Tuesday, October 2, 2007


May be I am showing my ignorance, however, I have a question for objectivists. Why do people have a right to liberty? If existance just exists, how can you manufacture right and wrong? If I am an indevidual, why not just do the best for my self, sure be nice to people for my own benifit, but what does it matter if I hurt another person? If another person feels pain what does that matter? what is the difference between a person feeling pain and an animal (that supposedly has no rights) feeling pain? why should we care?

Now I dont feel this way, I believe in being kind to one another etc. But why do objectivists feel that in the world there is a "God Given" (even though they dont believe in god) set of rights that some have(born people) and others (Animals, foetuses) dont have? Why with an indevidualistic attitude does it do them any good to pedal this stuff when the're never going to get their way? Why when some libertarains dont even care if animals suffer pain, care whether the guy down the street should be allowed to take heroin for example?

I understand liberal values, but I dont understand this sort of absolutism, how can atheists have such absolutism? I believe that a foetus is person, however does it really matter if it is aborted.
As I have stated I dont particularly approve of abortion but I dont see it as an outrage like murder, but if I were libertarian I should because I believe it is a person.

To explain why I feel that a foetus is a person and not part of the mother, geography or location does not define indeviduals. Biologist would be outraged if you said that a lichen was one organism (although the initialy were classified that way). They would be horrified If you said that a parasite the same organism. Thats like saying that a protein from an E. coli, is not an E. coli protein, but a human protein from the E. coli cells.

Monday, October 1, 2007

Back from the dead and Bigger than ever

Due to time constraints, I had stopped blogging for a while, and really should be doing more constructive things that writing this post. However during my procrastinations I have been viting and posting on some other blogs. "Not PC" has noticed me and wants to know what people think about where I should be on his side bar. As did Trevor Loudon in noticing my question that actualy relates to Not PC's ideas on Altruism and Objectivism.

This notice has inspired me to restart posting.

As to where I should go on PC's side bar? Well I have Identitiy issues myself, on a very libertarian day I would find my self on the libertarian end of Team Blue, aligned with Trevor Louden who is a non objectivist, Libertarian who believes in working with non libertarians to move in a more liberal direction. On a highly conservative day, I would find my self more aligned with more conservative former members of the ACT Party, Stephen Franks and Muriel Newman.

The reason for my uncertainty is that from a utilitarian perspective It is dificult to know whats best without trying all the options. From a more philisophical perspective, I have a theory that philosophy gets you no where. (Not that I nessicarily consider my self utilitarian)

Dispite my last statement I will be no doubt commenting on philisophical issues and maybe even elaborating on that comment.

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Visit Malaysia

Thank you to evoexplorer who was the first commenter on this blog!
I hope this great role model will set an example to more of you! We need someargument/discussion on the issures I have raised!


A certain leftist wrote a piece about how libertarianism is flawed. I largely disagree with such sentiments as would Libertarians such as Trevor Loudon, and the Libertarianz party.
I do however see some issues with libertarianism. None of these issues completely rule out libertarinsim as being a good idea, but highlight aspects of libertariansm that I feel are ignored or areas in which there is not one policy that is more libertarian that another. Some of issues are not realy excusive to libertarianism, but are not solved by "applying libertarian principles".

I will do a series on these issues.
First up will be "Animals and abortion"

Considering a large number of Libertarains (but not all of course) are athiest. Where do the get the idea that any one species is greater than another. Sure it may be "more liberal" to let people do what they like to animals, but what about the freedom and rights of animals, therefore it would be possible in a libertarian country to ban animal testing, 1080 poison, traps that are painful to animals, as well as the running of the bulls(if the country becoming libertarain were spain). Would it even be unlibertarian to ban meat and make vegertarianism compulsary?

Abortion also is another one, it seems liberal to be pro-abortion. I disagree entirely I think that it is much more libertarian to protect the rights of the child. Hence in a libertarian country we could have abortion banned.
To side track a little, due to this point I don't feel that abortion is a womans right, I dont however think that it is an extreme travisty and equivelent to murder. I dont think embreonic stem cell research should be banned, potential medical applications are just too important to be too philisophical.

moving a little from libertarianism: I feel that it should be a crime for a mother to cause foetal alcohol syndrome or foetal alcohol effects to a child or consume any drugs or alcohol while pregnant.
This is due not to the rights of the foetus but the rights of the child once it is born, it has a right to be born in good health if it is born.
making such harm caused to foetuses criminal would make abortions much more common, while I don't have an extreme issue with abortion, I wouldnt like to cause a large scale increace. Making abortion illegal too would make illegal abortions common.

Saturday, September 1, 2007


I have a new blog but very few hits, it is highly disapointing. I know my grammer and spelling can be a bit bad when I am in a hurry, however I would like people to read and comment on my blog.

Socialists please explain why I am wrong in my previous posts. How can you justify such spending prioities?????

(Maybe to get more comment on my blog I should call Trevor Loudon a "neo-nazi goon" that could stir up a can of worms, or maybe Im just too insignificant for that)

Friday, August 31, 2007


My masscarade has not lasted long. I have to confess that I am not a communist. I dislike communism and socialism. Commnunists and socialist always pretend to be so caring and kind, but as a general rule cause incredible harm.

If we forget Communist for the moment and look at garden variety lefties, we see that Clark, Cullen, Labour party sichophants and brain dead members of the public claim that tax cuts would be a travisty because we would have to cut "social services". What a load of Rot that is!

NZ and many govts around the world take well about 40% of GDP in taxes. What do we get in return? Children with cancer dont get the pain relief they need, many people are thrown off waiting lists for operations, Christchurch has to have a "charity hospital", Emergency departments are underescourced, Ambulance call outs are not free and the Coast guard are not government funded!

Do we need to keep taxes high? No we can for a start, cut funding for IVF treatment, Cut tertiary education funding, (why should I pay for someone to get Cs in "Marketing" or "Gender studies", even someone with Cs in a worthwhile subject probably doesnt deserve as much funding as is given) and cut meaningless promotion ACC and other government organisations.

So lets recap: under a socialist (Labour) goverment:

Ill and or dying people dont get treatment they need.

Many health and emergency services are not government funded

Government can:
afford to pay people who cant have kids to have IVF treatment even though the govt cant look after the kids that are alive already.

afford to pay for people to get pointless degrees like marketing
(the only possible use of marketing is making money, if these people will make money, why need to fund it) and other degrees that will pay off in terms of earning power(or enjoyment) anyway for the participant or are not worthwhile.

Can fund TV advertisments that achieve nothing whatsoever.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Things to say

I thought for ages: "I have so many intelligent things to say, I should get a blog." but now I have a blog, I cant think of intelligent things to say(very unusual for a communist).

Communism is a religion

Hi All. Welcome Comrades! I am a proud communist and look up to Heroes such as Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedung.