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)

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.

(and then I have a couple of questions about smacking and guns for you).

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.

and that
“Self Defence = Everyone grab a gun”
should become
“Self Defence = By any means as long as it’s defence”?

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?

You say,

Where’s your problem?

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.