Libertarianz in a Nutshell
What are they?
They are a small political party (<1000 votes in the last election) in New Zealand based on Libertarian policies.
What’s their objective?
To establish a consititutional republic of New Freeland, not by deceit but by openly and vigorously promoting a libertarian form of government.
In a nutshell:
- Taxes = NO!
- Government = As little as possible
- Individual rights = YES!
- Homosexuality (or any other -sexuality) = Who cares, just don’t hurt anyone
- Drugs = Ditto the above
- Education = Privatised or community-run
- Business = Divorced from government
- Law = No victim, no crime
- Social welfare = Reliant on the charity of the well-off individuals and groups
- Immigration = Open the gates
- Self Defence = Everyone grab a gun Defend yourself with reasonable force
- National Defence = No foreign wars but build a good defence
- Smacking = Horay!
Find out more:
- Their website
- A snazzy animation about Libertarianism
- Ayn Rand and Objectivism
I am an absolute novice when it comes to politics so if you feel I’ve misrepresented the policies please let me know and I’ll make corrections.
Tags: Libertarianism, Libertarianz, Politics
Hi Damian .. interesting little summary. The fundamental of libertarianism is the non-initiation of force. My freedom ends where your nose begins and vice versa. I can only be free if you are.
It’s not a new concept at all. We believe in the right to live your life as you see fit, provided you respect that right for others to do the same. The only laws are those that forbid force, (eg murder, theft, rape, etc) and fraud. As far as personal issues are concerned, consenting adults are free to do as they please on their own property. It’s nobody else’s business, nor is it the state’s. I call it the “mind your own business” philosophy.
That means I can’t tell others what to do – which is why it’s anathema to politicians and bureaucrats.
Where’s your problem?
ps: It’s important to note that just because I’m opposed to banning something doesn’t mean I’m personally in favour of it. Eg: I don’t use recreational drugs & never have, but I don’t believe the state has the right to tell an adult what s/he may voluntarily put in their bodies. I may not personally choose to smack my child, but that doesn’t mean the state has the right to tell adults how to raise their children. Do you see the point I make?
Hi Sus and thanks for expanding on the policies I outlined.
You say,
I don’t know what you mean by this? What made you think I have a problem? Is it because I listed “Smacking = Horay!”? I actually wrote to a Libz candidate to find what the policy was on this issue because it was in the media at the time but it wasn’t discussed on the Libz website.
This was intended to be a pithy but non-biased overview of what the party stands for. Like I said in the disclaimer at the bottom, if I’ve misrepresented the policies here just let me know.
Yes, it was probably your reference to smacking that prompted me to put that bit in, but looking back now, I admit it was ambiguous. My mistake. Call me old-fashioned Possum, but I did get that your summary was supposed to be pithy!
And for its brevity, it was pretty spot on. However, I’d take issue with two more comments:
1) Social welfare: Currently running at a truckload of GDP, and has done for donkeys’ years. Creates misery & soullessness, as opposed to relieving it. We believe communities (individuals/charities/clubs) voluntarily care for people a darn site better than faceless bureaucrats. Only the well-off would provide? Not at all. YOU would, too, if you feel strongly about it, as I do. You’re currently dishing it out compulsorily via taxation (after bureaucracy’s helped itself to its share); here’s your chance to keep the money you earn to be able to help the people in need/charities you espouse. Here’s the chance for churches to put their money where their mouths are. Beneficiaries create beneficiaries create beneficiaries. This growing group of people are very handy for politicians to use every three years. They buy them off cheaply (with public money, of course) in return for votes. Worse, they do so in the name of helping them. Shameless and immoral.
2) Self-defence: Again, it’s not promoting gun ownership per se; it’s removing the state from the issue. I have the right to self-defence. Eg: as a small woman, particularly, I should not have to go cap-in-hand to some govt official in order to have the means to defend myself, should some lowlife decide to do me, my family or my property harm. It’s just a matter of principle. It doesn’t mean I automatically promote the acquisition of weaponry.
Make sense?
So do you think that instead of:
“Social welfare = Reliant on the charity of the well-off”
it should be
“Social welfare = Reliant on the charity of individuals or groups”
and that
“Self Defence = Everyone grab a gun”
should become
“Self Defence = By any means as long as it’s defence”?
1) In line with the policy of non-initiation of force (ie no compulsion), yes, all welfare to be voluntarily funded/provided. Right now, beneficiaries of state welfare are political footballs.
2) It’s morally right for me to be able to use force to DEFEND myself against another’s aggression, or would you prefer I be harmed? Does that mean I can shoot somebody for stealing a cabbage from my garden? Now that would be very silly, wouldn’t it.
For consistently good reading on the necessity to remove the state from welfare as a matter of urgency, check out Wellington artist & DPB activist Lindsay Mitchell’s blog. lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com
Cheers.
You’re not a politician are you?
You didn’t answer my question. I’m wanting to know whether I should amend my descriptions of the policies above.
(and then I have a couple of questions about smacking and guns for you).
Self-defence: The right to be preserved at all times. (However, should my attacker or the police believe I overstepped the mark, I’d likely face charges and the justice system would take its course).
Ha! Our last two posts crossed in the ether! Me, a politician? God no! Perish the thought!
Welfare: All welfare to be voluntarily funded/provided. (That should do the trick for a short version. A better explanation – only a paragraph – is under “Policies” on the libz website. lp.org.nz).
Happy to answer any questions .. they’ll have to wait until next week, though. I’m off on holiday very shortly ..
Good chatting with you.
Hey, that’s not very pithy! What does “the right to be preserved” even mean? How about “Defend yourself in any way you see fit”? Or, “Defend yourself with reasonable force”?
Doh! Wires crossed again.
And my questions for any passing Libertarianz are: (and please keep in mind that this is NOT a trap – just a genuine enquiry)
1. With regard to smacking children I can dig that you don’t like government interference and I can dig that you think that there is room for some kind of policing of an individual’s rights not to be harmed. But where do you draw the line between hitting an adult and hitting a child and why is a child less worthy of police protection than an adult?
2. The right to bear arms. Presumably there is a limit to what kind of weapons should be owned. To take an extreme example I take it that no one would be happy for everyone to bear nuclear weapons and that we’d all like some form of policing extreme weapons. Where is this line drawn and why? Is an automatic weapon extreme? A grenade? (hehe, for some reason that conjures up an image that tickles my funny bone)