Ought There Always to Be a Law?

Fundamentally, I am someone who doesn’t think the answer to all of society’s ills is that “the government should DO something”. It makes me really cross when I come across debate on social media where other contributors assume that because you don’t want the government to intervene in something, that you think that thing is fair, or right, or harmless.

This MDMA thing is case in point. As David very clearly explains in the interview above, we don’t need the government to come in and control drug use at festivals, but saying so is not saying that drug-taking is a wise choice. There is already a swathe of laws to deal with drug dealing, manufacture, violent or unruly behaviour, reckless driving etc., and yet some people will still choose to use illegal drugs. More laws are not going to make illegal drugs any safer, just as taking firearms off law-abiding citizens doesn’t make us any safer from those who already own them illegally.

This is about harm reduction, and it doesn’t require the government to act against, or the taxpayer to fund, anyone’s poor choices. Know Your Stuff is a volunteer organisation who have offered to test party drugs at concerts and festivals to give users that second chance of making a decision, whether to follow through with taking the substance, or not risk it. As a parent, I know I’d like my sons to be safe. Having stated very clearly “don’t do drugs kids” is no consolation if your child or friend ends up in hospital or worse after one of these experiences, no matter how foolish.

FREEDOM ON THE WATER

Another place where the subject of government interventionism vs voluntary compliance arose was just yesterday in a Facebook forum I belong to for boating, hunting, fishing and diving enthusiasts. A contributor started a poll asking for views on whether all boats should be registered and skippers licensed, which is currently not necessary unless you are taking paying passengers.

This week I hope to get my boat back in the water after a few months sitting on the trailer gathering leaves and green moss. There’s nothing like the wind in my hair, the smell of the ocean, the sound of the hull skipping across water, and the constant hum of the outboard motor. It’s one of the last things I get to do without government spoiling my fun by trying to regulate and license me.  And yet there is talk of introducing such a system to “save lives”. There are also many non-interventionist means to educate boaties about safe practice, and I see no need to use more regulations. I’d far rather donate to Coastguard to carry out the great work of marine safety education than give my money to the government to inefficiently manage a system of licensing and regulating. If such a system were introduced it would surely hurt those who cannot afford the licences and penalties, but who need to be able to catch a few fish in a small boat to feed the family.[…]

Occasionally my two worlds of working in local government, and in ACT party policy, collide head on. In this article, the seemingly eternal problem that councils face of having insufficient funds to pay for infrastructure is raised again. There is only so much that can be saved by operating more efficiently, and I don’t think anyone would suggest that that is the silver bullet. Rates alone will never be able to pay for the infrastructure investment this country needs, especially in our fastest growing areas. Apart from ACT’s policy of returning a share of GST on construction to councils, and allowing developers to partner with council and/or the crown to pay off infrastructure through a levy over property for 20 or 30 years, what about infrastructure bonds? With interest rates so low at present, savers are looking for other places to put their money and the idea of infrastructure bonds would provide a very tangible investment and at the same time relieve councils from having to borrow above or close to debt ceiling limits.

IN TWO PLACES AT ONCE

So no Auckland-based National list MP was capable of representing Botany? Does an electorate MP from New Plymouth travel vast distances at the taxpayers’ expense in order to represent two electorates?  Does she have two offices in Taranaki, or has one (and its funding) mysteriously migrated to Auckland? Let the photo provide the answer…