Why I’m on the Right

I was reading this article on MandM’s blog, and it really struck a chord. I’ve included the proceeding 2 paragraphs for context.

We need to remember that kiwisaver is taxpayer funded. What does this mean? It means that kiwisaver works this way. Person P signs a contract with another person Q where Q agrees to pay P in exchange for labour. The state however, steps in and threatens P, telling him that if he does not give him some of the money he has worked for and is entitled to by contract they will separate him from his wife and kids and lock him up (violate his liberty). In other words Kiwisaver achieves its goals by threatening to violence against others. Threatening to violate there liberty rights if they do not comply.

Don’t get me wrong here, I am not an anarchist; I am not saying that the state is never justified in threatening people or taking their life liberty or property. What I do think however is that one needs justification for this. If we are to avoid tyranny, then it cannot be the case that the state can just do this whenever some good consequence or cause would be furthered by doing so. Policies like kiwisaver appear to be premised on the denial of this principle they suggest that merely helping others save is sufficient justification for threatening others with violence.

This is why I am not a centrist, and why I am not a leftwinger. While the left claim to be opposed to violence they really are not. They in fact have a very low threshold of opposition to opposing violence and are willing to use it for almost any reason at all. The left tend to oppose violence when its being used against criminals, such is in cases of capital punishment or in just wars where aggressive or tyrannical regimes are being resisted by force. However, when it comes to innocent people, people who have committed no crimes the left will justify violence for almost any reason. If a policy has a good consequence, such as helping people save, or helping a person educate there children, or helping people artists paint a picture, or whatever, they will allow the state to threaten innocent people to do so.

I find this morally perverse, justice requires distinguishing between the innocent and the guilty, those who are threatening others and those who are not. A just state concentrates threats of violence and if necessary uses violence against the latter and not the former. The state can collect taxes for this purpose but it cannot threaten people for any reason it likes no matter how socially useful such violence may be. Yet the political left have distorted our culture that people now, apparently in large numbers, will justify threatening their law abiding neighbour to help them save money.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, it’s totally perverse how the left ends up punishing the innocent and good and ignores or encourages the evil. The problem is that it is always dressed up as “helping”, and thus usually requires a more involved arguement to take down.

I have noticed this in real life too, in my time as a student. The left wing groups frequently used tactics commonly found in less democratic countries without the slightest shame. In fact, a lefty who believed in working within the system was quite rare.

I’ll provide a more specific example of what I mean. During student elections, right wing candidates were, and still are expected to follow the election rules to the letter. The slightest infringement leads to disqualification. In fact, I recall hearing about a case in Canterbury a year or two back where an entire ticket was disqualified for the sins of one of their candidates. However, I have also seen left wing candidates break the rules with impunity, and have never once seen any punished, or even investigated.

But I’m getting a little off topic…

%d bloggers like this: