Labour Party policies

Share |

Labour Party policies or values would have to be the weakest of the major parties and here is why. They don't even profess to represent anything. I looked around their webpage and could find no hint of principles or values. Just a lot of reactionary slogans and placards. Phil Goff is really doing a poor job. Based on Australian precedent, we might expect a late change in leaders, and this new leader might just benefit from the 'honeymoon period'. It is hard to see how that could get them the leadership though, as John Key makes the better presentation. He is very believable as a leader. All that Phil Goff can do is criticise him from being 'too pretty'. Hardly a winning argument.

What we can garner from the Labour Party website is the party's:

1. Opposition to privatisation: This strikes me as silly for several reason. Everyone is well versed with the value of privatisation in terms of resulting in better service, more vibrant corporate activity and innovation. It avoids constraints of the enterprises capital expansion. The only reasons to retain their investment is: If the asset is not fully valued. The stronger argument though is to avoid a conflict of interest, i.e. Non competitive practices, market participant and regulator. The problem is less of a problem given that the government's participation is largely passive. My concern is the structure of the privatised industry is more critical than whether the players are private or public. Basically, the argument is over the wrong issue.

2. Fairer tax system, increase jobs: There is a real difficulty creating jobs in NZ, so its hard to see how a 'fairer tax system', i.e. higher corporate and progressive income tax structures are going to increase jobs. In fact, it is likely to be an incentive for more NZ'ers to leave the country. That would mean fewer jobs. The idea of taxing $150,000 incomes at 39% would force people to adopt corporate structures again to reduce their tax. The notion that this would cover a GST exemption for food strikes me as nonsense. Unless they means test it??

3. Taxes on capital: NZ has no tax on capital gains. This is actually an appealing policy for immigrants coming to NZ, who can leave their assets offshore. Labour is looking at adopting a 15% capital gains tax. Given that much of these assets have been acquired unfairly, strikes me as a reasonable source of income, even if the expenditure is unreasonable.

What you realise with Labour is that they cannot even get their web marketing together. There is this site Our Own Future and Labour Party. Its poorly conceived, and is that all they can say about policy. How uninspiring. I swear that is the only policy I can see details on. It seems to be a global Labour Party trick to pull policy out of the hat at the last moment to avoid controversy or accountability.

I frankly think that they might be on a winner with a capital gains tax. Not because I want to see a capital gains tax, but simply because land, the principle source of asset, is a system of extortion. Land speculation does not produce anything and means working people are effectively subsidising the landowners easy lifestyle. I support property rights, but only insofar as they apply to 'improvements', not land. Land was acquired by grant or subsidy; and later-day citizens are being extorted when they buy it.

Frankly, they would drop the GST, adopt a capital gains tax, and adopt a $5,000 tax free exemption. Its currently $2500 I think. I am actually expecting Labour to do better than the polls suggest. I think I'd prefer Labour based on these policies.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

Policies of National Party NZ

Share |

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.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

Artists: Its not just about the money!

Share |

The last thing we need is the government picking winners....even those people who profess or appear to be worth the effort. Successful recording artists are highly lucrative. Why does government need to finance them? If you want to sanction the support of artists et al, then I suggest you invest your own money in these artists. My suggestion is - request a share of the royalties - say $5 for every dollar invested in their first album, $3 from their 2nd album, $1 from every sale from their 3rd. That seems fair! Just in case they are a one-race horse.

Is it plausible that Pip would write better music if she struggled with the need to pay her own way? No one writes lyrics about how they lived off the government. Is it possible that she did not write the lyrics she professes to 'feel'. Feel it girl...feel it! Feel the pain of taxpayers paying your way. My guess is - living overseas is part of the process of forgetting that others paid for her 'success'. That goes for all those artists who look to government for support, or sanction governments who support them and others. Its not about giving. Its about the 'taking' that makes this giving possible.

Spare a thought for those struggling to survive on the money they actually earned during this recession who cannot afford Pip's album. Even if they attended one of her free concerts, if she offers them to investors, I wonder if the message of her lyrics is...how do I got money from the government. Nope....no one sings about that. You might wonder. I reckon I could string together a swanky tune. Are you the type of cynics to request a verse?

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

Photos of Christchurch at its best and worst

Share |

Interested in seeing some photos of the Christchurch historic buildings before and after; take a look at these photos. It must be acknowledged that these buildings appear to be only superficially damaged. The problem is the structural integrity might be compromised. It was a very shallow earthquake, only 10km from the city centre. It could not have been much worse because the earthquake occurred during the day, so there is probably 300-odd people dead. It would have been worse perhaps if it was not lunchtime. If it was nighttime, maybe only 30 people would have been killed. It was very unlikely to have a direct hit on the city centre like this. It is unlikely to get any worse....unless Wellington is next. That would be truly dire....though I would not miss the destruction of the NZ parliamentary building...preferably when it is sitting. Sadly, NZ has not been been having much luck lately.

