Many young Kiwis have felt a sense of relief after Julie Anne Genter and The Opportunities Party decided to champion cannabis law reform. Finally it seemed like the political class were going to grant the New Zealand people some of their rights back. But, as this essay will examine, dealing with politicians is never that simple.

Both Genter and TOP broke with the New Zealand political convention of treating cannabis law reform as a taboo subject earlier this year as the foreshadow of the General Election loomed, incentivising new policy directions that attracted media attention.

Both of them also broke with convention by bringing logic and evidence to this discussion, instead of the usual fear-mongering and hysteria. As has long been argued by the present author (most notably in the Cannabis Activist’s Handbook), once the narrative on cannabis shifted from lies to truth, the days of prohibition were numbered.

Once the sheeple of New Zealand came to realise that cannabis was a medicine and not really the devil’s lettuce, it didn’t seem right to put people in cages for it anymore, and that led directly to the need for law reform being taken seriously by everyone today.

So does this mean that New Zealand is moving out of the Puritanical mindset when it comes to psychoactive substances and will now be discussing the issue sensibly?

Of course not! Morgan wants to put the drinking age back up to 20.

Even though his entire message is that prohibition of cannabis isn’t working, and even though it’s widely understood that prohibition of alcohol didn’t work, voting for cannabis law reform through TOP is also going to be a vote for some Kiwis to lose the freedom to consume alcohol.

Some people might not think too much of this, but Morgan’s actions here reveal the strategy that politicians have used to seize control of the plebs throughout all times and places.

Politicians do this by offering you some of your freedoms back at the cost of others. Their trick is to always take away more freedoms than they offer, but to present it in a way that tricks the plebs into thinking that it’s the other way around.

Another example of it also pertains to cannabis: the fact that almost every cannabis user in the country who has a driver’s licence is also a criminal, because it is a crime to drive with any amount of THC in the system, and anyone who has smoked cannabis within the last six weeks will have THC in their system—even if they are not at all impaired.

If the politicians decided to legalise cannabis tomorrow they could simply bring in more punitive consequences for driving a motor vehicle, such as regular checkpoints with saliva swabs to detect for THC in the system.

Enough checkpoints and saliva swabs and it simply wouldn’t matter that cannabis was technically fully legal—the degree of damage done to the population by the state would remain the same. It could potentially even be increased.

And then we’d end up like the states of Australia and America that have “decriminalised cannabis” but made it criminal to drive with THC in the system, impaired or otherwise.

Either that, or we’ll lose our rights to speak freely on the Internet. It’s possible that the wholesale criminalisation of the young that came about as a consequence of the cannabis laws will be replicated with criminal trials for “hate speech” and “harmful digital communication”.

In any case, we can guarantee that the freedom of politicians to lie to the nation—and to cause them great suffering as a consequence of the despair and confusion—will not be impeded by anything.

You Can Never Win Freedoms Back; You Can Only Trade Them

At a march in Washington D.C. this week, accused neo-Nazi Richard Spencer was kinghit from the blindside by a mystery black-hoodie-clad protester. Footage of the incident was the most viral meme of the entire Inauguration period, trumping even anything the U.S. President said. The reaction of the Internet, predictably, was divided.

One part of the viewership was appalled by the purposeless attack on the sacred value of free speech; another part was excited to an almost sexual state of arousal by the sight of a Nazi getting what they thought he deserved.

Justification for the latter reaction began almost immediately, and was earnest, although convoluted. The basic premise, however, was eerily familiar: Spencer was a Nazi, Nazis want to violently take over the world, therefore they can essentially be attacked at any time in pre-emptive self-defence.

On the face of it, it’s hard to argue with that line of reasoning. The excuse that “I just got the bear before the bear got me” was after all, the excuse George W. Bush used to invade Iraq and kill a million people � and he completely got away with it.

There’s one glaring problem with the Bush Doctrine though, especially when it is applied to blindsiding people in the street for their political opinions: the potential excuses that a person might make to conduct ‘pre-emptive’ violence against another is limited only by human ingenuity.

For a start, the logic that any violence against Nazis is justified because Nazism is a supremacist political movement also justifies violence against any of the Abrahamic cults, as they are also supremacist ideologies.

