On New Year's resolutions

"It is ... fitting—even if the timing is a historical coincidence—that the holiday that celebrates the rewards of reason, i.e., Christmas, precedes the one that reminds us of the opportunity we always have to exercise it [i.e., making New Year's resolutions.]"

~ Gus Van Horn from his post 'Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year!'

"...the secular meaning of Christmas"

"A few years ago, I spent some time thinking about the meaning of Christmas. I am afraid I shocked my Christian neighbours when they realised I was looking for the secular meaning of Christmas, not the story of the baby in the manger. I think there is a wider, nonreligious meaning to the holiday, which I thought I would share....

"People are a value.

"This is important. ... [W]e have an amazing standard of living. And we have it because of the millions of people — in our country and around the world — who are putting in a small, medium, or large effort to create values in the world. Some of these values are products or services we happily buy because they make our lives easier, or more productive, or more meaningful, or more enjoyable. Some of these values they just put out into the world, such as their funny cat videos or 'how to' videos for the gadget you just purchased and can’t get to work.

"So, I see Christmas as a time to celebrate the good in the people around you and in the world. To be grateful for the best within them and to recognise the value of that to you."

~ Jean Moroney from her post 'Goodwill to Man' [hat tip Gus Van Horn]

"Underneath all the pretence, that is what Christmas does celebrate."

"Life requires reason, selfishness, capitalism; that is what Christmas should celebrate — and really, underneath all the pretence, that is what it does celebrate."

~ philosopher Leonard Peikoff from his timeless article 'Christmas Should Be More Commercial'

The (man-made) world really is getting greyer.”

"It’s not just in our imagination—the “world really is getting greyer.” A researcher recently studied photos of household items going back two centuries. An analysis of the pixels showed a scary collapse in colour. 

"Even the Victorians—often considered as conformists—lived a more color-filled life. We have almost completely abandoned red and yellow and other bright hues in favor a boring black-and-white spectrum.

"But what’s most striking is how this descent into grayness has accelerated during the last few years. The most popular color is now charcoal—and at the current rate it will soon account for half of the marketplace.

"This runs counter the mantra of marketing experts [sic], who claim that products need to make a statement and capture the public’s attention.. They say that, but then turn around and launch another grey product into the look-alike marketplace.

"In an attempt to counter this, Pantone announced recently that the colour of the year in 2026 should be white. Some people complained. Others merely yawned. The shift from grey to white is one more measure of the tedium imposed by today’s tastemakers.

"Not long ago, popular colours were striking and changed with regularity. There was a time when avocado was the preferred shade for kitchen appliances. Orange and red had their day. When Monsanto designed a house of the future for Disneyland back in 1957, the kitchen looked like this.

 

"But the real problem isn’t our home decor—it’s the avoidance of risk-taking and the embrace of conformity in our behaviour. And even in our inner lives...."

~ Ted Gioia from his post 'The Return of the Weirdo'

Revenge?

Is revenge a dish best eaten cold? Or not eaten at all. 

There are moments, writes Allan John, when 

the urge for revenge can feel irresistible. We tell ourselves that one bad act warrants another—that striking back will somehow restore justice or bring relief.

But revenge rarely solves the original problem.

And most importantly, it doesn't heal the hurt. The Count of Monte Cristo shows a post-escape life wasted in seeking revenge. The story illustrates the idea that "it doesn’t degrade you when others treat you poorly; it degrades them." 

Nick Cave and his wife Susie chose another path: after their son's tragic death, they chose to find happiness "as an act of defiance or 'revenge' against the overwhelming pain." As they say, the best 'revenge' is outrageous success.

You can't choose what others do to you, or what is done to you. But you can choose how to respond, and whom to become. As the philosopher Diogenes observed, "How shall I defend myself against my enemy? By proving myself good and honourable."

It might be self-defeating. But that doesn't mean it don't feel good. Here's a Nick Cave song revenging himself on a critic, from a few years before his epiphany ...

Bonus vid: Anita Lane + Barry Adamson with the classic revenge song ....

"The AI era is one of mythology ... a dynasty of bullshit"

"We are in the dynasty of bullshit, a deceptive epoch where analysts and journalists who are ostensibly burdened with telling the truth feel the need to continue pushing the Gospel According To Jensen. When all of this collapses there must be a reckoning with how little effort was made to truly investigate the things that executives are saying on the television, in press releases, in earnings filings and even on social media, all because the market consensus demanded that The Number Must Continue Going Up.

"The AI era is one of mythology, where billions in GPUs are bought to create supply for imaginary demand, where software is sold based on things it cannot reliably do, where companies that burn billions of dollars are rewarded with glitzy headlines and not an ounce of cynicism, and where those that have pushed back against it have been treated with more skepticism and ire than those who would benefit the most from the propagation of propaganda and outright lies."

~ Ed Zitron from his post 'Mythbusters - AI Edition'

"The UN has now spent more than three decades issuing countdowns to catastrophe" [updated]

"A recent story on PBS NewsHour, 'UN says world must jointly tackle issues of climate change, pollution, biodiversity and land loss,' by Tammy Webber of the Associated Press (AP), reports on a new UN 'Global Environment Outlook' that repeats the false assertion that the Earth is nearing a global tipping point that can only be avoided through “unprecedented change” and trillions of dollars in new spending to phase out fossil fuels. These assertions are bogus, lacking any basis in data or observable evidence. In fact, the UN has a long track record of failed disaster predictions tied to climate change, going all the way back to 1989 ...

"A history lesson is in order. This is not the first time the UN has announced that 'we’re running out of time.' In 1989, 36 years of global warming ago, the UN Environment Programme’s Noel Brown told the Associated Press that 'entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels' if global warming was not reversed by the year 2000, predicting up to three feet of sea-level rise by then, massive coastal inundation of Bangladesh and Egypt, and a wave of 'eco-refugees.'

"More than three decades later, each of these predictions have proven, not just false, but wildly inaccurate. The 'Climate at a Glance' website’s 'Sea Level Rise' page documents long-term tide-gauge records and NASA satellite data showing global sea level rising at about 1.2 inches per decade, with, at best, a modest acceleration since the nineteenth century. Nor have we seen the millions of 'climate refugees' that the UN forecast. The Maldives are still above water, Bangladesh has more people than ever, and the “10-year window” to avert disaster has been rolled over so many times it could qualify as a wrecked vehicle.

"PBS/AP never mentions this failed track record. Nor does it acknowledge that the UN has now presided over 30 Conferences of the Parties (COPs) without changing the basic trajectory of global emissions or global temperature ...

"The entries at 'Climate at a Glance'’s on 'Deaths from Extreme Weather' and 'Temperature-Related Deaths' highlight a crucial fact PBS never mentions: over the past century, climate-related deaths have plummeted by more than 95 percent, even as global population has quadrupled and temperatures have risen. Independent analyses, such as HumanProgress’ review of disaster mortality, show climate-related deaths falling from about 485,000 per year in the 1920s to fewer than 20,000 per year in the 2010s, a drop of more than 99 percent on a per-capita basis, as seen in their graph below.

"Th[is] is not what 'running out of time' looks like.

"What the article and the UN report completely ignore is the role that affordable, reliable energy, overwhelmingly fossil fuels, has played in making human societies more resilient to environmental hazards. Mechanised agriculture, synthetic fertilisers, modern flood defences, air conditioning, and rapid disaster response all depend on dense, on-demand energy. That is why climate-related deaths as documented by 'Climate at a Glance' have collapsed over the past century. Yet the UN prescription, uncritically endorsed by PBS/AP, is to rapidly phase out the very energy sources that lifted billions from abject poverty, based on a track record of predictions that have repeatedly failed to materialize.

"'Climate Realism' has chronicled this pattern for years. 'UNFCCC Climate Report Lies About Its Own Science' points out how UN political bodies routinely make sweeping claims about 'intensifying destruction' that are not supported by the UN’s own scientific assessments, which identify little or no change in most types of extreme weather events and trends in natural disasters. In 'The IPCC’s 1990 Predictions Were Even Worse Than We Thought,' 'Climate Realism' reviews the early IPCC forecasts of rapid warming and sea-level rise and shows how they overshot reality. Despite this, every new report is marketed as the 'most comprehensive ever' and used to justify more urgent demands for unprecedented, wrenching, transformational remaking of the world’s economy and governing institutions.

"PBS/AP could have told its audience that the UN has now spent more than three decades issuing countdowns to catastrophe ...

"By omitting the long trail of failed UN climate pronouncements, ignoring the dramatic decline in climate-related deaths, and treating speculative model outputs as inevitable futures, PBS and the Associated Press badly mislead their audience concerning the true state of the Earth. A truly public-minded broadcaster would carefully scrutinise the UN’s record and available data rather than uncritically regurgitate its latest false alarm report."

~ Anthony Watts from his post 'Wrong Again PBS, UN Is Pushing Another False Climate Crisis Report'

UPDATE: Bjorn Lomborg writes in the New York Post:

"The main UN model shows that even if all rich countries were to cut their carbon emissions to zero, it would avert less than 0.2°F of projected warming by the end of the century, while imposing massive hits of up to 18% on rich-world GDP by 2050.

"The ever-increasing cost of climate policy is one reason the rich world is cutting back in many other areas, including aid to the world's poorest.

"That, in part, is why philanthropist Bill Gates has called for a strategic pivot on climate.

"He has laid out three tough truths: Climate change is serious but 'will not lead to humanity's demise'; temperature is not the best progress metric; and we should instead focus on boosting human welfare. [bold added; hat tip Gus Van Horn]

"Ironically, the postmodern turn has led universities away from scientific doubt, towards a culture of (paradoxical) certainty – the certainty that knowledge is relative."

"For over three decades, much academic work in the humanities and social sciences, none more than [Anne Salmond]’s discipline of anthropology, has been influenced by the postmodernist view that reality is relative to culture. 

"This is inimical to science. Scientific knowledge-seeking is based on the idea that objective reality exists. Through reason and evidence, science brings human understanding into closer alignment with reality.

"Ironically, the postmodern turn has led universities away from scientific doubt, towards a culture of (paradoxical) certainty – the certainty that knowledge is relative. Under this view, the commitment of science to gradually revealing reality is at best, a fool’s errand. At worst, it is an exercise in ‘colonising’ other knowledge systems, especially indigenous ones.

"To relativists, a belief that reason transcends culture is a sign of blinkered arrogance, closing off the possibility of ‘other ways of knowing.’ The prevalence of this doctrine has led to a campus climate in which any criticism of ‘non-western’ knowledge systems is an anathema. It has led to some academics being actively shut down, and many feeling too intimidated to speak their minds."

~ Prof. Kendall Clements, & Dr Michael Johnston:from their post 'The Irony Of Relativism'

'The Blithering Economic Crackpottery Of Donald J. Trump'

"Just when you thought that the Donald had already won the derby for economic crackpottery, he comes up with another even more fakakta entry. This one spilled forth when asked whether the President should have a say in monetary policy:

".... It should be done,” Trump said....”I don’t think he should do exactly what we say. But certainly we’re — I’m a smart voice and should be listened to.”

Asked how low he would like to see interest rates go, Trump made it clear he wants the new Fed chief to be aggressive. Rates should be “1% and maybe lower than that,” Trump said. “We should have the lowest rate in the world.”

"Well, actually, it was only a matter of time until we got a domineering dufus in the Oval Office who has no compunction about loudly displaying his barking economic ignorance. To our knowledge there has never been an economist—-left, right, or centre—–and possessing intellectual faculties—brilliant, feeble or in-between—- who has claimed that the 'lowest rate in the world' has anything to do with anything when it comes to monetary policy.

"The Donald’s quip here is just sui generis humbug—a word salad, if you will, on a very crucial matter that makes Kamala Harris sound like a deep thinker. After all, who in their right mind would think that having a lower rate then the likes of Zimbabwe, Venezuela (or the Wiemar Republic for that matter) or dozens of other inflaters that dot the world economy even today provides any kind of monetary standard? 
...

"Interest rates are the price of money and debt and provide the benchmark for the valuation of all financial assets and real estate. They are, accordingly, the most important price in the entire capitalist economy and they should therefore be set by the free market, not the FOMC, the POTUS or any other arm or agency of the state.

"However, once the government apparatchiks who comprise the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) seized the power to set interest rates decades ago it was foreordained that some unhinged know-it-all would end up in the Oval Office claiming a piece of the action. ...

"[W]here in the hell does the Donald think inflation comes from—-failure of the Peruvian anchovies schools ... ? The Hunt brothers cornering the silver market ...? OPEC meetings ...? The beef processors cartel ...? 

"The fact is, the guy is 79 years old and has been pontificating on how to fuel prosperity and remedy inflation and other economic ills for decades, and most especially since he came down the escalator in June 2015. Yet has it ever once occurred to him that the easy money and ever lower interest rates at the central bank that he has ceaselessly advocated is actually the one and only cause of 'inflation,' and that’s the case with respect to both goods and services and financial asset prices, too?

"As it has happened, since the turn of the century the real Fed funds rate on overnight money 

(blue line, below) has been below the zero bound 75% of the time ... [meaning that s]hort-term money for gambling and speculation on Wall Street and main street alike has been free after inflation for the entirety of this century to date.

"So is there any mystery as to why the purchasing power of the consumer’s dollar earned or saved in the year 2000 has already lost 50% of it value? ... [Yet] the Donald has endlessly denounced [those responsible] for not running the printing presses even faster and hotter....

"Once upon a time, the GOP knew that inflation comes everywhere and always from the printing presses of the central bank. But as of December 2025 it has turned into such a sheepish herd of partisan hacks that it has the audacity to claim that it’s all Sleepy Joe’s fault.

"And yet and yet. The Donald is now demanding the very same 1% interest rates and another central bank printing spree that caused the last inflationary flare-up. And he is doing so while falsely claiming that he has single-handedly ended the inflation that he actually fostered during his first go round in the Oval Office. ...

"At the end of the day, the Donald has made no impact on [lowering] the inflation rate to date, but is fixing to push it materially higher owing to his out-of-this-world TariffPalooza and his utterly insensible demand that the Fed undertake another plunge into 1.0% money.

Then again, easy money, big spending and high tariff-taxes amount to the blithering crackpottery that is the essence of Trump-O-Nomics. And that surely ain’t no recipe for a new Golden Age of Prosperity."

~ David Stockman from his post 'On The Blithering Economic Crackpottery Of Donald J. Trump'

Real Fed Funds Rate Versus Purchasing Power Of The Consumer Dollar, 2000-2025

Intellectual v Artist

"An intellectual is a man who says a simple thing in a difficult way; an artist is a man who says a difficult thing in a simple way."

~ Charles Bukowski

"They can call off the search for the 2026 Australian of the Year award. We have him already. His name is Ahmed al Ahmed."

"Every January, on Australia Day, someone is named Australian of the Year. They can call off the search for the 2026 award. We have him already. His name is Ahmed al Ahmed. He’s 43, a father of two and a shopkeeper. And today he stunned the world with an act of staggering heroism: he single-handedly tackled and disarmed one of the fascist filth who carried out the massacre of Jews at Bondi Beach in Sydney. ...

"There were other heroes, too. We’ve seen footage of Aussies tending to the wounded, breathing life back into the injured. ... Let us hope these Australians are commended and rewarded for taking such a valiant stand against the evil that visited the Jews of Sydney today. These men and women speak to the true spirit of Australia. ...

"These heroes also remind us that terrorists can be defeated. They can be disarmed. They can be stripped of their power, just like that.

"It won’t always be possible, of course. But where it is, we should strike. Too much official guidance tells us to scarper. ... too many people look the other way when tyranny strikes – or worse, stand and film it. ...

"Bravery finds a way, though. The human instinct to help is not so easily crushed. One thinks of the men who hurled beer glasses and chairs at the three radical Islamists who went on a stabbing spree in London Bridge in 2017. Or Ignacio Echeverría, the Spanish national who used his skateboard to beat one of those London Bridge terrorists (sadly, he was subsequently killed). And now Ahmed al Ahmed, the forty-something conqueror of a modern-day Nazi. ...

["T]he violent loathing that shook Sydney today did not emerge in a vacuum. .. If more of us had ‘had a go’ earlier, perhaps we could have seen off, or at least tamed, this gravest menace in Western society.

"Don’t wait until it turns violent. ‘Have a go’ now. If you see someone carrying a placard calling Jews Nazis, get in their face. If you see a keffiyeh mob outside a synagogue, confront them. If you see a frothing Islamist or leftist harassing a Jew in public, put yourself between the scumbag and his victim. Don’t run, hide and tell – stand, fight and tell them to fuck off. Enough is enough. Get out there."

~ Brendan O'Neill from his post 'Like the heroes of Bondi, we should all be tackling anti-Semites'

Doug Casey's advice on distributing assets

"My hobby, for many years, was sitting down with the rulers of basket-case countries—preferably military dictatorships—to give them a plan that I promised would make them loved by the people, internationally famous, and legitimately a multibillionaire without stealing.

"Basically, I proposed taking 100% of all State assets (land, parastatals, the works) and putting them in a corporation. 70% of the shares would then be distributed pro-rata to every citizen, 10% put in trust for the next generation, 10% taken public internationally, and 10% reserved for those who could make it happen.

"There’s much, much more to say. But it would get the government out of the economy, and liberate dead capital. By giving the people what they theoretically own, it would be very hard to steal the shares back. I had some wonderful adventures pitching the deal in a dozen countries.

"How does that relate to Argentina? It’s the only way to solve the problem of what to do with the Vaca Muerta oil deposits and Aerolineas. Barring a distribution of shares to the citizens, the assets will just be stolen when the next leftwing government is elected [anyway]. And used as a piggybank for the political caste."

~ Doug Casey from his post 'Doug Casey on How Milei is Flirting with Failure in Argentina'

20 YEARS AGO: Some thoughts on property rights

Since we have changes to the RMA based, its said, on property rights, I figured these few quotes posted here 20 years ago might be useful ...

... it seems timely to post Tom Bethell's chapter on 'The Blessings of Property' (taken from his book The Noblest Triumph), and Tibor Machans's authoritative piece on the Right to Private Property: "The institution of the right to private property," says Tibor, "is perhaps the single most important condition for a society in which freedom, including free trade, is to flourish."

And for some further thoughts on property and freedom ...

They who have no property can have no freedom. ~ Stephen Hopkins

The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. ~ Karl Marx

The right to life is the source of all rights--and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave. ~ Ayn Rand

If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization. ~ Ludwig von Mises

Where there is no private ownership, individuals can be bent to the will of the state, under threat of starvation. ~ attrib. to Leon Trotsky

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. ~ Frederic Bastiat

The moment that idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist. -~ ohn Adams

Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of. ~ Thomas Jefferson

No other rights are safe where property is not safe.  ~ Daniel Webster

The right of distribution over private property is the essence of freedom.  ~ Merrill Jenkin

Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort. The doctrine that human rights are superior to property rights simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of human. ~ Ayn Rand

If we would have civilization and the exertion indispensable to its success, we must have property; if we have property, we must have its rights; if we have the rights of property, we must take those consequences of the rights of property which are inseparable from the rights themselves. ~ James Fennimore Cooper

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can. ~ Samuel Adams

A man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. ~ James Madison

The American moron . . . wants to keep his Ford, even at the cost of losing the Bill of Rights. ~ H. L. Mencken

Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty. ~ John Adams

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. ~ James Madison

Liberty and property is the great national cry of the English. . . It is the cry of nature. ~ Voltaire

The great chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonweaths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property. ~ John Locke

The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private property, or something formally like it. ~ Garret Hardin

It is precisely those things which belong to "the people" which have historically been despoiled- wild creatures, the air, and waterways being notable examples. This goes to the heart of why property rights are socially important in the first place. Property rights mean self-interested monitors. No owned creatures are in danger of extinction. No owned forests are in danger of being leveled. No one kills the goose that lays the golden egg when it is his goose. ~ Thomas Sowell

The dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights. ~ Potter Stewart

Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property. ~ Ayn Rand

No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent. ~ John Jay

A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

The principles laid down in this opinion affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security. They reach further than the concrete form of the case then before the court, with its adventitious circumstances; they apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property, where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offense. . . ~ Decision in Boyd v. US, 116 U.S. 616 (1886)

Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. ~ C.S. Lewis

Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience. . . ~ John Locke

RMA replacements "look like an improvement (which wouldn't be difficult), but it still relies excessively on trusting politicians"

"[T]he replacement of the RMA, it looks like an improvement (which wouldn't be difficult), but it still relies excessively on trusting politicians to protect property rights.

"There is clearly potential for improvement, but I fear that National Policy Statements, once the other lot get into power, could make it all much worse, by having a nationwide de-growth approach to put development into sclerosis. Chris Bishop and Simon Court talk a lot about private property rights, but it's unclear quite how important they are [here'.

"Certainly on the face of it, this isn't a reform that puts private property rights first. It could have, but the idea that MfE (which didn't exist before 1986) would ever do that or that an expert group dominated by planning lawyers would propose that, is a stretch.

"More simply there does not need to be any kind of 'resource management' law. There should be property law protecting people from infringements of property, and there are commons (that aren't going anywhere soon) that need protection from tort and nuisance from private property."

~ Liberty Scott 

"A climate-risk industrial complex has emerged in this space and a lot of money is being made by a lot of people."

"Climate advocates have embraced the idea of a climate-fuelled insurance crisis as it neatly ties together the hyping of extreme weather and alleged financial consequences for ordinary people. The oft-cited remedy to the claimed crisis is, of course, to be found in energy policy: 'The only long-term solution to preserve an insurable future is to transition from fossil fuels and other greenhouse-gas-emitting industries.'

"However, it is not just climate advocates promoting the notion that climate change is fundamentally threatening the insurance industry. A climate-risk industrial complex has emerged in this space and a lot of money is being made by a lot of people. The virtuous veneer of climate advocacy serves to discourage scrutiny and accountability."

~ Roger Pielke Jr. from his post 'The Climate-Risk Industrial Complex and the Manufactured Insurance Crisis' [hat tip Andy Revkin]

So let’s review what Australia’s media ban has actually accomplished here...

 

"Australia’s social media ban for kids is now in effect. ... And, of course, it’s not working. Kids are always going to figure out ways to get around the ban:

It took 13-year-old Isobel less than five minutes to outsmart Australia’s “world-leading” social media ban for children.

A notification from Snapchat, one of the ten platforms affected, had lit up her screen, warning she’d be booted off when the law kicked in this week – if she couldn’t prove she was over 16.

“I got a photo of my mum, and I stuck it in front of the camera and it just let me through. It said thanks for verifying your age,” Isobel claims. “I’ve heard someone used Beyoncé’s face,” she adds.

“I texted her,” she gestures to her mum Mel, “and I was like, ‘Hey Mummy, I got past the social media ban’ and she was just like, ‘Oh, you monkey’.”

"Or how about this “hack”:

Either way, Adams and her friends don’t plan to go quietly. When one app asked them to submit a selfie for an age verification system, they used a photo of a golden retriever they found on Google.

It worked, she said.

"So let’s review what Australia’s politicians have actually accomplished here: They’ve alienated parents who don’t appreciate the government deciding how to raise their kids. They’ve taught an entire generation of young people that adults don’t trust them and that circumventing authority is both necessary and easy. They’ve cut off legitimate support networks for vulnerable kids while doing nothing about the actual harms that those same kids face. Indeed, they’ve actually pushed kids towards more dangerous places online while making it more difficult for them to learn to use the internet appropriately. And they’ve created a system so trivially easy to bypass that a golden retriever can pass age verification."

~ Mike Masnick from his post 'Australia’s Social Media Ban Goes Into Effect As Pretty Much Everyone Realises It’s A Total Mess'

"mRNA vaccines weren’t the problem. The virus was."

In the very first large study of long-term mortality by vaccination status—assessing the impact of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination among French adults aged 18 to 59—French scientists found there was "no increased risk of 4-year all-cause mortality in individuals aged 18 to 59 years vaccinated against COVID-19, further supporting the safety of the mRNA vaccines that are being widely used worldwide."

Their research with 22.7 million vaccinated individuals and 5.9 million unvaccinated individuals found that "vaccinated individuals had a 74% lower risk of death from severe COVID-19, and no increased risk of all-cause mortality over a median follow-up of 45 months."  

This is the largest study of this kind in the world, and the results are significant. (There was a large Japanese study during the Omicron wave, which earlier vaccines had some trouble covering. This did see an increase in mortality in the over-70s which didn't discriminate towards vaccinated or non-vaccinated.). 

Blogger with the unfortunate name of Snarky Gherkin summarises the French results:

This study used real-world national health data... not surveys, not estimates, not “my cousin’s friend is a nurse on Rumble", not laminated placards of nocebo hysteria. 

They followed 22.7 million vaccinated adults and 5.9 million unvaccinated adults aged 18–59, median follow-up 45 months (nearly 4 years). 

They matched the groups on age, sex, region and over 41 health conditions (so it was adjusted for comorbidities). 

Then they looked at hard endpoints such as all-cause mortality, COVID-related mortality and long-term mortality trends.
The Findings...

• Vaccinated people had 74% lower risk of death from severe COVID-19.
• 25% lower risk of death from ANY cause.
• No increase in mortality for 4 years after vaccination.
• Results held even after excluding COVID deaths.

What this means... if vaccines were causing secret waves of heart attacks, cancers, turbo-autoimmune-disasters… we would absolutely see it here. 

Instead, vaccinated people (on average) lived longer. 

The authors did note that vaccinated groups had slightly more cardiometabolic issues,
yet still had better outcomes. (That’s the opposite of “healthier people bias.”) 

