The Dim-Post

October 30, 2009

More Glibertarianism

Filed under: general idiocy,Politics — danylmc @ 6:07 am

Hide flying his girlfriend around the world on the taxpayer dollar. I also note that ACT voted in favor of the bill that allows police to take unconsented DNA samples from anyone they intend to charge with an imprisonable offense.

ACT’s corporate donors are certainly getting their moneys worth but the grassroots supporters of the party must really feel like suckers.


Wanganui Mayor Michael Laws says giving the “underclass” money to be sterilised will address our child abuse problem.

Critics last night labelled the suggestion “totalitarian”, “draconian” and “reprehensible”, and questioned his appropriateness as a city leader.

Mr Laws said the children of beneficiaries, drug addicts and criminals had little chance in life.

Didn’t our current Prime Minister grow up in a state house? I seem to remember hearing that biographical detail several thousand times during the election campaign.


  1. I’m waiting for Farrar/Usual suspects to post that this is just like Communist China, and or Fascist eugenics. Because (unlike the stuff that the Liarbour Dykeocracy did), Laws’ proposal is exactly the same as that.

    Alternatively, its attention-seeking behaviour from a complete tool.

    Comment by Eddie Clark — October 30, 2009 @ 6:25 am

  2. If Hide took his wife with him, ok. I have no problem that MPs try to lead a somewhat normal life having to do all those stupid around the world tours. But taking girlfriends around the world???

    Comment by Berend de Boer — October 30, 2009 @ 6:51 am

  3. Its all Phil Goff’s fault!! Labour were worse (did it too), it only took them nine years to corrupt everyone, every single one of us, even the brave and courageous Mr Hide.

    We are Doooomed….

    Comment by andy — October 30, 2009 @ 7:04 am

  4. Well Roger did it first. Of course at least Hide was ostensibly on business. The failed pig farmer had the taxpayer cover his family holiday to London (business class of course).

    Anyway, has Laws just recently gone crazy, or has he always been like this?

    Comment by Guy Smiley — October 30, 2009 @ 7:05 am

  5. Alternatively, its attention-seeking behaviour from a complete tool.

    Yeah. FWIW this is a voluntary measure, unlike China and probably unlike Fascist eugenics.

    Comment by StephenR — October 30, 2009 @ 7:08 am

  6. lhaws has always been like this.

    the man is a complete tool, and a compulsive attention seeker.

    trouble is, he’s getting old, becoming a curmudgeon, and has sick family to boot. these three things are all understandable. it’s the being a tool that makes it bad.

    Comment by Che Tibby — October 30, 2009 @ 7:09 am

  7. He said anti-smacking legislation had not worked because at least 19 children had been murdered by their family since it was passed in 2007.

    Funny, thought the legislation was about smacking, not murder.

    Comment by StephenR — October 30, 2009 @ 7:11 am

  8. Has Michael utterly lost his mind or has he just finally given up on faking sanity? Either he was joking to make a point (which spirals him down to a new low of cluelessness) or he’s genuine (which makes him one very scary leader of the Wanganui community).

    Heaven forbid that children should be given the chance to overcome their circumstances and fulfil their potential while having greater empathy for others – something that Michael absolutely lacks.

    Comment by Ataahua — October 30, 2009 @ 7:21 am

  9. Michael is claiming that the reporter got it wrong (his standard response).
    According to his press release: “Mayor Michael Laws says that a ‘Dominion-Post’ story by young journalist Simon Wood saying that he suggested welfare beneficiaries be sterilised “is completely wrong, I did not say that and I have never said that”. ”

    And then if you go back to December 2008 you find this on his website:

    “And yet despite all these child tragedies of 2008 – the outrage and the angst – the anger and the outpourings … there are no public education campaigns aimed at outing abusers. There are no attempts to link benefits with defined responsibilities. There are no cash offers to the underclass to sterilise themselves, or compulsory parenting courses for pregnant teens and their partners.
    We continue to disassociate event from consequence.”

    Of course, he doesn’t just like the idea of sterilising the poor. He also said that the Exclusive Brethren should be forcibly sterilised.

    Comment by bearhunter — October 30, 2009 @ 7:53 am

  10. Laws said, “Do we really expect these children to become doctors or brain surgeons?”.

    As if those are the only worthwhile options. They could always make it as the mayor of a small town, that’s worthwhile …

    Comment by Mark Wright — October 30, 2009 @ 8:06 am

  11. The spokesman said Mr Key was comfortable with ministers taking partners, as long as they paid for the travel themselves, and using the perk met this definition.

    What a load of shit.