It would then be legitimate to beat the shit out of any Christian or Jew one met on the grounds that their holy book contains a command from God to kill homosexuals. One could also conduct pre-emptive violence for a number of reasons against any Muslim you met.

Any American could be dealt to under the logic that American imperialism is one of the prime threats to the stability of the world order, and any European could be shown some fist on the grounds that prior imperialism suggests a high likelihood of future imperialism. Any Chinese or Indian could be bashed because their massive populations threaten the viability of the biosphere.

If someone calls you a Nazi, whether you are one or not, that could be an excuse for pre-emptive violence on the grounds that the epithet is generally only levelled at people who are murderous totalitarians and therefore should be killed with extreme prejudice. And people are being called ‘Nazi’ at ever-increasing rates � it’s almost become synonymous with ‘to the right of the speaker.’

If someone calls you a Commie, whether you are one or not, that could be an excuse for pre-emptive violence on the grounds that the epithet is generally only levelled at people who are murderous totalitarians and therefore should be killed with extreme prejudice. And people are being called ‘Commie’ at ever-increasing rates � it’s almost become synonymous with ‘to the left of the speaker.’

This means that anyone can find a reason to attack anyone else pre-emptively. It’s just a simple matter of knowing if you are doing it because your target is a Nazi or because they are a Commie.

As anyone who walked the streets of Weimar Germany could tell you, National Socialists and Communists are just ready made for fighting, like the yang and yin of violence. Their natural instinct is to go each other like two stags in rutting season.

Perhaps the best course of action for reasonable people is the Churchill Doctrine that served Britain so well in World War II: just stand back and let them kill each other.

The Fallacy of Pre-Emptive Violence

The obvious smartarse answer is “It never had legitimacy”, but this merely ducks the question. The question of when a democracy can lose enough of the perception of legitimacy that it stops working, not by being usurped by authoritarians but from the populace simply not caring about it enough, is worth exploring.

The logic goes something like this. It’s reasonable to assume that if no-one voted at all, not even the politicians themselves, then no-one would care about democracy. So there is a clear limit case as votes approach zero.

If everyone votes (or at least everyone eligible), then it stands to reason that democracy has the biggest possible buy-in. Probably in a culture where 100% of the population votes there would have to be an exceptionally unusual degree of philodemos – a degree never seen in practice.

If a hypothetical democracy starts with 100% participation and this falls over time towards 0%, at some point along the line representing that descent the democracy will fail.

But where exactly?

The most recent American presidential election does not have an official turnout rate yet, but BetFair appears to be sure that it will be somewhere around 58%. This is low by the standards of Western democracies – but there appears to be no way to tell how much of this is due to disenfranchisement and how much is due to people seeing through the system and protesting by not voting.

This already highlights a problem with democracy – bombs dropped by American forces do not do 58% damage, and sentences for non-violent drug offences are not 58% as long as they would otherwise be. No matter how much the population wants democracy, they will get it good and hard.

Not even 58% buy-in is necessary in any case. Adolf Hitler’s NSDAP won the 1933 German Federal Election with under 44% of the vote, and this was enough to get rid of the Communists and pass the Enabling Act which paved the way to total fascism.

You could even argue that – if you take the example of the United States in its infancy, where only white male landowners could vote – even with support for democracy in single digits, it can still function as long as all other possible organisational approaches are prevented from taking form.

The tricky thing is that this line of reasoning exposes the truth at the bottom of the political system: the plebs were never in charge and any impression given to that end is simply a useful illusion.

Ultimately it’s whoever controls the loyalty of the Police that is in charge, because then anyone who disagrees that they’re in charge can be taken by the Police and put in a cage (replace Police with Army in many non-Western countries). This was all that Hitler needed to ensure to take power in Germany.

One has to then ask, if the ruling classes just took all the ballots and dumped them in the ocean, invented some election results that both sounded plausible and ensured the interests of said classes were protected, and then divvied up the remaining jobs among themselves, how much wiser would we all be?

Because the ruling classes doing so wouldn’t even be much different from the way the con is already played.

We can take heart that not all New Zealanders have fallen for the ruse – 63% of the electorate did not vote for a politician in last week’s Mt. Roskill by-election, which means that 63% of potential suckers did not give their power away to a shyster by consenting to the democratic charade.

