Yesterday the ACT party released their alternative budget. Thankfully, it received little attention. But as someone who always keeps one eye on the shambling zombie corpse of libertarianism, I had to have a look. ACT propose ending Working for Families, raising superannuation, and ending interest free student loans, amongst other electoral poisons.
But buried in the details was an interesting tidbit: their policy to mitigate climate change. In an effort to rebrand themselves as more than the party of right wing stoners, educated racists, and the mentally ill, they have gone big and bold: ACT propose eating babies.
Not satisfied with merely stealing their identities, ACT have escalated to baby eating. Of course they don’t call it that explicitly, but it’s there if you read between the lines. Their budget calls it an “innovative policy to address climate change, hunger and overpopulation” … by exorting and eating third world babies. Take this excerpt, for example:
“Opportunity exists for New Zealand to play a vital role in addressing global issues via market mechanisms. For example, emerging markets have a structural overproduction of labour, and insufficient supply of food. ACT propose harmonising these markets by removing legislation that prevents the consumption of excess labour. This policy will provide much needed revenue to people in poorer countries and have positive externalities, including a reduction of CO2 emissions and long-term resource consumption. ACT recommends this policy be adopted by atolls at risk of naturally occurring climate change.”
This makes total sense if you are a consistent libertarian. When asked about the new policy, former leader Don Brash remarked “look, there are a bunch of apparently separate problems here; overpopulation, hunger, poverty, and climate change. Exporting brown babies for consumption from low-lying islands will increase export earnings, provide a rich protein source, and lower the number of future climate refugees.” Vintage Brash. When told that the policy could be construed as offenisve and racist, Brash remarked “it can’t be racist. My ex-wife is from Singapore.”
It’s good to see ACT finally taking their market fundamentalism seriously. Whether the policy gets any traction with the wider public, or is acceptable to National, is another issue though. I suspect the wider public will baulk at the costs at setting all this up, and National will likely argue addressing hunger, poverty and climate changewould endanger the surplus.
But whatever happens, ACT are back!