    Comment by mjl — October 30, 2009 @ 8:10 am

  12. By Laws’ logic, John Banks should never have been born…

    Comment by Helen — October 30, 2009 @ 8:38 am

  13. Laws – acknowledged forger who had to quit Parliament in disgrace – why do people listen to him? How does he get elected mayor again and again?

    Paula Bennett would have been sterilised – whatever you think of her politics, it seems a little harsh.

    Comment by Michael Stevens — October 30, 2009 @ 8:44 am

  14. Jeez Helen, that’s a rational counter-argument to claims Laws is a nutter. Stop it.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — October 30, 2009 @ 8:45 am

  15. let’s not forget that when lhaws says “underclass” it is a dog-whistle for “maori”.

    hence the constant re-election in whanganui,

    Comment by Che Tibby — October 30, 2009 @ 9:01 am

  16. People said the same things that Laws was saying in beer halls in Europe in the 1930′. They also wore brown shirts and went round roughing up Jewish shopkeepers.

    I will not be suprised if rednecks drive round in their BMW’s and start roughing up solo mothers in state housing areas.

    Comment by millsy — October 30, 2009 @ 11:09 am

  17. “I will not be suprised if rednecks drive round in their BMW’s and start roughing up solo mothers in state housing areas.”

    Well, thats a step up from the old Toyota 4 X 4 single cab.


    Comment by JC — October 30, 2009 @ 11:24 am

  18. FFS, millsy, everyone knows rednecks drive holden.

    I’d love for someone to pay me to have a vasectomy. Just don’t give me TOO much: in India the reversal op cost way less than the payment, so there was a line in and out of sterilisation clinics reminiscent of the Seuss sneetches with their belly stars.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — October 30, 2009 @ 11:55 am

  19. The best kind of sneetches had scars upon thars?

    Comment by Pascal's Bookie — October 30, 2009 @ 12:01 pm

  20. Anyway, if Laws was a decent man he’d follow this advice and solve all Wanganui’s problems.


    Comment by JC — October 30, 2009 @ 12:09 pm

  21. As ‘Comrade’ Matt McCarten once said to Lindsay Perigo when he suggested that all welfare recipients should be sterilised, why not just put them all into camps? If it’s a Final Solution you want, what’s standing in your way?

    Apart from the 99% of the poppulation who haven’t entirely lost their sense of historical perspective, that is.


    Comment by Lew — October 30, 2009 @ 12:21 pm

  22. Confirming that “stuff comments” are worse human beings than “herald your views”, go and look at today’s stuff poll. And look at the results. As of now, 70% in favour of coerced sterilisation. Yay! I love my country.

    Comment by Eddie Clark — October 30, 2009 @ 1:54 pm

  23. Eddie, you should not be surprised. We live in the age where everything is reduced to a “management problem”.

    What is the difference between right and wrong? Right is obviously the option that works in my favour.

    Comment by cj_nza — October 30, 2009 @ 2:16 pm

  24. Eddie, there’s a big selection bias there as (in my ever-so-humble opinion) it’s only the more moronic parts of our population that waste their time with such surveys (as opposed to the fruitful endeavour of blog-commenting).

    Comment by Mark Wright — October 30, 2009 @ 2:36 pm

  25. I know, but its still 2500 people thinking its an awesome enough idea to click yes.

    Comment by Eddie Clark — October 30, 2009 @ 3:07 pm

  26. Laws, as I understand it, isn’t proposing that we SHOULD sterilise anyone. What he’s saying is that given the expense/unreliability/inconvenience of as-hoc birth-control and the devastating effects of an unwanted child on the mother, the child and often the family as well, – especially for low-income families that already have five or six children – the OPTION of sterilisation should be offered.

    For many people having children is seen as a God-given right. For those who don’t believe in God, having a child is a long-term, life-changing, hugely expensive step – and all too often an accident!

    Comment by Deus ex Machina — October 30, 2009 @ 3:30 pm

  27. Micael Lhaws went to Tawhero (Tawero?) Primary, a decile one school… maybe he was bullied at school and this is some kind of retrospective revenge fantasy on his classmates??

    Comment by gazzaj — October 30, 2009 @ 3:33 pm

  28. nah gazz. He’s just a fuckwit. I blame the parents.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — October 30, 2009 @ 3:35 pm

  29. @ 26 No, his suggesting is not offering sterilisation OPTIONS, nor is it to provide sterilisation ASSISTANCE. He is in fact promoting sterilisation through coercion.

    Re the expense of raising a child (or children) if nobody intend to have children, then we may close up shop, stop worrying about closing the gap with Australia, buiding infrastructure dealing with climate change and all these pesky issues.

    Far from having children being a God given right, it is the only reason why we (society) keep on investing in new infrastructure. It is because we fully expect there will be future users. (Not sure why you imply that children are less expensive, less live-changing or less accidental for believers?)

