welfare payouts, of course. Perhaps the Christian voter might think that the state is being kind to the poor by having these programmes (which should, hopefully, make them wonder why they payouts are made to families that earn salaries over $60,000). Maybe they believe that “social justice” just means distributing wealth so that nobody ends up at the bottom of the heap. I’ll say more about this in my next post, but my experience tells me that the main reason some Christians have for voting for Labour is that Labour will give them something, and they don’t want to lose it.

Here’s a question I put to any who think this way: Aside from the fact that you like getting free money, what would be wrong with you not getting that free money? Now I know – when you write conversations yourself you get to determine the outcome, but look at it this way:

Jerry: Hey Perry, who are you voting for?

Perry: I’m voting for Labour.

Jerry: Really? Wow. I wouldn’t have seen that coming. You’re a Christian, right?

Perry: Yes – what does that have to do with anything?

Jerry: Everything, I would have thought. I mean Labour is totally pro-abortion rights, they created same-sex marriage in this country, they made parents into criminals, they forced people to publish their address when they make political comment, they ride roughshod over human rights, they take incredible amounts of tax, they-

Perry: Woah, woah, slow down!

Jerry: Well, you do realise that Labour did all those things, right?

Perry: Well, maybe. I’m not sure. But still… won’t that other party take away the money Labour is giving us? And I work in the state sector, I mean, my future there is more secure with Labour, right?

Jerry: You’ve got to be kidding me.

Perry: What?

Jerry: Do you really think that your personal finances and security in a government job is more important than matters of right and wrong?

Perry: No, no of course not. It’s not just about me. What about all those other families out there? They get family assistance from the government too!

Jerry: And you point is?

Perry: Well isn’t it obvious? Getting money from the government makes it easier for them to get by, so of course I want to vote for a party that will keep giving them that money.

Jerry: Well firstly, pretty much every party is going to give them that money. It would be political suicide not to now that they’re already getting it. But there’s a much more important question here.

Perry: And what’s that?

Jerry: Should the government take my money and give it to you?

Perry: Oh come on, let’s not make it personal….

Jerry: OK fine – should the government take my cousin Bob’s money and give it to you?

Perry: Well it helps the families who get it, right?

Jerry: Oh, so if it helps families then the government can do it?

Perry: Well, I guess. The government is here to help us.

Jerry: Let’s see where that takes us. How would you feel if you worked hard to save up and buy a car, and then some agents from the government burst into your garage tonight and stole it, and gave it to my cousin Bob.

Perry: Come on, that’s ridiculous. Nobody is saying that the government should be allowed to do that.

Jerry: Well Perry, the thing is, Bob can’t afford a car, and having a car would really help his family. He could take them on holiday, and his wife could take them to soccer practice. Do you have any idea how handy a car is in today’s world for a family, Perry?

Perry: But the fact that they would find it helpful doesn’t give someone the right to just take it from me and give it to them! I worked to buy that car. I earned it!

Jerry: So what? Remember, it helps families. I thought you said a second ago that the government can do something if it helps families. In fact while we’re at it, some families struggle to pay for good healthy food. I hope you don’t mind if your local MP comes and raids your fridge for some food for them.

Perry: This is getting silly. OK, the government can’t do just anything because it helps families.

Jerry: Why not?

Perry: Because that stuff is mine! That wouldn’t be just!

Jerry: Just?

Perry: Right. Taking my car or my food would be unjust!

Jerry: That’s interesting Perry. Last time I heard, you were all in favour of this thing you call “social justice.” Am I right?

Perry: You bet! As a Christian, issues of social justice are so crucial to me.

Jerry: I see. So what are some of the fundamental issues of social justice?

Perry: Well probably the biggest one is our attitude to the poor. We should share the vast wealth of society with them, redistribute those resources to see that nobody misses out.

Jerry: OK, so why can’t the government redistribute your car and your food?

Perry: Like I said, that’s unj- [the penny drops]

Jerry: Unjust?

Perry:… yeah. Unjust.