Anyone retaining some sense of loyalty to their political masters ought to reflect on:

1. Their lack of accountability

2. Their capacity to extort wealth from people

3. Their lack of principles

4. Their lack of honesty

I must say, I am far more impressed by leaders in local government. The mayor of Christchurch does a far better job. Might that be because local government leaders are less able to side-step issues; or maybe its because people are not forced to 'choose', so each vote becomes more real. Or maybe its because their taxing powers are much more restricted. In any respect, its not a desirable system....and a spin off from the main game. Want a conception for a better NZ - consider this blog.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

New Zealanders support current voting system

Share |

New Zealanders are a flawed people. There first mistake is finding any utility in democracy. Despite that, they have the good sense to see value in retaining the MMP voting system. The appeal of this system is that it gives new, emerging parties a greater chance of being elected, and finding representation....if that is a good thing. It is good in one respect - it offers the prospect of greater competition. The contemporary two-party system is not competitive....least of all when politicians are getting a lifetime pension. There is considerable incentive for the parties to preserve this entrenched system, so expect the major parties to form coalitions in order to retain their 'relevance'.

Clearly the problems in the ACT Party did not change their view of the MMP.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

Was NZ’s Pike River coal mine disaster a blunder?

Share |

I am terribly suspicious of the decisions made culminating in the recent UG coal mine disaster on the West Coast of NZ.

Firstly, I tend to think the company is doing the right thing in terms of the rescue.

I don't know the specifics of the mine layout, but I tend to think mine gas concentrations are going to be lowest immediately after an explosion. The problem is that the ventilation units are likely damaged, so pertinent points in the mine are not accessible until they can develop a drill hole vent to pump air through the desired area. It’s a long wait...but perhaps they will walk out in the meantime. Maybe the 39 miners are injured or trapped; hopefully not fatalities.

Secondly, I am suspicious of the decision-making prior to the accident.

The mine operators ought to have had communications in place. This might point to the fate of the miners, an unfortunate locating of communications, damages to the communications equipment (unlikely) or to a failure by the operator to install such safety measures. This is all speculation of course...better considered after the rescue is completed.

This is why a rescued miner may have pointed to the need for mine inspectors in NZ...as is common in other countries. NZ seems to learn from its disasters. The reality is that NZ has a very small coal mining industry, so perhaps this cost saving was imprudent given the risks involved in coal mining from coal gas explosion/ignition. Basically its easy for coal seam gas to explode at concentrations between 13-45%CH4 (if memory serves me).

If communications were in place and working, and the trapped workers conscious, this could have determined whether rescuers should enter.

I am suspicious because the Pike River Coal publicity machine is trumpeting the “caringness” of its CEO. Seldom is a mine accident the result of an uncaring CEO. More often its caused by CEOs & executives who can't/don't see around corners, i.e. anticipate the dangers, or who place safety after more tangible and immediate concerns like profitability or meeting budgets. This mine was failing to achieve profitability. Were short-cuts taken? Did they promote a ‘caring local’ guy over a competent 'outsider' in order to keep wages down? After all, the local guy was 'friends' with the workers. Suspicious. If I was a journalist, I would be looking at his prior mine experience. Seldom is a miner elevated to a CEO position. One has to ask why? Financial motives? The reason why I say this is because it’s a small mining community where workers can easily extort higher wages...a 'friendly' CEO is the obvious antidote if you care little about safety. Of course safety is not the sole consideration. The question is whether financial considerations were overwhelmingly the big issue. The absence of a mine inspectorate/regulator creates the perfect storm.

The problem as I see it is that no one wants to speak badly of a company when the govt is implicated (as regulator), i.e. Mine safety personal/consultants cannot expect a job in the future if they start criticising company policy. Lax govt regulation is the likely culprit....though unions too could have done more as custodians of worker's interests. Govts are useless regulators..well useless at everything..Why we pay taxes??

Is the Keys government or NZ Oil & Gas (i.e. the largest shareholder in Pike River Coal) to blame? Hard to say..though if I was a journalist, I would be doing a lot of sniffing around whilst the workers are underground. It is not my intent to implicate the company, unions or others. I am developing a scenario. It does need more empirical evidence. I also tend to think companies have a lot of unreasonable burdens placed upon them, and it is middlemen like govt and unions which tend to precipitate these problems. These two agents extort money from people through coercion. They force companies and workers to do things which they would not otherwise do. If the government is to blame, one might be more inclined to blame Helen Clark's administration, since it had 10 years to do something. Keys is less implicated...just 2 years in power, and 1 year dealing with a recession. But he is an investment banker...sorry salesman, so he was never the person to fix the problem. But of course he will have a compelling reason now....after the fact.

There is of course a huge conflict of interest in government being the regulator and the law maker. This conflict is never resolved because it does not serve government to resolve it.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

NZ taxing tourism might cause problems

Share |

Is the NZ government pricing NZ out of the market? The NZ government has recently increases the GST tax rate t0 15%. Clearly the NZ government recognises that NZ is not earning enough, so is not therefore in a position to pay for services. Consumption taxes are one way to go to rein in budget deficits....but are they the best way to go. There are reasons to wonder.