    The childless (as a livestyle choice) are fully expecting to use the utilities, medical services, transport services then provided with the children of today and tomorrow.

    We become so good at calculating cost that we lost the ability to calculate value.

    Comment by cj_nza — October 30, 2009 @ 4:08 pm

  30. So the problem with this country is that we don’t give poor people the choice to sterilise themselves? That there is some huge pent-up demand from the “underclass” to do this if it wasn’t so damnably expensive?

    That’s even CRAZIER than if he was saying he wanted coerced sterilisation.

    Comment by garethw — October 30, 2009 @ 4:14 pm

  31. cj_nza, you’re right. We need children. I’m not so sure the Earth does – it’s managed pretty well for 99% of its existence without them and would be better off if we weren’t going to inflict 11 billion of them on her in the next 50 or so years, – but I sure as hell want there to be someone 50-years of so younger than I to be around to lift me out of my bath when I’m 80.

    I’m childless as a lifestyle choice and yes, hope that today’s children will provide for me in my dotage. That’s why I’m paying taxes to educate and provide health care for them today.

    I regard large families, eg Jim Bolger with his nine children and Bill English with his six, as an obscenity. If each of those children regards it as a birthright to have, say, six children of his or her own that’s 45 children in the next generation, 135 children in the generation after that and 405 in the one after than. If everyone in New Zealand thought like that today’s four million population would go to 400 million in less than 200 years. The reason it hasn’t/won’t happened is a) war, b) starvation, c) folk like me who decide not to have even the two who would replace my wife and I.

    Large families were fine when 50% of children died before age five, labour was needed on the family farm because everything was done by hand and most people survived on very little anyway. China’s one child policy is a recognition that unrestrained long-term population growth is a recipe for disaster, and will make life better for those who are born. If Laws is saying, ‘let’s help folk that don’t want children/anymore children not have them’ I applaud his motives, perspicacity and courage.

    Comment by Deus ex Machina — October 30, 2009 @ 8:11 pm

  32. I never realised Laws was a Greenie.

    Comment by ZenTiger — October 30, 2009 @ 8:42 pm

  33. So where do we stand on this one then.. Mum who’s had all 13 kids taken into care told her new baby will join them.

    Its pretty safe to say the genetic heritage for these kids will be on a par with a tea cup.

    Comment by Andy — November 2, 2009 @ 7:17 pm

  34. “Mum who’s had all 13 kids taken into care told her new baby will join them” over “fears” of neglect. The UK govt is using pre-cogs?

    Why don’t they take away her benefit with the kids? At least taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidise this nonsense.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — November 3, 2009 @ 12:29 pm

  35. Its pretty safe to say the genetic heritage for these kids will be on a par with a tea cup.

    More likely a cup of Coffee… ‘Tea’ is cultured.

    Comment by Phil — November 3, 2009 @ 1:26 pm

  36. @ 33-35

    Yet, it is in fact the ancestors with a large number of offspring that will contribute an ever increasing portion of the gene pool of subsequent generations. They are thus from an evolutionary perspective, “superior”.

    How can all these alternative “proposals” be read other than a deliberate attempt to prevent progress?

    Comment by cj_nza — November 3, 2009 @ 2:49 pm

  37. ancestors with a large number of offspring that will contribute an ever increasing portion of the gene pool

    I’m not sure that’s entirely true, CJ. Certainly in early human times an increasing number of offspring would place undue pressure on resources (food) that would ultimately be detrimental to the ‘family’ as a whole. There would be an optimal equilibrium number of offspring you could calculate.

    For the modern version, replace ‘food’ with ‘educational opportunities’ or ‘parental attention and emotional development’ and there might be a case worth putting forward…

    Comment by Phil — November 3, 2009 @ 3:20 pm

  38. Phil and Andy, it might be that the metaphorical benchmark beverage for which you’re straining is pre-mixed bourbon and cola…


    Comment by Lew — November 3, 2009 @ 3:43 pm

  39. I am not Andy@33 but this has some merit, bugger all, but some 🙂

    Idiocracy – Opening SequenceFor more of the funniest videos, click here

    Comment by andy (the other one) — November 3, 2009 @ 4:13 pm

  40. Great takedown of Ayn Rand in Slate: How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon : The perverse allure of a damaged woman.

    The figure Ayn Rand most resembles in American life is L. Ron Hubbard, another crazed, pitiable charlatan who used trashy potboilers to whip up a cult. Unfortunately, Rand’s cult isn’t confined to Tom Cruise and a rash of Hollywood dimwits. No, its ideas and its impulses have, by drilling into the basest human instincts, captured one of America’s major political parties.

    (hat tip)

    Comment by ropata — November 3, 2009 @ 4:25 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: