Jamie Whyte preserves the ACT Party's conservatism - libertarians left estranged

Share |

I consider it a fatal flaw in the direction of the ACT Party that they are pursuing a course of action which best depicts the folly of the National Party - the only difference being that their sanction for 'extortion-based' politics is contrived as support for 'small government' when in fact, at issue is:
1. The legitimacy of representative democracy and the extortion it invokes. They support this political game when they cease to make member or constituent views worthy of consideration, simply because they are not popular.
2. The role of government - and not simply the size of it. You cannot know the size of government until you have decided the role.

Now, such issues are seldom discussed by governments, parties or even political commentators. This does not mean that they don't have a view, but it means something; and it can only mean that they think it 'impractical' (or ideological) to consider such issues, or that they are conservatives all to happy to welcome their fate as participants in our contemporary 'representative democracy', which I describe as an extortion racket. They don't see it that way. They think they can redeem the system by appealing to the logic of their counterparts. Nevermind the fact that their opponents don't sanction or entertain reasons; they sanction 'authority' measured in terms of 'numbers' and 'credibility' measured in terms of 'number', 'organisational or hierarchical influence' or plausibly whether you have a 'PhD', but then many people have those these days, and every side has at least one.

So where is the evidence of the ACT Party taking this path. Well, it comes from a recent interview with their two candidates in the forthcoming leadership challenge - to be decided. I have made the argument that the debate or 'battle' has already decided 'epistemologically'; but in a few days, they will make a political decision. So let's examine what was said in an interview with the NZ Herald, and why its important.

“ACT leadership hopeful Jamie Whyte says he does not want to impose his own views about drug liberalisation on to the Act Party. Dr Whyte has been a vocal advocate in the past for the legalisation of drugs on the basis of personal liberty. But he told the Herald this week he was not going to "hijack" the party with a libertarian agenda and push drug legalisation on it”. 

My initial reaction was to say “What is it about politics that makes people sell-out their values”. Jamie Whyte says “He doesn’t want to impose”? Why not, that’s what the ACT Party, in fact all parties, are doing, imposing. That’s what political parties that support ‘popular franchises’ do, they impose their popular views on minorities. That’s how the system is structured. Why can’t Whyte impose his view of drugs on the party with an underlying respect for facts? Is that not what parties are supposed to be about? The ‘virtue’ of the ideas, and not their legacy of historic popularity. At the end of the day, it is the outlawing of drugs which is the 'imposing', and supposedly his role as a 'moral authority' was to defend people's right to smoke pot. For this reason it perhaps requires clarification as to what he means by 'not wanting to impose'. After all someone is deciding ACT Party policy, and if its not a rational perspective, there is no question of avoiding imposition. At issue is whether its justifiable imposition, or simply your garden-variety subjective extortion. But having argued that he supports the right of people to use drugs, he seems to be stepping away from that view because its unpopular with his constituency.
Personally, my love affair with Dr Jamie Whyte was always going to be brief. He has good ‘street cred’ on economics, but his philosophy was always going to disappoint. Sadly, he might not regard himself as a conservative, but he just identified himself as one. i.e. As an intellectual coward. Am I being too hard?
The notion that he is not going to 'hijack the party' might be posturing to placate conservatives. But I would in fact prefer it if he actually just honestly acknowledged that his views are different from most conservatives, and that he would offer explanations for why he holds the views he does, and I'd hope that he would attempt to reconcile his views with others inside the party, and that constituents or members had the opportunity to challenge party policy. That doesn't seem to be happening. This is after all a party 'with an agenda', its just that Whyte is 'disavowing' his hold on it. Maybe its John Boscawen's because he is the main party financier.

"You could not make that Act policy [drug legalisation] and carry the party with you so I am not going to try to make that Act's policy”. 

It bothers me less that he ditched the issue, but rather I’m concerned more by his reasons for doing so. That’s what political leaders do; they make moral cases on issues. i.e. The collect evidence, they make arguments, they listen to arguments. If you can’t make a case to defend the policy, then don’t participate in politics, or alternatively, you castigate the system for not allowing you to make a case to your constituents. There is unquestionably people in the party who are conservatives who belong in the National Party; with a  greater proclivity for "smaller government" than the National Party. But ACT should not be about small government; it should be about government taking its ‘proper role’, whether that role is 'big government' or 'small government', or plausibly 'big government' today but shrinking to 'small government', if at all government in the future.
He says he is not going to try to make [drug legalisation] ACT Party policy because it would estrange members of the party. Clearly Whyte has decided that he is not a libertarian. I don't think you can claw your way back from that position.

“Act held itself together around economics and the role of the state. Focusing on discrepancies within the party was silly”.  

Actually it didn't hold itself together so much as stand on a popularised policy, and fail to deal with less popular, more contentious issues. The reason why it did not deal with the 'drug legalisation' issue is because there had been no resolution. You had party leaders debating their own personal views without having reconciled their views, or made a case within the party to defend them. The problem with this approach is you sabotage debate if you say you won't hold certain values as policy. Calling these contentious issues' or party divisions "discrepancy" is ludicrous. What is the role of political organisations if not to debate the issues. If there is a discrepancy then please elucidate it. That is not an argument for anything. It is an intellectual surrender; a 'conservative' concession to the mindless journalists and voters outside of the party, and those inside the party who retain a conservative perspective, and who don't belong in a libertarian party. If indeed this was ever a libertarian party. Well, it seems therefore that ACT is NOT a libertarian party. It is official. ACT is a 'small government' franchise of the National Party, where people hope for smaller government, but they never achieve it because ideas are vaguely threatening. 

"We don't want to be like the bloody People's Front of Judea [Monty Python's Life of Brian] or whatever it is and splitting off. It's bad enough already”.

No, but we need to ask why people take off and form all-manner of ‘splinter organisations’, and consider the fact that that has already happened. The reason is that there is no attempt to reconcile values. And maybe Whyte is not the person to reconcile arguments if his view is, not to be radical, but to be a ‘National franchise for small government’. My vision of ACT was that it was a party for ideas, a party that honesty and openly entertains different ideas, and by having some respect for people, facts, evidence and arguments, it arrives at policy, using that evidence to defend those values outside the party. But instead, we seem to have adopted the mantra of a conservative party where 'the vaguely threatening, unintelligible, inextricable external world' decides policy because we don't have the confidence to project honesty, integrity or certainty. Perhaps the folly is to think that the debate is to be held in the media, i.e. That the party needs to convince the media that their ideas are good, and therein people like the media's interpretation of the party. This strikes me as a bad approach because the people who take that approach are not going to like the ACT Party's values. This might appear to be a strategy for maligning the ACT Party, but in fact it builds a fan base among those who actually respect ideas. Maybe this party needs to construct its 'constituency' or loyal following among internet friends, and the like, and to simply to circumvent the media, which is becoming an increasing irrelevancy to questions of politics, cited only for talking points rather than for controversial ideas. The contemporary parties are media instruments. I think its folly that drives people to sanction and support these 'media puppets'. That is what they are. The media decides whether a party lives or dies. ACT is dying because it allows the media, who deplores its values, to shape how the world perceives it. Rather than define itself another way, it has instead decided that its going to malign itself to remain 'relevant' to the media. 

"So I have no intention of hijacking the party and ramming a radical libertarian agenda down its throat."

An intellectual defence or argument is not hijacking; its respecting the facts of reality, and making a case for them. The implication is that Whyte’s vision is that he is entrenched in a sceptical view of the world, where, if he can’t reconcile his ideas with others, he just defers to the power of the extortionist, unwittingly giving sanction to the political system of extortion that keeps his ideas at bay. Libertarianism will remain ‘at bay’ as long as he and others ‘sceptically acquiesce’. Now, of course, we as libertarians can go off and form our own groups. Maybe that is indeed what we need to do. We need to stop looking outside; to stop looking to political parties to define our values, and to organise as a group of people without political identity, but with a shared set of coherent & correspondent values, which when we have the support of 5% of the electorate, we might seek representation on the political stage. This is I think a better way to go about this purpose. For this reason, I have established a website and Facebook page. At some point the political system has to be challenged, as constituents in Thailand are currently doing. Democrats in Thailand are standing up to government. Despite having the military on their side, they are not even able to articulate an intellectual argument for their views, and yet they are certain they are against the current system. It may well be that some leaders in fact have a 'purpose' but they don't want to 'impose' their views because people might question the vision. They are not ‘coercing’ they are defending their right not to be a victim. Whyte needs to similarly ask ‘who is imposing upon whom’? Possibly the vision needs to start with his supporters rather than with the general populace. 

Whyte adheres to the principle that "something is good for you if its benefits exceed its costs. Otherwise it is bad for you".

One would have to argue that this is not a profound philosophical statement; it is in fact, a part definition of ‘self-interest’ or ‘the good’, but it’s not even complete, since it neglects to offer an epistemological foundation for one’s interests. This was always the folly underwriting Whyte’s scepticism. This is why he is of the view that life is about leaving other people alone, but he can’t bring himself to defend the idea, because he hasn’t got a working model to go by. He therein renounces his mind, and becomes a conservative. 

