Looking at the values of the National Party NZ, it is apparent that John Key and his party are not big on principles. Its pure pragmatism. i.e. Try anything once, and if it works, try it again. This is just as anti-intellectual as the ACT Party of course, and it offers no clues as to which direction they are going in...which might explain why John Key has achieved very little. To be fair to him, there is little you can do when you have a high level of private and public sector debt, an embedded welfare mentality thanks to a decade of Labour administration (aka Helen Clark) and a weak global economy resulting is a strong NZD. My sympathies. So what is National's policy direction:
1. The National Party seeks a safe, prosperous and successful New Zealand that creates opportunities for all New Zealanders to reach their personal goals and dreams.
Hmmm...that has the Keyesian 'utopianism' stamped all over it. Safety? I guess they are not a Conservative Party then. Prosperous. How? Well, here are a few clues. They "believe this will be achieved by building a society based on the following values":
2. Loyalty to our country, its democratic principles and our Sovereign as Head of State
Its hard to imagine how nationalism is going to advance the nation. In actual fact nationalism has done a great deal to destroy democracies, because its a form of collectivism, i.e. A repudiation of the 'personal goals' they profess to subscribe to. Sadly they are committed to democracy, which is the contemporary system of extorting wealth from taxpayers, and legitimatising it with notions of 'mandates', the 'common good' and 'majoritism', which is no better than minorities directing your life, and incompatible with their values stated earlier.
3. National and personal security
This is of course personally sensible; but then in NZ was invaded by a group of people professing values of freedom, and a desire to free us from tyranny, I would be on their side.
4. Equal citizenship and equal opportunity
What precisely does equal citizenship mean? Well, rest assured its not equal 'rights', as if that concept would mean anything under National's. Might I suggest it means 'equal slavery' or 'equal suffrage', which is perfectly compatible with their conception. It doesn't suggest freedom, but then I never believed that pretense anyway.
5. Individual freedom and choice
Don't be fooled by this conception of freedom. Its not freedom from imposition; its the freedom from starvation 'unconditionally', i.e. Your freedom to impose on others freedom. This conception is perfectly compatible with National's tyranny. Choice? Well, you have the choice of a two-party majority. i.e. You have a choice of two types of poison, and there is a competition in name only. Both of the main parties are two sides of the same tyranny.
6. Personal responsibility
This is another empty statement because what does 'responsibility' entail? Does it mean being independent, or does it mean being more broadly supportive and responsible for your community. This is deliberately ambiguous. It highlights how much these parties are really trying to avoid any hint of 'ideology', or any desire to stand for anything. Basically they are scared to be labelled because they really stand for nothing, and are not able to defend anything. Its why you will never get any respect from politicians. They stand for nothing, they cannot convince you of anything, so they will only advance a program which gives them the opportunity to extort a position in the political market for themselves. Its a shallow existence of moral relativism; and democracy makes it possible. You ignorant forefathers asked universal suffrage, and they got it; universal slavery. I guess it was not the enfranchisement they wanted.
7. Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement
Its actually difficult to find any prospect of any of the major parties achieving this because none of them have the intellectual capacity to realise why they can't implement this objective. Basically there are 3 reasons:
a. They have no conception of the type of regulation they need. National wants to reduce or obstruct all regulation, and Labour is keen to add more. A distinction needs to be made between protective regulation and distortion. Where does that distinction arise? Well, its a matter of principle, and the major parties are against that, because they are against all 'ideology' which they could be held accountable for. Some of you might repudiate ideology as some 1950s-60s scourge. The reality is that those times were a unfair attack upon liberalism. It was really a disdain for bad ideology - Conservatism vs socialism. It was principles considered out of context.
b. Statutory imposition is not viable as a means of achieving policy objectives because statutory law is arbitrary; and thus it is out of context, so impossible to apply, i.e. Easy loopholed, requiring more amendments to actually catch offenders. Worse still, it actually gives 'offenders' a legal sanction, and causes a great expense to prosecute them through the courts, which you pay for.
c. Their 'moral ambivalence' actually encourages abuses of process which sanction the offenders and cause victimisation. Its no wonder people are cynical and begrudged by the process and want the 'necks of big business', but the reality is, the problem is caused by politicians, who function as salesmen, not moral authorities or statesmen like Thomas Jefferson. Those statesmen are long gone. Sadly, its their legacy which created this system.
8. Limited government
There is no question that National believe in limited government; the problem is they they don't limit it where it needs to be limited, and not in a way which would curtail its growth. The implication is that, by lacking principle, they will never reduce the size of government, nor offer any principled framework for constraining it, which means they pose a threat of escalating fascism, as community desperation growth.
9. Strong families and caring communities
Nice idea, but National does not actually convey a theory of values to actually enunciate what this entails. Let me guess - low crime, no divorces, good Christians who go to church and care for others. Sounds 'pretty', but it will not occur without mass or systematic repression. Japan is the clear example. You want the Japanese system. Well, in Japan people don't divorce because they are can't afford to. Its common for Japanese partners to stay together for functional reasons, not for love, and because they care too much about their reputation. They are so lacking in ambition or personal self-worth, that they live like ants, repudiating any personal sense of value. Caring in Japan? Its a pretense. They lock themselves in their houses to avoid the needy when they call. The US has far higher rates of charity. Its not part of Japanese culture at all.
10. Sustainable development of our environment
What does this mean? The devil is in the detail. There is ultimately no shortage of raw materials for humanity, or energy. We could invest in the technology now if it was a priority. Much fuss is made about resource exhaustion. Paradoxically, it is actually our political system that causes people to engage in such wanton materialism in several respects:
a. Psychological repression as a result of a political system which denies people intellectual engagement forces them to pursue material prosperity as a substitute.
b. Monetary and fiscal stimulus as a means of artificially 'sustaining growth' because they are unable to achieve real productivity gains without artificial means like stimulus and immigration.
c. Inefficient democratic government is the reason why our economy is only able to grow at 2-3% per annum, and is scarcely able to achieve any real productivity gains. The reason is that governments adopt more imposts through statutory law, that the only gains are from takeovers, economies of scale (i.e. population growth) and a little technological gain, i.e. Workers extorting the benefits in many cases, forcing business to engage in unfair market practices. You can see however how the constraints by government force workers and business into conflict, and government, the middleman is not held to account.
So, do I want a National-led government. Its probably the best possible choice of a terrible trio. I would repudiate them all and take to the streets. They are either dangerous or benign, but either way, they are a huge opportunity cost. Don't waste your life. Repudiate them all. Life is too precious. Next we review NZ's Labour Party.