Archive for February, 2012

Inderjit Singh is a businessman who wishes to make a living for himself and his family by trading a legal substance with other willing customers. Ana Unkovich and Glenis Hawkins are the Wicked Witches of  Mt. Wellington, who will use any means necessary to stop him from making a productive income.

This pair of community minded tyrants allow themselves to be proudly photographed in the East and Bays Courier putting up posters on private property damning the right of an individual to open a business. What kind of society are we living in when a local newspaper will write a story portraying this pair of despicable vandals as heroes? They have enlisted hundreds of anti-freedom residents to sign a petition against an honest businessman attempting to make a living through consentual trade and they proudly vandalise his property in the process. Why isn’t this newspaper photo being used as evidence by the police to prosecute Unkovich and Hawkins for vandalism?

“Eastern area alcohol reduction offcier”  Chris Lally says, “From a police point of view we’re in support of the community.” That very quote completely demonstrates where everything has gone so wrong. When the police will choose to support vandals over businessmen, you know that our country is in serious trouble.

Store owner, Mr. Singh, knows only too well the problems with New Zeaand. ” I’ve been out there and there are two or three posters up on my store every day. That is my property. If you object, thats okay but they have no right to put things on my store. It’s not wrong to sell liquor in New Zealand. What they’re doing is illegal.” You’re damn right Mr. Singh!

The aforementioned anti-business collectivists have organised a petition opposing the opening of Mr. Singh’s liquor store, attracting 500 signatures. This pair of enemies of freedom, liberty and capitalism may think that their petition gives them some sort of moral platform. It doesn’t. It just means the problem of political sickness is as bad as I dared to imagine. Hundreds of Mt. Wellington residents actually think they have the right to violate another person’s property and destroy his attempt to make an income for himself based on sheer force of their own numbers. I completely disagree. They have the right to dislike his enterpise. They have the right to not patronise his business. What they do not have the right to do is initiate force through the state to destroy his chance to improving his income and standard of living.

I call upon the police to arrest and charge Ana Unkovichj and Glenis Hawkins for vandalising private property. If the police choose not to act, they deliberately forfeit their morality and therefore their professions as upholders of the law.

Advertisements

Right wingers like Cameron Brewer want to violate your property rights to supress residential brothels. Left wingers like Cathy Casey want to violate your property rights to protect heritage buildings. While both would disavow any suggestion of similarity between them, my example demonstrates that they are simply different sides of the same oppressive coin. What Aucklanders really need on the Auckland City Council is a true party of freedom!

One of the problems with being involved in local Government politics is that many of the functions of the council are mandated by the Government, therefore it is difficult for a candidate to be truly a candidate for freedom.There are certain things that simply have to be done by law. However candidates for freedom can advocate that only those functions required by law are done and that those bare minimum functions are done as far as possible in a manner consistent with property rights and individual freedom. Where a party of freedom would have no impact at all would be on the local boards; the only function of which is to spend the money allocated to them by Council. A place for parliamentary washouts, political retards and societal leeches. Their advocates say they are necessary for proper democracy in Auckland. I as a critic say there are enough politicians spending other people’s money without those with parliamentary sized egos and community board sized abilities adding to the burden.

An example of where a party of freedom would be unable to truly succeed is in dealing with the disgusting Maori Statutory Board. These racial parasites are given their unearned pedestal by law and receive a vote on council measures by apointment. A Council governed by a party of freedom  would be unable to completely get rid of them. However they would be able to cut off funds to that Maori Statutory Board and turn those rottweilers into neutered shitzsus.

In the same way a Council of freedom would still be stuck dealing with regulation of liquor stores and unable to change that fact. However what they could do is stop or reduce the number of liquor ban areas, ignore the neighbourhood fascists who try to block every new liquor store and pub, and let well-behaved adults enjoy liquor like adults. A Council of freedom would stop destroying the freedom of adults to enjoy alcohol in a responsible manner in order to deal with the minority who do not.

At the start of this post, I mentioned property rights. Currently there is near unanimity amongst councillors that it is legitimate for local government to control what you do on your property. The reasons for this control varies between councillors, but what they all agree on is that it is necessary for this control. There are those who want to stamp our prostitution, those that want to protect trees. Others want to protect old buildings while more like to maintain collective character. All want to make property owners tenants on their own land. The issue of property rights probably illustrates most of all what is wrong with Auckland City Council. Candidates for freedom will defend the right of property owners to do what they wish on their propperty on the condition it does not violate the property rights of others. Again there will be minimum functions mandated by central government legislation which deal with regulation of private property, but a Council of freedom has a lot of room to cut back the sheer enormity of currently cumbersome and expensive regulation.

Fortunately there are plenty of activities currently being undertaken by the Auckland City Council that are not mandated by law and can be slashed. The council does not have to own and operate swimming pools, or build and maintain skate parks or regulate business associations. The council also does not have to fund symphony orchestras, commission public art or develop maraes. These are the areas where a party of freedom could have the most impact on the Auckland City Council before instituting a massive cut in rates on residents and business owners.

There is no denying that our current crop of trough feeders have gone far beyond the realm of mere functionality laid out by the Local Government Act. This can be easily demonstrated by the budgetary suicide practised by this Council only last December. They voted to increase the debt limit ceiling for the second time in 12 months, allowing net debt as a percentage of council revenue to be lifted to 275%. A council that restricts its activities to the bare minimum outlayed by the Local Government Act should never need to take on this amount of debt. I predict the trend of this council, as with the overwhelming majority of government bopdies across the world will be toward expansion and greater expense, resulting in higher taxation, higher debt and greater destruction of our freedoms. None of the current crop of councillors are doing any thing that demonstrates otherwise.

A party of freedom contesting the 2013 local body elections not just in Auckland, but in various boroughs around the country, is exactly what our economy and our liberty needs. Now we just need someone to form one…