“Drug users are simply people for whom the pleasure outweighs the risk of death, illness, addiction and all the rest ... the same is not true of everyone”.

No. Drug users are not thinking about the risks of death, or even getting caught for drug addiction. They are seeking a 'expedited' benefit rather than a long-term one, in the same fashion that a lonely guy might sleep with prostitutes, or a guy lacking self-esteem, might sleep with prostitutes. Its not because they have appraised the risks of prostitution, i.e. Getting aids, otherwise we would all be having sex with kids as they turn 18 years of age, free of the knowledge that they are 'legal targets'. The truth is that most people expect the pleasure or benefits to outweigh the risks; that what acting in one's self-interest entails. This is the type of analysis that makes me question Whyte on psychology. 

“People have just got to believe that it isn't just a vehicle for either careerist politicians or to be used by other parties for their goals - that it is more than that. It really is a party in its own right with strong principles”.

Well, perhaps sceptics need to ask themselves what caused them to become ‘careerist politicians’; how they came to be used by other parties. The reason is:

1. There is no private ‘market’ for skills in extortion and dishonesty that plague ‘practical politics’

2. These people were idealists when they joined the political movement; but in the process of being ‘changed’ by politics, they defined themselves and career direction. In so doing, their values were ‘cemented’. 

The ACT Party has historically defined its ‘strength’ as lying with the balance of power. That is a role vested in extortion. Did the party use that ‘power’ to misappropriate value? Perhaps not, but it apparently uses the same standards to appropriate power, as its unwilling to entertain ideas that it considers ‘unpopular’. The reason why drugs does not get on the table is not because its bad policy; its because no one is prepared to make the case to support it. Jamie Whyte has backtracked on this issue, as Brash and Banks previously did. 

Asian property markets outperforming Japan Foreclosed Guide Philippines Property Guide
Profit from mining with Global Mining Investing eBook

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Dialogue with Don Brash over central bank accountability

Share |

This is a Facebook conversation I had with Don Brash, former Governor or the Reserve Bank of NZ, and former leader of the National Party on the current economic crisis.

Andrew Sheldon talks to Don Brash

Don, do you accept (or better still, have evidence to suggest) that governments (say the US or UK) are too cozy with bankers. When you look at how the US has bailed out the banks rather than plausibly supporting the creditors, might this point to an underhanded relationship between the two...for mutual (dubious, unenlightened) self-interest. And should not have the National Party have anticipated this crisis a decade ago...I know I did with a great many others. Why did NZ, Aust, Canada central bank governors allow it to go on... Perhaps you only want to speak for yourself? But perhaps you could also speak generally.

ADDENDUM: My criticism of US government fiscal and monetary policy extends back to 2000, however I only started blogging in 2005 – and continued my criticism.

Top of Form

Like · · October 11 at 2:46pm ·

Don Brash

Andrew, no, actually I don't think the US and UK governments have had too close a relationship with the banks. The reality is that the banks are at the very heart of the financial system - both the credit system and the payments system. The governments of the US and the UK (and of course of many other countries also) realised that the collapse of their banks would have had an impact on their whole economies which would have been utterly disastrous, so they bailed them out. Should they have regulated them more tightly to avoid the banks getting into trouble? Don't get me started! I blame the collapse of the banks in PART on the policies of some of the governments, in part on the greed and stupidity of some of the banks involved, and in part on the very tight system of regulation which actually led many people to assume taht the banks were effectively government guaranteed.

You ask why did NZ, Australian, and Canadian central bank governors "allow it to go on". I'm not sure I understand your question. The banks in those three countries are among the most robust in the world.

October 11 at 8:58pm · Like

Andrew Sheldon

By the last part of the question, I meant in terms of weighing into US, EU, Japanese govt policy decisions, an independent central bank believing that the substantive financial markets which underpin their demand have a substantive interest in 'sustained growth'. The policies of these govts have undermined global growth...that affects every economy. Say for NZ, does not the central bank have a mandate to preserve growth, thus weigh into international markets which affect their outlook?

October 11 at 9:05pm · Like

Andrew Sheldon I appreciate our banks are fine...more concerned with the broader economy, and the unsustainable interest rates which lured in home buyers, causing injury....not to mention the effects in equities.

October 11 at 9:06pm · Like

Andrew Sheldon We might reasonably expect the IMF to be independent...but sadly their role seems to be compromised by their need for OECD country funding

October 11 at 9:08pm · Like

Andrew Sheldon IMF says very little whilst 9 of 24(?) OECD countries have debts over 100% of GDP.

October 11 at 9:08pm · Like

Don Brash Not really fair Andrew. I've read plenty of IMF Papers which are highly critical of the enormous debts of many OECD countries.

October 11 at 9:19pm · Like

ADDENDUM: So does this reflect on the media’s lack of interest in bad news? Why might that be the case? It was very years ago to find a journalist offering critical views on the economic outlook. One of the few was Max Walsh, Editor-in-Chief of The Bulletin (Australia). Is the editorial content of the media skewed towards good economic news…even though there was a lot of critical economic analysis around from 2005-2008 outside of the mainstream media.

Andrew Sheldon

True, sovereignty lies with national govt...so what about central bank governors...what stops them from being more critical of foreign central banks and govts? They are independent from govt supposedly, so no embarrassment...just political integrity issue. i.e. Would Simon Power get a job with Westpac if he had an unfavourable Commerce Dept policy towards the banks....well, I know the answer because bank fees are a form of extortion...the basis of a class action in Australia as we speak.

October 11 at 9:46pm · Like

Don Brash Andrew, you are certainly right that central bank governors are reluctant to criticise other central bank governors. But who would you like Alan Bollard to criticise at the moment if you had your way?

October 14 at 9:20am · Like

Andrew Sheldon Ben Bernacke, ECB gov, all govts for adopting regulation which distorts rather than protects; for sanctioning extortion or 'numbers' rather rationality as the basis of political discourse.

October 14 at 9:49am · Like

Don Brash

Not sure that I understand your argument Andrew. To the extent that central banks are preoccupied with maintaining the value (purchasing power) of their own currency, I would have thought that most developed country central banks are doing OK at the moment (as measured by inflation, which is the only basis for assessing whether purchasing power is being maintained).

I share your concern that banking regulation may have actually contributed to some of the banking system problems, but central banks are certainly not the only ones (or even the main ones) to blame for the problems in the banking sector. In the US, for example, a lot of banking system problems stem from political pressures since at least the early nineties for banks to make loans to uncreditworthy, and marginally creditworthy, borrowers.

October 15 at 7:32am · Like

ADDENDUM 1: Actually, governments have a monopoly over the initiation of force. It was the Clinton administration who deregulated the banks in the USA; thus we ought to blame there for facilitating the actions of banks, which was largely acting ‘legally’ despite a few exceptions.

ADDENDUM 2: Actually, governments should be preserving a stable or fixed amount of currency relative to growth so that purchasing power actually increases. i.e. The amount of their wealth increases whilst the value of goods remains stable. We currently have ‘flat’ or ‘non-trending’ asset prices, no income growth, and rising product prices. i.e. We have inflation, i.e. Erosion of the real value of goods. It will not readily show up because govt masks the impact of the more volatile factors, i.e. rent, fuel, food,; arguing that they are too volatile to measure. True, but in the long run, they should not be ignored.

How can you be sure of that? How do you measure economic activity efficiently?

Andrew Sheldon

If central banks were duly concerned with preserving - or better still increasing purchasing power (as we live to progress I believe) - they would take measures which achieved maximum, but sustainable growth. Notwithstanding the fact they are confined to monetary policy, as an independent agency, there is no reason they cannot have an opinion on fiscal policy, and offer another element of accountability. Rather than debase their currencies, the US central bank lowered rates to extraordinarily low levels, govts like Aust subsidised great, Fannie Mae was instructed to offer the poor loans, creating a great deal of debt, and only in the last 3 years have we seen debasement of debt with quantitative easing...but there is more to come...causing more inflation. It’s about pushing the trauma into the future. If govt would only stop distorting the economy, each would be able to achieve growth of 8-12%...not the 1-3% we are accustomed to. The idea that we can only grow at these miniscule rates is because of govt...look at the Maritime Transport Act..calls to update it in 1998...its now 2011. It will happen now immediately after the election. Meantime priority 'distractions' for govt - aside from earthquake - rugby, seabed issue. One gets the notion, govt is about putting out fires, placing defensive.

October 15 at 8:13am · Like

Andrew Sheldon

Ultimately, I blame govt for being politicians rather than statesmen. They live within the system, lacking the ideas to change it. The problem is not the central banks per se its the govt which sanctions everything they do...its the idea that people really have any influence; that we have participation, choice?? We don't. We have a pretence of choice. We have a pretense of rationality within parliamentary debate...when really its a 'numbers' extortion game legitimatised by 'participation'. Tell me what participation I had in any piece of legislation. If I make a submission, what option do I have to hear criticism of my submission? None. How am I to know if it’s been read? Can't. There is a short range agenda to stay in power which means 'slow change' rather than selling ideas because our elected MPs have not developed a coherent philosophy before entering politics. I'd actually say you are better than most. But when or if you get substantive influence, you will become inaccessible, and centralised govt and universal suffrage will ensure you are motivated by the wrong priorities. You will become like the NP and Labour - 'constrained' by the system. Banks are custodians...they are not acting in accordance with their fiduciary duties; though you are right, govt requires no compliance from them. Another problem is the unconditional expropriation of wealth by taxation. Unless a voter has the right to renounce their sanction of govt by withholding tax, they are slaves. Representative democracy is slavery; we need a meritocracy where reason is the standard of value.

