Yup, what we really need is a leftwing libertarian party, that is, one that is liberal on social issues, but more leftish on economic ones. I have no big issue with government regulating big business, or providing basic services like health and welfare. What I don’t want, is government invading everyone’s private life, or getting so hung up on the evils of big business that it ends up sabotaging the economy or persecuting mom-and-pop stores for not providing their part time cleaning lady with a salary exceeding the store’s turnover, and full health and retirement benefits. That kind of thing does not benefit anyone at all, except the politicians.
The traditional liberal parties are supposed to play this role of liberal but also caring, but alas, someone like Mrs. Zille strikes me as every bit as authoritarian as anyone in the ANC. That is the impression I get when she goes on, for example, about sending the army into areas where there are drug wars (instead of doing the obvious, namely to legalize the drugs). The DA, badly needing to expand its support base, nowadays seems to be the “we-can-out-ANC-the-ANC” party.
This leaves me in a position where I feel like just withholding my vote altogether. If I do vote, it will have to be libertarian or nothing, hence the Dagga Party (which might well also be a bunch of clowns - when it comes to the dagga issue they are far more likely to start yammering about the health benefits of the plant than about issues of basic personal liberty) or the libertarians (and if their leader is a UFO nut, then so be it as long as he can keep his nuttery separate from his prospective administration).
Well, I don’t know. I may find it impossible to bring myself to vote for either a UFO nut or a cannabis oil alternative health nut, in which case I’ll spend polling day at home, indulging in my hobbies or investigating the possibilities emigrating.
Withholding your vote is the same as voting for the biggest party. I vote for whoever is the biggest opposition, even if that is (one day) the ANC. Any party with too much say can do what they want, so my aim is to limit the damage.
Heh, as do I. However I didn’t know we had a libertarian party, much less that it was run by a nutter. Sad that.
This kind of personality cult gets my goat. I think Rand was right about some stuff, but that doesn’t mean everything she said needs to be followed to the letter (and the fact that people argue about it points to bible-like problems). The mere thought makes me shudder. SHUDDER I say! For much the same reason I lamented to start this tangent: Just because extreme A is bad it doesn’t mean we have to all instantly swing to extreme B. There are probably dragons over at extreme B too.
The irony is Rand disliked central authority and has become an authority like that herself. Note: I don’t mean to sound like a Rand fanboy, because I’m not (for reasons stated in another thread some time ago).
It is especially their stance against prohibitions of all sorts that I am in strong sympathy with. I always have this feeling that the line between a nanny state and a police state is a thin and blurry one.
I agree, I have no issue with people doing anything they want as long as they are responsible.
But lets be honest people on drugs or alcohol are not, And if you going to use my tax money to
pick them up in an Ambulance when they are busy OD, that is where I start saying maybe it should not
be legal.
No, you should use their tax money. Legalise the stuff and tax it, just like booze & fags. The money that was paid to organised crime (dealers, &c.) can be paid instead to disorganised crime (government). At present, your tax money goes to scraping them off the pavements and the fiscus receives nothing.
Speaking of politics, a colleague of mine, who is a Zimbabwean, told me this joke:
Robert Mugabe suggested to his wife and three children that, to celebrate his recent re-election as president, they all take a holiday to the Bahamas together. They all liked the idea except that they preferred Mauritius as destination.
Since they couldn’t come to an agreement on the matter, they decided to put it to the vote. They ended up going to the Bahamas: Mugabe won 70% of the votes…
I doubt it. By analogy (or soon by digalogy) , you still need a permit for your rifle, whether it has bullets or not. And for your wife, whether she irons or not.
I think technically that is the law, but they don’t enforce radio.
Funny but i disagree, according to there own definition
“television set”: means any apparatus designed or adapted to be capable of receiving transmissions broadcast in the course of a television broadcasting service; and includes computers fitted with electronic broadcast cards (television tuner cards) and the electronic broadcast cards themselves; http://www.sabc.co.za/wps/portal/SABC/tvlicterms
So if you can’t receive a signal you don’t owe them squat.