Indeed, Dr. Richard Goode of Not A Party successfully claimed victory in attracting the non-vote, declaring himself Not A Member of Parliament for Mt. Roskill. This obligates him to not attend Parliament, which means that he is not responsible for levying taxes to spend on flag referendums, and nor is he responsible for putting non-violent drug users in cages by setting the Police on them.

I think we can all agree that this is a better deal than what we are getting from our current crop of MPs.

Faith in democracy will, however, have to get much lower before philosopher-kings such as Dr. Goode can be returned to their true position in society.

How Low Does Turnout Have to Get Before Voting Loses Legitimacy?

MEDIA RELEASE
Not A Party

7 December 2016

Goode, not Wood!

The Electoral Commission’s preliminary count shows that Not A Party’s candidate in last Saturday’s long since forgotten Mt. Roskill by-election didn’t even come last. Richard Goode received 40 votes, just 8 votes ahead of the lowest polling candiate. “Saturday’s show of electoral support is like big government,” says Goode. “I didn’t really want it but the voters gave it to me anyway.”

But when you add the non-votes to Goode’s tally, it’s clear that Goode, not Wood, is the electorate’s choice by a landslide! Goode graciously accepts the endorsement of the electorate and declares himself the Not A MP for Mt. Roskill. “I will faithfully represent the 63% of Mt. Roskill electors who didn’t show up to the polling places by not showing up to Parliament,” he assures.

Voter turnout is the second lowest of recent by-elections (in the past 10 years). “Will the current trend continue? The way things are going, I’d say yes,” says Goode optimistically. “Your non-vote counts. But only if you’re registered to not vote,” he adds. “Now is as good a time as any to check that you’re on the electoral roll.”

Vote or don’t, he confidently predicts a win for a Labour-led left bloc at next years’s general election. “History gets repetitive after a while. Since the First Labour Government was elected in 1935, it’s been left, right, left, right … National, Labour, National, Labour … New Zealand’s democracy is a long march in a pointless two-party political parade.”

“It’s time to call a halt to the charade,” he concludes. “DON’T VOTE 2017.”

ENDS

MEDIA RELEASE
Not A Party

29 November 2016

Not A Party (NAP) predicts success in Mt. Roskill by-election

Richard Goode, Not A Party (NAP) candidate in the Mt. Roskill by-election is predicting his candidacy will be a resounding success when the votes are counted this Saturday 3 December. “My message to voters is to stay home, enjoy your Saturday and refuse to participate in the circus being orchestrated by ringleaders Wood and Parmar.”

“This by-election has been dirty so far with allegations of National Party candidate Parmjeet Parmar’s supporters throwing horseshoes at their enemies and Labour’s Michael Wood threatening his National opponent’s husband who made derogatory comments about Wood’s wife at a public meeting. In short, politics as usual.”

This is why Goode is encouraging people to avoid feeding the politicians by taking no part in the process at all. “Mt. Roskill voters have a golden opportunity in this by-election to opt-out of the whole charade. Politicians behave the way they do because voters indulge their own fantasies of wielding power over others by voting for them.” Goode advises, “Live dangerously, not vicariously. Sort yourselves out, don’t expect politicians to run your lives for you.”

“Once the votes are tallied, the largest group of voters in this by-election will be the group that voted for nobody at all,” predicts Goode. “If we truly live in a democracy, shouldn’t we respect the wishes of the majority and leave the seat of Mt. Roskill vacant?”

“My message to voters is just don’t. But if you really must vote then vote for Not A Party (NAP). I pledge that if elected, I’ll be a no show. If elected, I guarantee Mt. Roskill residents a happy new year living in a politician-free zone.”

ENDS

/not-a-party-nap-predicts-success-in-mt-roskill-by-election/

What is anarchism? and what is an anarchist? What is anarchy? These are vexed questions.

According to many dictionaries the term ‘anarchy’ is synonymous with chaos and disorder. Of course, this definition is disputed. In fact, there are no agreed upon definitions of the terms ‘anarchy’, ‘anarchism’ and ‘anarchist’. When it comes to the definitions of these terms, it’s anarchy!

Merriam-Webster, the consensus source of meaning within the dominant paradigm, defines anarchy as: a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws; or, a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority. The implications made in these definitions are clear – any absence of authority, structure, or control most surely amounts to confusion, wild behavior, and disorder. In other words, human beings are incapable of controlling themselves, maintaining order, and living peacefully amongst one another. So we are to believe.

Indeed. But this is anarchy in the pejorative sense. So let’s repudiate the dominant paradigm’s dictionary propaganda and instead take to the streets with torches and pitchforks.

What is anarchism? and what is an anarchist? Let’s start with the easy answers.

What is anarchism? Anarchism is a socio-political ideology such as mutualism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-pacifism, anarcha-feminism, anarcho-primitivism, anarcho-hipsterism, agorism, or anarcho-statism.

What is an anarchist? An anarchist is someone like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (a French politician), Peter Kropotkin (a Russian academic), Leo Tolstoy (author of the novel War and Peace), Errico Malatesta (an Italian troublemaker), Stephan Kinsella (an American patent attorney), Neil Roberts (a New Zealand suicide bomber), or me (Not A Party’s candidate in the upcoming Mt. Roskill by-election).

Easy answers are easy.

But I suppose that a handy list of (some) anarchists is not really the answer you want. You probably want to know what it is that all anarchists on the list have in common in virtue of which they are anarchists. In other words, a list of necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term ‘anarchist’ applies. This is where it gets tricky tho. Extensional definitions are easy. Intensional definitions, not so much.

In fact, there is no list of necessary conditions for when the term ‘anarchist’ applies. There is nothing that all anarchists have in common. What now then?

Wild Wittgenstein appears!

Wittgenstein uses Familienähnlichkeit. It’s super effective!

Wittgenstein’s basic idea is that sometimes things which could be thought to be connected by one essential common feature may in fact be connected by a series of overlapping similarities, where no one feature is common to all. Such seems to be the case with anarchism and anarchists. They bear a family resemblance.

So here’s not a comprehensive checklist of anarchist attributes and agendas. If you sign up to some of these, you might be an anarchist. 🙂

1. No state

Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful …

2. No hierarchies

… or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations.

3. Voluntary association

Proponents of anarchism, known as “anarchists”, advocate stateless societies or non-hierarchical voluntary associations.

Could these three be considered the three pillars of anarchism? See Wikipedia’s excellent outline of anarchism for more info. RationalWiki’s Anarchism is also a handy resource.

4. No rulers

Just a few words about the claim that ‘anarchy’ means “no rulers”. It doesn’t. For sure, the term ‘anarchy’ derives from the Greek ἄναρχος or anarchos, meaning “without rulers” (from ἀν- or an-, meaning “without”, and ἀρχός or archos meaning “ruler”). But to suppose that the meaning of a term is wholly determined by its etymology is to commit the root fallacy.

Christian anarchists are a clear counter-example to the claim that ‘anarchy’ means “no rulers”. Christian anarchists are opposed to worldly rulers, but on the spiritual plane they’re actually monarchists. Jesus himself is sometimes considered the first anarchist in the Christian anarchist tradition. Check out his charge sheet!

Insisting that true anarchists are strictly no rulers likely also excludes the Spanish anarchists (anarcho-communists). As Bryan Caplan explains in his essay The Anarcho-Statists of Spain

It barely took a month for Anarchists to set themselves up as the government of those parts of Aragon under their control, euphemistically dubbing themselves the “Regional Defense Council of Aragon.”

Not my flavour of anarcho-statism, I hasten to add.

Also, surely no self-respecting anarchist is opposed to self-rule.

5. Beards

6. The NAP

Considered by some to be a defining principle of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle (NAP) is revered by anarcho-capitalists. Aggression is bad, mmmkay? But it turns out that the all-important A in NAP, is defined in terms of a prior theory of property rights. So we can all love the NAP. We just need to plug in our preferred theory of property rights and we’re good to go.

7. Propaganda of the deed

Propaganda of the deed is for violent anarchists. (But we don’t want a bloody revolution.)

8. Civil disobedience

Civil disobedience is for peaceful law-breaking anarchists.

9. Non voting

Non-voting is for otherwise law-abiding non-violent anarchists. Like us, the Not A Party people.

Voting is not a victimless crime, voting is an act of violence.

10. DON’T VOTE 2017