October 15 at 8:24am · Like

Don Brash

Andrew, I'm afraid I don't have time (and I'm not even in Parliament yet!) to reply to all your arguments. But let me just, in defence of my fellow central bankers, say that central bankers should not be increasing the purchasing power of their currencies (that would mean steadily average falling prices, or deflation). If money is to be used as a store of value, and as a measuring rod, it is important that it neither decreases in value (as with inflation) or increases in value (as with deflation). Most central bankers acknowledge that the only way in which they can help economic growth is by keeping the value of money stable, so that consumers and producers can use the price mechanism to inform their decisions. You obviously fear that successive rounds of quantitative easing will cause inflation. Yes, it may do, but it certainly hasn't done yet, and I strongly expect those central banks which have undertaken quantitative easing to reverse that process at the first sign of inflation.

ADDENDUM: Whose fault is that Don. You joined the ACT Party just 2 months ago, and his is the only opportunity I get to talk to you, and when the questions turn a little hairy, you evade them. That is govt; you don’t need to be a parliamentarian…you think like one merely as a candidate. You are over-qualified…that is the problem.

October 15 at 2:14pm · Like

Andrew Sheldon

Don, there is nothing inherently bad about increasing purchasing power; that is wealth creation. Yes, you can match the growth in money supply to productivity to stabilise prices, but that is not what the Fed Reserve has been doing. It has been stimulating debt levels with unsustainable low rates of interest....now there is a great deal of defaults, so debasement or recapitalisation is necessary to avoid default of that debts, say in USA, EU, etc. Mass transfer of wealth (via extortion). The poor suffer the most. Measures of inflation are entirely selective and arbitrary...just look at MS growth over productivity or economic growth.....to that you say, QE 'might cause inflation'? Ask yourself why QE is necessary at all? Why did asset prices rise so high? And how inflation is avoidable? Inflation will inevitably cause debt defaults among those not propped up. You seem to think there is no causal relationship between MS and productive capacity? It is true strong wealth creation in China and the developing world is offsetting OECD antics...but the relative distribution of capacity is going to create a productivity gap.

October 15 at 4:10pm · Like

Andrew Sheldon Don, the evidence does seem to suggest inflation ahead...this at a time of subdued confidence. Read this inflation news from the UK, and I've seen similar from Australia....

ADDENDUM: Don seems to have stopped talking to me; so because he is focused on getting higher profile attention, I thought I’d bring this to the attention of the media, because they love a controversy.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

How rich people waste their money

Share |

Does NZ have the spare cash to throw around? Can't its millionaires find a more practical project to advancing science or achievement.

Take this recent announcement in the NZ Herald. Some Wellington property developer wants to build the fastest vehicle in the world - faster than the one already going 1200kmph, and yet still finding no practical application. Why do we need another vehicle going even faster if we cannot buy a 1200kmph vehicle? The chalenge is not speed; its unlikely efficiency, as I'm quite sure there is a market for any such craft, even if its only a tycoon's play thing.

Winning the World Cup Rugby will likely make NZ'ers feel proud; but will it make a difference to their lives? Was it their achievement? No? Will it give them greater courage to be an achiever? Not really? They should be able to make any achiever a role model, so the All Blacks are likely only inspiration for other rugby players.

I discourage people from funding such a project. Maybe the crew ought to actually pursue greater advancements than a mere speed increase; and besides the 'cashed up' Aussies are already have a year up on us, since they have similar plans. See Australian land speed record.

What would be a real advancement would be a jet-propelled boat that is sized to ride over waves at those types of speeds without actually touching them. I have no idea if it can actually be done; but that would be a practical application because we really have no need for land-based jet craft; unless we are going to stick them in tunnels. This would actually make sense in NZ - given its elongated shape. The problem of course is that it would be a pretty low-capacity and expensive infrastructure to develop because only one craft could use a segment of it at one time, and it would have to be >500km long in order to offer benefits. No, I suspect aviation is the proper place for speed records; not the confines of tunnels, nor the 'perfect land conditions' of some salt lake in Nevada. This is just a waste of money.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com