This is one of the strongest long-term safety signals ever conducted and released.
Link here, have a read. 

Summary: 

mRNA vaccines weren’t the problem.
The virus was.

Feel free to question the summer-upper. And/or read the full research.

Those RMA Replacements: "not a sort of RMA 3.0, but a TCPA 4.0 plus a separate environment thing."

Yesterday I was looking at the announcements. Today I'm looking more at the two replacement Bills themselves, mostly the Planning Bill. [ONLINE HERE.] (Although I can't help noting, of those announcements, that anybody who can seriously assess these sort of changes to produce 46% fewer consent applications, not 45% or 47% but 46%, has a problem only assuaged by a large consultancy cheque).

Still, if the needle were shifted to that extent it would be a start. Would the replacements do that? We have a nation who hopes so, and a Minister who seems to intend so.  But then they all told us back then that the RMA was permissive ....

So, thoughts upon reflection:

** Iignore the major hype. Property rights are still not explicitly mentioned, except as a reference to matrimonial disputes.

** Where they are mentioned implicitly, it's in terms of compensation (see below), and of effects. (Again, this follows the RMA in being allegedly "effects-based." So prepare to be underwhelmed.) Yet whereas the RMA looked at ill-defined and undefinable "effects" like "amenity values," "natural character" and "the architectural style or colour of a neighbour’s house," this seems to be somewhat more objective. A big emphasis is on which effects should be ignored, about which it is quite explicit, and which areas it insists councils meddle (equally explicit, see subsection (2)).

** Contrast all this with a common-law system – something commentators still don't understand. (Here's one ignoramus who thinks the RMA's subjectivism is an example of common law, FFS!). Common Law protections have the unique beauty that they protect both property rights AND the environment—the stronger the property-rights protection, the more the law sets up "mirrors" reflecting back to us our own actions, especially long-term ones. (As Aristotle already knew, when people need to heed their own stuff, they are more careful than when they deal with commonly-owned resources.) Here’s how it could be done. 

FIRST, ENACT A CODIFICATION of basic common law principles such as the Coming to the Nuisance Doctrine (the ideal antidote to zoning) and rights to light and air and the like. 
“Second, register on all land titles (as voluntary restrictive covenants) the basic 'no bullshit' provisions of existing District Plans (stuff like height-to-boundary rules, density requirements and the like).
“Next, and this will take a little more time, insist that councils set up ‘Small Consents Tribunals'…” 

** Anyway, I put that paragraph there to show the distance from that idea. So what do we have here? Much of the format, plans, rules, standards and zones of the RMA are still with us. Councils will still write Plans. The Plans will still have Zones. Zones will have Rules and Standards. A council planner will assess your Consent application. And then you, your planner, their planner, your lawyer and theirs will work hard at it until your bank says "That's enough." Much of that will still be with us, even if terms are changed. 

There will be fewer zones, and fewer plans, but so what? It doesn't matter whether you have 17 rules saying "no" or one-hundred and 17 ... if the rules are still telling you "no." (So ignore the headlines about that announcement as well.) It does mean that much of the law built up in courtrooms over the last thirty years is still applicable. But when much of that law should be shovelled out, that's not altogether a bonus.

** If there is a "balance" required from the law here, it's simply between the rights of land-owners to build and the effect of that choice to build on others' land, and on themselves. Note that each owner has equal rights: the right to peaceful enjoyment of their property—the boundary between land and actions being defined by that right (my rights to do whatever the hell I like, including enjoying my spread peacefully, ending where your equal right begins). That's what good law should (and common law did) recognise. it should recognise it, not restrict it. 

** The RMA had a Purposes heading, Part 2 (sections 5 to 8), around which all parts revolved. What it contained was mostly mush, the residue of the nineties non-sequitur of so-called "sustainable management." It was this wherein judges had to adjudicate on what "sustainable management" might mean for your carport extension, or whether that boundary retaining wall might avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects of activities on the environment. Or not. (This, for Henry Cooke's benefit, is the source of much of that 'judge-made law' he talks about, not the common law with which he has it confused.)

Instead, the replacement Planning Bill replaces Purposes with Goals. You can see that terms like "well-functioning" and "incompatible" will get lawyers' invoices juiced, but for the most part an effort has been made to keep things moderately objective. Except for section (i), which allows for virtually everything here to be outsourced....

** Compensation: Early opponents and the Property Council have both signalled that compensation from taxpayers for regulatory takings is a big part of both replacement Bills—which is not by any means the same thing as protecting property rights, despite what some people still think.

In the replacement Planning Bill at least, they take this form...

** Standing: I'd understood that to object to an Application one needed to have standing, e.g.., to be a neighbour on whom the effects of an application might have objective and measurable harm. Naturally, section 11(1)(i) above vitiates that, but we'd been told that, for instance, someone from Bluff couldn't object to a project in Kaikohe.

That doesn't appear to be the case (but happy to be corrected).

Sections 123 to 125 lay out the decision-making process around public notification of an Application. But I don't see that "Standing" (i.e., having a sufficient connection to and harm from the action or decision) is explicitly laid out.

** As a halfway house between a council decision and the Environment Court—a sort of limbo-land it might take months/years and several hundred thousand dollars to cross—the Planning Tribunal looks to be useful. Not game-changing, but useful.

** Remember, this replacement is resolutely top-down. Instruction comes from above. Zone are determined. Zones will be prepared with their various Rules and Standards. So a lot still rests for each property owner on what will be included as Rules or Standards with which to comply. For all the talk of "effects," when it comes to the home-owner the rubber hits the road in terms of a Rule or a Standard in a Plan. The more restrictive those Rules, the less one can do without a formal Planning Application. 

The argument of the RMA's authors' was that the RMA was more permissive than the more prescriptive Town & Country Planning Act it replaced because Application would be straightforward, with only 'effects' being assessed by council. But in reality, most home-owners did all they could to avoid an Application's perils. So the Zone's particular Rules and Standards became a sort of lockdown.

The irony is that while the  Town and Country Planning Act gave less scope to go outside those Rules and Standards, it's more prescriptive Rules and Standards themselves were often more permissive than those applied under the RMA. It was more prescriptive, but within that prescription at least one could act. 

There's a sneaking suspicion that with the replacement Environment Bill being separated, and this replacement Planning Bill being based on top-down prescription, that any sense of permissiveness will be similar. That (as one wag put it) what we have in these two Bills is not a sort of RMA 3.0, but "a TCPA 4.0 plus a separate environment thing."

"The New Zealander prides himself on his common sense"

"The New Zealander prides himself on his common sense—that 'settled truth can be attained by observation'[10] and is 'knowable and graspable by our own experience.'[11]

"For the most part this is held so assuredly that 'to reason against the [evidence of sense and memory] is absurd'; these are held as 'first principles, and as such fall not within the province of reason, but of common sense.' [12]

"This was the argument of the enlightened Scotsman Thomas Reid, whose 'last phrase stuck' and came to New Zealand with Scottish settlers. 'It helped to produce a cultural type that some consider typically American, but which is just as much Scottish' and equally applies here: 'an independent intellect combined with an assertive self-respect, and grounded by a strong sense of moral purpose.'[13]

“'The teachings of these Scots became known as the philosophy of Common Sense: it was the real basis of the Scottish Enlightenment,'[14] and probably our own."

~ yours truly from my post on that other blog 'New Zealand: A Nation of the Enlightenment'

[10] McCosh, J. (1875). The Scottish Philosophy, Biographical, Expository, Critical, from Hutchinson to Hamilton. London: MacMillan & Co, 194

[11] Herman, A. (2001). How the Scots Invented the Modern World. New York: Three Rivers Press, 262

[12] Reid, T. (1823). An Inquiry into the Human Mind: On the Principles of Common Sense. London: Thomas Tegg, Cheapside, 28; Herman, 2001, ibid, 262

[13] Herman, 2001, ibid, 263-4
[14] Fry, M. (2025). How the Scots Made America. New York: Macmillan

RMA Announcement: Live blogging

1:23pm

It starts badly.

“A core failure of the RMA was the absence of clear direction from central government,” Mr Bishop says.

No. The core failure of the RMA is the complete absence of private property rights. It's starting position instead being: "You need our permission!"

This "reform" promises property rights, but it looks like it simply delivers more planning documents. And little more, if any, permission.

We're promised "fewer, faster plans"; "30-year regional spatial plans"; "nationally set policy direction"; and "planned national standards." So anyone who's ever said "the problem with this country is not enough planners" will be happy.

And what about property rights? “When you put property rights at the core and remove excessive government rules from people’s lives," says Mr Court, "the benefits will quickly follow." 

I'm still looking for how exactly property rights have been put at the core. I'll let you know when I find where he's put them ...

1:25pm

“The new planning system strengthens property rights and restores the freedom for New Zealanders to use their land in ways that affect nobody else." You keep saying that. Show me the evidence.

"Councils will be required to provide relief to property owners when imposing significant restrictions like heritage protections or significant natural areas." So apparently planners imposing restrictions still have more freedom to "use" your land than you do. Righto.

Not going well so far...

1:32pm

"More than 100 existing plans will be reduced to 17 regional combined plans that bring together spatial, land use and natural environment planning in one place, making it easier for New Zealanders to know what they can do with their property." That's not freedom for New Zealanders to use their land in ways that affect nobody else, is it Mr Bishop. That's the "freedom" to act under permission. 

So let me look at the specifics. I don't see "property rights" as a heading in the major release. So let me begin studying topic 'The New Planning System: Simplifying residential development ...

1:37pm

Blah, blah, "clear national priorities" woof, woof "land will be zoned" whitter, whitter "councils will have to ensure there’s enough land and infrastructure" wank, wank "regional spatial plans will guide future development "... It makes you wonder how anything ever got built here at all before town planning arrived here in 1928. 

<searching for "property rights" gives no hits in the document> <searching for "planning" gives me 18 hits>

1:46pm

"Certainty" is promised through "clear long-term spatial plans" telling investors what council planners will allow, and "front-loading decisions," whatever the hell that means. "This means clear rules and fewer surprises," says the boiler plate. Oh, and there'll be "A digital platform [that] will make it easier for you to access information, apply for consents, and track progress." That's nice, isn't it.

A key feature? "Standardised zones and overlays will make planning rules simpler and more consistent across the country." As if it makes a real difference whether there's 17 or 117 different zones and overlays telling you what you can't do. It hardly gives freedom for New Zealanders to use their land in ways that affect nobody else, does it.

"A new Planning Tribunal will offer you a low-cost way to resolve disputes, with limited council appeal rights." Possibly good, but there are still no details on this.

"Councils will also need to respond more quickly to private plan change requests, making it easier to unlock new areas for growth." Given the many problems with making councils respond quickly, how will this work? Given the cost of applying for a private plan change, how will this work?

1:59pm

The document says there will be "less need for consents." Why? is that because there's freedom for New Zealanders to use their land in ways that affect nobody else? 

No, it's because "councils will only be able to consider effects that have a minor, or more than minor impact on others or the environment." This, by the way, is precisely what the present "permissive" RMA allows. In other words, it's just the same.

It's also because, says the document, "design details that only affect the site itself, such as building layout, balconies or private views, won’t be regulated..." Except of course for the "guidance" supplied by several councils that tell you what they expect to see in your application. Oh, and "except in areas [which planners have decided enjoy] outstanding natural landscapes and heritage features." So much rurally where you want to build will still be policed to stop you fully enjoying your land; and many of the areas of our cities that were built before town planning came here will still be policed to keep them as museums. Nice.

So far I've yet to see much difference between the replacement and the original.

Let me look at the heading 'Making it easier to build and renovate your home' ...

2:13pm

Here's the promise: "The new planning system will support the Kiwi dream of improving your home or building a new one without unnecessary cost or delay." What's the reality?

"Standardised zones" blah, blah, as above.

"The public will only be notified about your project if the effects of it (the impacts like noise and shading) are more than minor." So, no different to current law then.

"Only people who are directly affected by a project can have a say." It's a lot of work to make this one small improvement.

"A new Planning Tribunal will be set up to help sort out disputes quickly and cheaply." Nice idea. But still no detail.

"You may be able to get ‘relief’, which means a form of support or compensation, if some planning controls or rules have a big impact on how you can use your land." I have a better idea, which would actually be core to protecting property rights. And it's this: outlaw every single planning control or rule that would have a big impact on how you can use your land. What about that?

This is all worse than a disappointment. Rather than a plethora of sackings of the unproductive, Bishop & Court instead propose to keep town planners hard at work. (Well, as hard as they ever get.) ...

2:32pm

Maybe I should have started with their "Overview" document instead of plunging into the details....

"Property rights" are mentioned seven times here, but only in the promises. "The new system is designed to unlock growth, reduce the costs of much-needed infrastructure, protect the environment and improve resilience – all while freeing up property rights so landowners have certainty and control over their land." That's a promise. Not a delivery.

The "expected outcomes" include "enhanced property rights through regulations that focus on only controlling impacts on the environment and other people." I'm surprised this is an "outcome" and not a guarantee. (And see above.)

"There will also be greater availability of relief," we are told, "if property rights are infringed." But here's the thing: the core is to make law that ensures property rights are not infringed.

"The proposed new system will make the enjoyment of property rights a guiding principle of reform," says the document, "so people can do more with their property." How? There are seven points under this heading including narrowing effects, simpler national rules, new national standards, binding environmental limits, better digital systems, and one Plan per region.

Not one of these seven, not one, gives any guarantee at all of protecting the enjoyment of property rights. I don't want one District Plan per region, I want none. I don't want simpler national rules, standards or limits set by planners, I want none at all, and I want the planners who write them unemployed. This idea of making the enjoyment of property rights a guiding principle of reform is less a guiding principle here than an incantation that, repeated often enough, will allow those sufficiently deluded to be convinced.

But it's not real.

The Bills promise "a fairer system for allocating resources," without defining whose those resources are, why a planner is entitled to allocate them, then admits that it will simply retain the RMA's approach to "allocation" anyway.

This is almost farcical.

The two new replacement Bills do promise "greater clarity and certainty," "clearer direction to decision-makers," and "mak[ing] the system more consistent and predictable." That's two of the four good things that objective law should do. (Protecting rights being the major one, of course, without which....) Big question still is: How?

"The Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill will each have a clear purpose statement that describes what the Bill does." Without seeing the Bill yet, that's just another promise not a delivery.

3:03pm

Am I being too pessimistic? Well, politicians have promised to "fix" this fucking thing for thirty years, and haven't. More than a generation.  They've pledged to "fix," "fudge," "reform," repair," "enhance," and at most they've made changes to make it easier for governments to build. So every promise to date has been bullshit, and this change will likely be the last chance in my lifetime for any genuine change.  To actually have property rights protected in law. And it doesn't look promising.

Tell me I'm wrong. Please.

xxx:00pm

Not much comment in the Twittersphere, which is perhaps a measure of how little interest there is? A few quips that might have legs. Worth pondering ...

It's possible that this last is the only real nod towards property rights—unfortunate really, since 'compensation for takings' is not by any means the same thing as protecting property rights, despite what some people still think.

9:31am:

Twenty hours after the announcement, ACT's Simon Court (said to be ACT's Under-Secretary for Resource Management Reform and praised by his leader as having "driven the change at a detailed level and his contribution is enormous") is barely anywhere to be seen. No press releases on the ACT website cheering about it. No tweets posting about it.  Just two patsy questions to the Minister, two five-minute speeches to the House about infrastructure and transitions, and a three-minute stand-up with his leader.

Is he embarrassed?