Referendum File 3: Kiwis Might Fly

Referendum File 1: The Logic of the Campaign for Democracy
Referendum File 2: Can They Be Trusted?

Reading between the lines of the latest email update from the Campaign for Democracy (previously "The Kiwi Campaign for Democracy"), it is clear that the petition to bring in binding referendums has hit the brick wall of public apathy to this issue. The petition question reads,

“Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?”

The question was approved by the Clerk of Parliament on 17 December, 2009. One year from the initiation of a citizens initiated referendum, the signatures will be required and will be counted by the Clerk's office. The office has a period of three months in which to do this. If the number is found to be insufficient (10% of the voting population, approx. 300,000), the Clerk will allow an additional three months for signatures to be collected, and then re-submitted. Tack on a further three months for the Clerk to tally up the new total, and hey... it's September 2011 already. Two months out from New Zealand's general election.

The update, put out by Larry Baldock (also leader of the Kiwi Party) states,

Yes, it has been a while since you heard from me [Larry Baldock] and the Camapaign4Democracy. Winter is over and the weather much more conducive to signature collecting. Many thanks to those who have faithfully been sending in a few signed petition sheets over the last few months... Please send in any completed forms to P.O Box 9228 Greerton, Tauranga 3142 and I will be able to give an update on totals in the next update."

It sounds like Baldock wants to pull in the last few signatures in the five or six weeks he has left, and then submit them to Parliament, making a public statement about the number collected, and how significant it is to the issue of whether NZ should adopt binding CIRs or not.

The question then is, will he leave it at that and say - "we got 20 or 30,000 signatures calling for binding CIR - the Govt. should act on this... The Kiwi Party is the only party that will introduce a bill which would bring in binding CIR" - or will he attempt to somehow pull in another 270,000 signatures in the extra six months he knows is up his sleeve?

Click here for more info and articles on the Kiwi Party and the referendum.

Vlog 9: Abortion is a Woman's Choice like Rape is a Man's Choice

Does choice have anything to do with the morality of an action (abortion for instance)? In this video I discuss a common misconception about abortion; that it is justified for simply being a choice... It's complicated stuff, but hang on with me!

This is a vlog of my 10 March 2010 blog-post entitled "Abortion is a Woman's Choice. Just Like Rape is a Man's Choice"

In upcoming vlogs I'll be building upon this aspect of the abortion debate, in particular:

Pro-Abortion vs. Pro-Choice: Which is the correct term to use?

Abortion and Rape

Democrats: Minimum Wage is "Basic Fairness"

Mitch Stewart, Director of the Democrats' "grassroots" campaign arm, Organizing for America just sent out an email update. As usual, he warns us of the evil "corporations and special interests".

"Republican candidates for Congress are now saying they want to reduce, or even eliminate, the federal minimum wage," he complains. "They're talking about ending a law that protects American workers from unreasonably low wages. It's a basic fairness that some of the people who want to control Congress simply don't understand -- Republicans like Linda McMahon in Connecticut, Rand Paul in Kentucky, and Joe Miller in Alaska.

Minimum wage is far from being a "basic fairness that some Republicans simply don't understand". Condemning "disbelievers" on grounds that they "simply don't understand it" is laughable. The minimum wage exists for the sole purpose of redistributing wealth - something that has become one of the Democrats' most dearly loved principles. Below is a summary of the policy's problems:

• Two people wishing to make a contract are prohibited from doing so. For instance, if someone is searching for a job, and is willing to work for $5/hr, and a business owner is willing to pay him this, the contract cannot proceed because the minimum wage is $12.75/hr (here in New Zealand).
• Young people - historically preferable for low-skilled jobs will find it harder to gain employment. Because with the abolition of the youth wage, employers can hire more experienced workers for the same hourly rate.
• Minimum wage prevents employers from rewarding outstanding employees, because it is designed to cut down the "tall poppies". It achieves this by promoting mediocrity. No longer can employers simply pay staff based on their skills or work ethic. Instead they are forced to pay lower-quality employees at a higher rate than their market value. And the result of this is that the higher-quality employees are paid less than their market value.
• Following on from this: hard-working employees will find it harder to gain a pay-rise as a reward for their effort, as they were either a) started off at their job at an hourly rate above their market value, or b) their employer cannot afford to give a pay rise as he is paying other staff at a rate above their market value.
• Minimum wage increases unemployment by increasing business expenses for employers, thus causing them to find ways of hiring fewer staff to make up for the fact that they are paying above market value for a number of their employees.
• Minimum wage distorts the balance in the market, as it causes the value of resources (i.e. man-hours) to be artificially raised or lowered.

The minimum wage should be abolished, giving individuals freedom to enter into any form of employment contract that they wish. This policy is unpopular, even in Conservative circles, however it is a sound "small government" liberal policy, while the alternative is out and out Socialism.