- ACT - have Sir Roger Douglas, NZ needs him right now, they are the second most correct and most consistent out of the lot on the limited government and basic civil liberties and they have this fantastic 20 point plan but their inconsistency on life issues lets them down.
- Libertarianz - are the most correct and most consistent out of the lot on the limited government and basic civil liberties but their inconsistency on the life issues lets them down, [UPDATE:] however, they are the only secular party who at least would remove public funding for state-sanctioned homicide, as Libertyscott states below in the comments section, "one clear point Libertarianz holds is that private health care means you wouldn't have to pay for other people's abortions."
- National - are not Labour so they have to be looked at seriously; if their policies were closer to their stated philosophy they would earn more admiration from us but they are still better than what we have and the ethical values of their people are closer to the Judeo Christian position than the other secular parties.
- The Family Party - Andy Moore called them the closest thing to a Christian version of ACT and I think he is right. They get things right on the life issues and fairly right on the limited government and civil liberties issues, certainly far better than the Kiwi Party or the Pacific Party and it turns out that the allegation they do not separate church and state is a falsehood promulgated by the Kiwi Party - definitely the best Christian option.
We will not waste our vote. Votes for Christian parties or parties that will not cross the threshold have led to Labour continually, narrowly, winning elections because such votes are not counted. We will not contribute to this, so basically it will be ACT or National as the other two do not stand a chance.
At this stage we look like we will be voting differently but as we argue with each other that may change. Matt might see the light - well, I am still conflicted too truth be told. Not telling whose argument is whose but basically our wrestle goes like this.
A party vote for National is a vote for a change of government, you know you will bring in some social conservatives (horrid term that that is) and you might just help Stephen Franks make the list if he misses out in Wellington Central.
A party vote for ACT is still a vote for a change of government, you know you will bring in Roger Douglas and enhance the chances of NZ's economy surviving the downturn if the number of ACT MP's is decent and National needs them to form a government. A vote for ACT has the potential to pull National back to its roots and away from being Labour-Lite.
However, if there is a vote on a 'life' issue, ACT are more secularist and despite their principled ideology are inconsistent on life issues. As a Christian, can you in good conscience bring such people into parliament?
When you have no alternative, yes, as ought implies can.
But do you have no alternative? Is Labour-Lite really that bad when you consider the life issues as National are generally not consistent on them either?
A few thoughts that might help you:
ReplyDeleteIMHO a vote for Libertarianz is a wasted vote.
Samuel Dennis (http://sjdennis.wordpress.com/) believes that the Family Party has a good chance in three electorates. Their policies are a curious mix of socialism in economics and conservative christian right on personal issues.
ACT 20 point plan: state mentoring of parents is pure Marxism.
There is nothing Judeo-Christian about John Key's views on religion and abortion:
http://christianclassicalliberalist.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/key-and-clark-on-abortion-and-religion/
There is no desirable slave master, rather you just have to decide which will be the least cruel:
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/election-2008-choosing-your-slave-master/
Act are immoral enlightenment rationalist liberals committed to free choice in immorality. (Better to vote Family Part as at least they have the Christian part with similar policies - but them you have to live with Destiny! ;-)
ReplyDeleteArguing against state support of the poor because Israel didn't have a welfare system is as valid as arguing against prisons - which they didn't have either (they used fines, restitution & capital punishment)! Israel didn't have a democracy - and did have slaves - so should we be the same??!
Their argument against state-enforced 'upholding of good/suppressing evil' is way too narrow. The context of the passage is that over overcoming evil with good & love of neighbor - more than just narrow penal definition is meant by Paul's use of the Sword.
This view fails to realize that the principles of legal support for the poor, punishment of the criminal, fair and equitable trade & working conditions, etc still apply - but in a different state/social structure they work out differently.
This means the Gospel can potentially transform a wide range of societies - unlike say Islam which imposes sharia unity.
Hence the Gospel is not inherently tied to any particular socio-political program (though some are more compatible with Christian values than others) - but can transform the fallen bits of any culture.
The biggest mark against Act is that Muriel Newman is not on the list!
ReplyDeleteI think you need to consider things at a foundational level, I am aware that in so called moral voting National has performed better than Act (which is better than Labour or Greens), but National are still big government and moderately socialist in many policies. While it would be good to have abortion banned, it is unlikely to happen whoever is in. Further, National have been in power several times over the last 3 decades. Have they advanced the cause of the unborn significantly during those times?
I think less strategically than I did, I am prepared to vote for someone who won't cross the 5% threshold, but voting strategically has its place at times. One things Act will offer is keeping National honest. They are unlikely to hide dodgy happenings within the National party.
Anon Arguing against state support of the poor because Israel didn't have a welfare system is as valid as arguing against prisons - which they didn't have either
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Madeleine isn't arguing against welfare because of Israel's legal system. It is inappropriate to model the state after the nation of Israel and the Law of Moses directly. There's was a theocracy because of the purposes of God in his process of redemption. We are called to a different kingdom.
Secondly, Israel did have a welfare system. They were not to glean to the edges of their fields, nor glean twice; they were to redeem their close relatives; they were told to be generous individually; and they were forbidden from lending with interest for the basics of living (eg. food).
Israel didn't have a democracy
No one is arguing for democracy, we are in a democracy—how best do we vote?
- and did have slaves
Bond servant or starvation to death, uhmmm?
Their argument against state-enforced 'upholding of good/suppressing evil' is way too narrow. The context of the passage is that over overcoming evil with good & love of neighbor - more than just narrow penal definition is meant by Paul's use of the Sword.
Are you talking about Romans 13? I am not certain the context has anything to do with the state loving its neighbour. The state doesn't have a neighbour, citizens do. You need to expand on this.
This view fails to realize that the principles of legal support for the poor, punishment of the criminal, fair and equitable trade & working conditions, etc still apply - but in a different state/social structure they work out differently.
And liberty and freedom of trade maximises this. Better to have a good economy with jobs for the poor than paying them to do nothing.
This means the Gospel can potentially transform a wide range of societies
The gospel transforms people more than societies. Righteous laws are good, righteous people are better.
Oh, come on MandM, National is no more pro-life than ACT is. At last year's Forum on the Family, I found ACT's stated position on abortion to be more palatable than National's.
ReplyDeleteBut apart from that, good article.
Come on, two party votes for ACT - you know it.
The party positions are the same, however, 100% of ACT MP's will vote inconsistently with their philosophy whereas the percentage is lower with National.
ReplyDeleteI am certain we differ on abortion, but one clear point Libertarianz holds is that private health care means you wouldn't have to pay for other people's abortions.
ReplyDeleteIt would make a considerable difference if it were not free.
Very true Liberty Scott, I had forgotten that point, another point for Libertarianz and another black mark against ACT on the inconsistency front.
ReplyDeleteNice of you to stop by.