Jerry: I think we need to take a big step back here. I’m all in favour of me sharing my wealth or you sharing your wealth. But what do we normally call someone who takes it upon himself to share other people’s wealth?

Perry: Yeah, yeah, a thief, I know. But look, you can’t say that just because it would be wrong for an individual person, it would also be wrong for the government. Governments can do all sorts of things that an individual can’t do. They can make laws, they can change taxes, heck they can even declare war!

Jerry: OK, now we’re really getting to the heart of it. What can the government do, and what can’t it do? What’s it’s job in the first place? There’s no way we can even begin to ask if it’s all right for the government to take my money and give it to you if we don’t even know what the role of the state is in the first place. Is it the government’s job to redistribute wealth at all? Exactly what rights do I have to the money I earn and the property I possess? How much authority does the government rightly have?

Perry: There you go, getting all academic. Why doesn’t anyone just think of the children….

Perry is a moron. Not in every way, of course, but when it comes to voting and politics, he’s pretty dim. That’s not measured by who he wants to vote for, don’t get me wrong. There are politically smart people who will vote for Labour. They are politically smart because they realise what they are doing: They are giving their support to a particular vision of the role of the government in society. When they debate politics, they realise that they are not debating individual policies, they are really involved in a clash of ideologies: Different political philosophies altogether. Two people might both support the same policy, but on the basis of very different political outlooks. Take the civil unions act that created a kind of same-sex marriage here in New Zealand. One person might support it because they firmly believe that it is the role of state to create by law all the formal types of relationships that adults enter into because they support a big government statist ideology, and if all relationships are covered by law, they can be regulated. Another person might support it in the (mistaken, I think) belief that this law generates more liberty and gets the government out of the lives of consenting adults.

What grates me horribly, however, is the fact that so many Christians (like so many people in general) don’t even ask the big questions. Questions of principle like “should the government be taking and redistributing people’s earned money in this way – is that its job?” are replaced with much more selfish questions like “how much will I get,” or “how will this benefit my profession,” or even more benevolent sounding questions like “what will they give to families,” and people who dissent are not challenged intellectually on whether or not their political philosophy make sense, rather they are targeted with guilt trips like “but you’d be taking [taxpayers'] money away from ________ [insert some group here].” Never mind asking if the government should be giving them other peoples’ money at all, or if the government should be doing anything to benefit those in your profession. What about those not in your profession, or those from whom the money would be taken to give to you?

Let me put some flesh on the bones: I know a person (nobody who would be reading this blog) who is a Catholic believer, who would vote for a pro-abortion rights pro same-sex-marriage party on the grounds that his taxpayer funded job would be less likely to get funding if another party came to power. I have known Christians – high profile ones at that – who have stood up in public and said “when you cast your vote, just ask one thing: What are they going to do for _______,” and he then named the Christian institution that employed him. In short, Christians get tangled up in some pretty ugly political messes, supporting parties – some of them self consciously Christian parties – that are struggling to impress people by how much they are going to give people or do for them, and they are not once engaging in high-level discussion about why anyone should care that those parties are going to do those things. “He says he’ll get the government to promote heterosexual marriage in law! I’ll vote for him!” Or “they want to give cash payouts to married couples who stay together! He gets my vote!” Not “he consistently advances policies on the basis of a good understanding of private property rights,” or “He really understands the role of the state and the limits of its authority.”

This post has turned into something of a rant, so I’ll draw it to a close. In my next post I’ll say something about the big principles that I think Christians should care about in this election (and in all elections), and I’ll also be saying a thing or two about how, in my view, some of the political parties out there measure up to those principles.

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project. Buy me a beer!

I have a growing contempt for the average New Zealand voter, almost matching my contempt for New Zealand politicians. As people in many other ways – in their capacity as parents, teachers, lawyers, sportsmen, friends, they may be fine people, I don’t know. But in their capacity as political participants in our democracy, so many New Zealanders – including many fine Christian people who I know and like for other reasons – are greedy, envious, or stupid (and sometimes all three). This subject will be divided up over a couple of posts (or maybe even three). This first installment takes a look at the state we are in now.

Where are we now?

On the 8^th of November New Zealanders will go to the polls to decide what our next government will look like. One thing is already obvious to us: we will either have a Government led by the Labour Party or by the National Party. In spite of the shrieking of some hopelessly uninformed left wing lackeys, we don’t have a “right wing” option in a major party. Both options are very nanny-statist and thoroughly interventionist. The current Labour government is a little more to the left than National. Wealth re-distribution is at an almost unbelievable level at present.

Take a family with one income earner. At current taxation levels, with an annual income of $40,000, that income earner will pay $7770.00 in PAYE (“pay as you earn”). This includes income tax plus 1.4% ACC (socialised accident compensation insurance). On the whole, that’s about 19.43%. If the earner works more hours or gets a more skilled job that pays more and the income is $70,000, the total PAYE is $18,090. That’s about 25.84%. It gets worse if you earn more than that. But it doesn’t end there. Let’s add this to the mix: This family has four children below the age of 12. This means that this family will qualify for state welfare for those children. Use the calculators at www.workingforfamilies.govt.nz to check the figures for yourselves. Let’s imagine that there are two families with one earner in each, one earning 40K and the other earning 70K. I’ll be taking into account the payments received from the “working for families” welfare scheme as well as the accommodation supplement each of these families will qualify for. I’ve arbitrarily hypothesised that these two different families live in the same city that I live in, and pay the same amount of rent that my family pays. Taking all of the above into account, here is the weekly combined income from all sources – after tax – for these two families.

Family 1, earning $40,000: Total after tax weekly income (including welfare payments) of $1018.27

This family will pay $7770 in PAYE and receive $19,916 in state welfare. No, that is not a typo. Nineteen thousand, nine hundred and sixteen dollars of untaxed welfare payments.

Family 2, earning $70,000: Total after tax weekly income of $1208.27

This family will pay $18,090 in PAYE and receive $10,920 in state welfare.

Take a few moments to take this in: Family 2 earns $576.92 more than family 1 each week. For their extra effort or skill, they end up just $190 better off each week. The level of wealth re-distribution to minimise the difference in income between these two families is staggering. And yet, each of these families is a recipient of a sizeable chunk of the re-distributed wealth of others. The first family effectively pays no tax at all and then receives a further cash bonus of $12,146. But even the higher earning family still receives well over half of the earner’s PAYE payments back. Who are the benefactors here? The benefactors are those without children who are trying to get by on $30,000 per year and not receiving a penny from working for families (but still qualifying for an accommodation supplement of about $60 per week). The other benefactors are those who receive none of these taxpayer funded handouts but who fund a huge proportion of them: those who contribute more tax because they earn more. Essentially, the financial landscape this creates is one where a family on a low to medium income with several children has little incentive to increase their salary/wages beyond around $36,000 (the level at which state handouts start to decrease). Even if they had a salary of $70,000, the difference in financial positions would not reflect this increase in earnings.

That’s what I’m talking about when I talk about statism and wealth redistribution. It’s not just rhetoric without substance. It’s a real system that demonstrably penalises the high achievers or those without children, and for everyone else it serves as the great equaliser, making it seem like nobody’s earning more than anyone else. When everyone gets ahead – nobody gets ahead, nor is there any incentive to do so. Not only that, but the effects of this huge wealth redistribution programme are far reaching, and it affects much more than your pay packet. The income of consumers has a major impact on a market economy. Take landlords for example. Landlords can only charge an amount that they know they can get. If people have more buying power, then landlords can (and do) charge more. The same goes for retail stores. If a huge proportion of market consumers are artificially pushed up into a higher income bracket by taking the wealth of higher earners and single people and redistributing it to families, we end up severely punishing those who are not the recipients of redistributed wealth, because we raise the prices of rent, food and other commodities, but we do not increase the income of single people, or couples without children. The government has taken money from some people and given it to others, creating a fake higher average income for the population as a whole and in the process made it much more difficult for those who lost this money in the process to compete for the same commodities.

The reason I say that New Zealanders currently have no political options that would get us out of this situation is that neither of the major political parties want to change it. The incumbent – Labour – are the ones who have entrenched this state of affairs, and John Key, the leader of the opposition and perhaps the next Prime Minister of New Zealand, is wooing voters, not by saying “let’s bring an end to this awful system,” but rather something more like “don’t panic, if you vote for us we won’t take any of these payments away. We’re a safe bet!” Support for the would-be next government is literally being paid for in cash handouts. The reality is, the opposition should be pointing out what an obvious mess the current system is and promising to change the system rather than merely tweak it, but they’re simply too afraid that if they do they will lose support. When their support comes from the pigs lined up at the trough, they don’t stand a chance of winning if they shoo the pigs away and tell them that no more buckets of slop will be served up.

More on this next time!

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project. Buy me a beer!

Is Jesus just Osiris with a new face? In Episode 19 I look at the skeptical argument claiming that Christianity was really just a collection of beliefs borrowed from pagan religions, and that Jesus was just a re-hash of one or many other Messiah or god-man figures. As there would be no way to deal with all of these other religions in one episode, I’ve chosen to use the example of the ancient Egyptian deity Osiris. In short, the sceptical argument is not particularly well supported by the facts.

HERE is a transcript of this episode.

Glenn Peoples

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project. Buy me a beer!

Tags: apologetics, copycat theories, historical Jesus, podcast

Are you the straight shooter that I’m looking for?

I’m looking for someone to join the Beretta team – a team currently consisting of one. You’ll become an author here at Say Hello to my Little Friend, you’ll be an occasional co-host on the SHTMLF podcast too. You’ll have at least a Master’s degree in theology or philosophy, or be working towards one, and basically I have to like your style and you can’t be someone who thinks all the material at this site is crazy. I don’t ask much, do I?

Here’s another thing: I’m not part of any EEO agreement, so I can say this: I’d actually prefer a female to come on board (but that’s not an ironclad rule). Basically I think a woman would make a great addition to the podcast show, and I don’t want to encourage the outlook that conservative and serious theology or philosophy are men’s territory. If you’d be interested in being involved, or you know someone who you think would be great for this, let me know!

Oh, and I promise: You’ll get paid twice the amount I do.

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project. Buy me a beer!

Some readers of this blog embroiled in debates of Obama vs McCain might not know or care, but New Zealand’s general election is looming large. Tonight on TV1 New Zealand watched the live debate between Prime Minister Helen Clark and the leader of the opposition, National party leader John Key. The debate featured a number of questions from YouTube users.

One weak point of both was a tendency to be indirect in their reply to questions and sometimes not even answering, in spite of many words being used. This was particularly noticeable, I thought, for Helen Clark, although both were guilty. For example, a question was put to the Prime Minister about how the government decides what counts as poverty and what counts as being “rich.” Her reply was to say that under her leadership the government has helped many people out of “poverty,” the very thing that she was asked for a definition of.

On the environmental issue – something that Helen Clark said is very important, I think she was soundly thrashed. She said that New Zealand is a world leader on carbon emissions. However John Key immediately observed that in spite of the huge costs the country has invested in being just that, we are no such thing, and that out of 43 nations who accepted the obligations of the Kyoto protocol, New Zealand ranks a pitiful 38^th in terms of carbon emissions, which have increased 14% under Labour’s leadership. Moreover the proportion of New Zealand’s energy produced from renewable sources has dropped from 72% to 66%. Not only is it unwise to place this pursuit of being a world leader in carbon emissions for such a small nation, but in spite of having sacrificed much to do so, we have failed miserably despite the Prime Minister’s opening speech touting us as a world leader. So firstly: Is it really worth sacrificing in terms of costs to families and quality of living to be a world leader in carbon emissions, and isn’t this all the more true given what a crappy job we’re doing?

The major approach of Helen Clark when attacking Key and his party appeared to be fear of the unknown. The form of the argument was “If you vote these guys in, they might take ___________ away, and are you really safe? Do you want to risk it?” This mirrors Labour advertising recently that plainly suggest that if National takes power, free education and health care are at risk and may be lost. In the debate, however, every time this attack was tried the response was to simply note that the claim was untrue. The only specific examples that could be substantiated were that National does not support Labour’s generous approach to student allowances, and it would make some minor changes to the KiwiSaver scheme. Yet Labour has encouraged people to think that National would literally abolish the scheme altogether. This, I thought, was the major undoing of Helen Clark. Her tactics were centered on encouraging fears about actions that at very least appear to have been invented by the Prime Minister and her party.

Both parties agreed that National offered more by way of tax cuts, and on the whole a larger disposable income to both individuals and families. Helen Clark, although it would have been in her interests to dispute this, did not dispute it once. She did raise the very general concern that this is only achievable by cutting public services, but she did not specify which services National would cut.

While discussing the benefits/weakness of what Labour has done for families with it’s “working for families” welfare package, John Key made what struck me as a particularly strong point – Currently for a family on $40K per year, for every extra dollar they earn, the effectively lose two thirds because of WFFTC. Under National’s version of the scheme, they would keep two thirds of every extra dollar. Clark did not dispute that this is true.

Many of the points in the debate ended up with the leaders talking over the top of each other and fighting, much as they do in parliament. Much of the debate also involved the endless repetition of specific facts along with slogans (I think it’s now firmly etched in our memory that under Labour we’ve had “9 straight years of deficits” – or was it ten). I think that on actual content at crucial points, however, Key was a clear winner – in spite of the fact that I probably won’t be voting for his party because they support chopping up babies before they are born and while they aren’t as big government as Labour are, they still want too much of a nanny state (a nanny who chops up babies, now there’s a thought).

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project. Buy me a beer!

Last year our Labour Government was responsible for the passing of the Electoral Finance Act, a new set of laws regulating political advertising. The act has always been a bone of contention since its introduction, and it has been recently slammed by an Auckland law professor as an attack on freedom of speech. Professor Bill Hodge says that Michael Cullen, Deputy Prime Minister has failed to protect our right to free expression.

So what’s wrong with this law? A few things, actually. Here’s a simple list of regulations that the law involves.

If you want people to Adopt a set of beliefs, you can promote them, right? Sure, you can put up posters, pay for billboards, buy advertising on TV and radio, and so on. How much can you spend? As much as you like! It’s your money, and you’re using to do no more than express yourself and promote your beliefs (or sports club. or whatever, you get the idea).

The Electoral Finance Act  changes all that. As a citizen you can’t do that when it comes to trying to influence the opinions of potential voters. You’re not allowed to use your own resources at your own discretion to try to encourage people to vote (or not vote) a particular way. If you happen to be a millionaire businessman who’s sick and tired of the interventionist approach of Labour, not sure which party you want to support, not a member of any party, you are forbidden by law from spending, say, $200,000 on a campaign to encourage people not to vote for them. You may not do that, never mind the fact that it’s your money.

What happens if you do these things, and what time period do they cover? well, the election is on the 8th of November, and these restrictions (and others, as I’ll mention in a moment) apply from January 1. Mai Chen explains:

The Regulated Period has Started

The “regulated period” for the Electoral Finance Act 2007 (Act) began on 1 January of this year and will end with the close of polling day. During this period, the provisions of the Act regulate a variety of activities the costs of which may be deemed under the Act to be “election expenses”. This is the cause of some anxiety amongst clients who, by reason of their financial support for political parties or their engagement in questions of public policy, fear they may be required to comply with the complex provisions of the Act. Advising such clients is not easy given the vague wording in some key provisions, and the interrelationship between provisions scattered throughout the Act. Moreover, penalties of imprisonment for up to two years and/or fines of up to $40,000 for wilful breaches (“corrupt practices”) or up to $10,000 for any other breaches (“illegal practices”) are likely to have a chilling effect for clients with a low appetite for risk and no wish to become a test case.

For laws with such stiff penalties, it’s particularly troubling that the law community is complaining about how difficult to interpret the law actually is.

Oh, another thing – If you’re just Joe average who wants to spend $50 on a newspaper advertisement or a bit more on some pamphlets, you’ve got to make sure you list your name and address on any such advertising. That’s right, if you want to put a political message out there, you’re required by law (I draw your attention again to the penalties listed above) to let the whole country know where to find you. And bear in mind, according to the Act this doesn’t just apply to telling people to vote or not vote for a specified part or candidate. here’s what it says: It includes encouraging people to vote for specific parties,

… or for a type of party or for one or more candidates or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken or pursued, whether or not the name of the party or the candidate is stated.

Let that sink in. If you try to encourage people to vote or not for a general type of party or candidate, even if you offer no indication of which party or candidate would be the best, you can’t spend as much money as you like, and you have to tell everyone where you live.

As M and M noted, Bob McCoskrie found out just how much of an interest people who don’t share your political views take in these personal details that one is forced to publicise. This is a recent(ish) photo of his front lawn:

Decorated by strangers int he night with – get this – 1,000 (plastic) knives, with a threatening note taped to his front door – just in case there was doubt about why the knives had been put there.

It’s a rather convenient way to find out where your political opponents live. Just require them by law to tell you!

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project. Buy me a beer!

I heard on tonight’s news that “the value of the New Zealand Dollar has plummeted to a five year low.” What does that mean? A dollar is still worth a dollar, right? Not exactly. Today the New Zealand Dollar buys around 57 American cents. A year ago it was buying around 77. In practical terms, that means that it would take 50 dollars today to buy the same amount of American money that could be bought with $36.99 a year ago. Our money has fallen so badly in one year, in other words, that $50 is now worth only $36.99.

But even in saying that, I’m only comparing the New Zealand dollar to its former value compared with the American dollar, which itself fluctuates in value a lot. The reality is, the American dollar is in as much trouble as ours in New Zealand. It’s a strange situation: These bits of paper actually have no value other than the value that people have agreed to attribute to them. We pretend that this stuff is valuable when it’s not. Dollars do not represent anything anymore, and there’s really nothing about the American dollar to make it more valuable than the New Zealand dollar (or vice versa of course). It’s make believe. Our reserve banks literally have the power to create supposed value just by printing paper.

In order for money to actually be worth anything, it has to either contain value in itself (and let’s face it, paper and ink isn’t worth a lot), or it needs to represent something of value. Once upon a time it did: Gold and silver. This clip might be helpful in helping to explain this. It’s very American as I wasn’t able to track anything down from a New Zealand perspective. That may have something to do with the appalling lack of high level discussion on this kind of thing that actually takes place here.

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project. Buy me a beer!

This came to my attention today, and it’s worth a read.

It’s some commentary by Paul Jaminet over at the BrothersJudd blog on a review of Jeremy Waldron’s book, God, Locke and Equality, which is probably my favourite book on John Locke and political philosophy.

Interestingly, the review that Jaminet is commenting on, originally by Victor Nuovo, makes the comment:

Since contemporary liberal theory, at least in its dominant Rawlsian version, excludes Christian theism, along with all sorts of comprehensive moral outlooks, religious or secular, from political discussion, [Waldron's campaign for the contemporary political relevance of Locke’s theism] must show that this exclusion is self-defeating.

It’s rewarding to see people saying that this is what’s required to be done, since this was one of the chief contentions in my recent PhD thesis.

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project. Buy me a beer!

http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=46832&altf=Hmfoo&altl=Qfpqmft Now there’s a real option for American voters.

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project. Buy me a beer!

I found Ben Witherington’s comments here on a recent find interesting.

The find is an incantation bowl, used in cultic practices. It bears the inscription: “DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS.” The find may date as early as the mid-first century, and appears to atest to the fame of Christ spreading to magicians who sought to draw on this new power for their own ends. This actually occurs in the New Testament, for example, in the famous case of “Simon the sorcerer” in Acts chapter 8.

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project. Buy me a beer!