1. Tax on spending: We might argue that NZ'ers spend too much....but really the greater issue is that they earn to little, that they cannot sustain those expenses.

2. Tax on tourism: One of the growth markets for NZ has been its tourism industry. Is that inclined to stay true if the government takes the easy steps of hiking consumption taxes, and then offsetting them with tax breaks for the lower income earners.

The problem is that in the context of a stronger NZD, tourists might reflect on NZ beyond the 'pretty pictures' and see that the country offers no job prospects, higher costs of living (because tourists are unfairly burdened relatively) and decide to go elsewhere. It is not even that NZ is 'so expensive', it is that its pretty expensive already to get here, and its at the 'arse end of the world'. We might ask where the government is positioning itself. The NZ is too small to interest most business people. It is increasingly expensive for students any young adults. Its so far away for busy travellers and the NZD is higher than average. So we might ask... Is NZ pricing itself out of the market?

Shouldn't the government be trying to raise the earnings potential of NZ jobs? There are signs that they are doing this. I can see that they are getting rid of disability pensions, and requiring people to show proof of working, or trying to find work. This government is the best government NZ has had in a while...but is it acting quick enough? Is its reforms as comprehensive enough? On some levels they are very good, but on some issues they make a poor case.

1. Binge drinking - too pissed

2. Speed limits - too cautious and non-intellectual

3. Consumption tax - reactionary

4. Regulation- very poor

5. Infrastructure - its building roads when it should be building fibre networks. The population is hardly growing...why build roads? This creates jobs in the wrong areas.

The trend is good...its just the rest of the world is moving as well, and NZ is at the 'arse end' of it. It needs to do it better. We need to recognise that costs are going up everywhere, and there are many ways to travel around a country. The best way to travel around NZ is to go to a car auction and buy a van...sleep in the back of it. Sadly, that route might become illegal given the complaints over 'stranded turds' in picnic and car parking areas around NZ. Not pretty. I guess one of those 'negative externalities' arising from tax or cost changes and new technology.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

Unjust speeding tickets legislation in NZ and Australia

Share |

I have some strong views against the punitive speeding tickets, parking fines legislation stretching over several countries.
My concern is:
1. The punitive nature of the action - often there is no intent to speed, and it can hardly be construed as 'negligence' to wonder over the limit if the conditions justify it.
2. The lack of effective recourse - who wants to waste time going to court to save $150
3. The arbitrariness of the legislation, ie. In Australia I was fined for speeding going up a steep hill, when the steep limit is the same going down the other side. The limit was artificially low.
4. The arbitrariness of cameras - particularly in Australia - I was caught driving out of a town at 70kmph when the conditions were excellent, i.e. up hill, good clearance, fine weather, good road
5. The lack of scientific validity for the claims made, ie. Where is the evidence that 'speed kills'. I would argue this legislation is an over-simplification used by govts to raise taxes. NZ is going the same way as Australia. I can't live there any more. Its like living in police state.
6. Externalities - After I was caught for speeding, I was driving a further 5 hours in a state of stress. What about the sudden braking in response to 'natural' fears about a speeding camera. or the paranoia about police cars everywhere. Everyone's driving ability is different. If there is no scientific basis for the legislation, there will be harmful externalities. Another is my loss of confidence in government, the political system. The accountability that society has is under-funded, arbitrary, and loop holing.
7. Unfairness - The way this legislation attacks people of principle and the poor, as opposed to pragmatic & wealthy souls who give it no mind. Yes, we want more mindless people in society, and we want fewer critical thinkers because we live in such a workers paradise. Some people can't afford the cost of living in a police state.
8. The disparity in application - The police drive with impunity. Years ago I went on a skiing trip in Australia with police recruits. They were drinking whiskey whilst driving 100kmph on a back country road. In northern NSW, a local policeman warned drinkers in a pub that he would be watching a certain road on Melbourne Cup day. Meanwhile, outside Taree NSW, a local policeman patrols the highway because he does not want the discomfort of catching locals and potential friends. Justice is hardly served by either practice - cameras or no cameras. Give the policeman a clever answer and you escape punitive damages.
Perhaps you were thinking that these 'unmeasured' externalities are worth it. Think again. The fall in the road toll is not because of compliance with speed limits, it is because of the gradual improvement in roads as we straighten precarious highways, upgrade to dual-carriage ways, adopt road partitions to stop head on collisions, which have more to do with distraction and tiredness than anything else. A group that is less responsible are drinkers, particularly teen drinkers. Clearly there is a problem with this group, who don't care about the legislation anyway. This group needs special attention, but I would argue their 'rebellious' attitudes are more a response to the 'arbitrary' and punitive nature of our justice and policing system.

I do want to look at this issue in more detail - here is the statistics for NZ.

This legislation is poorly targeted and needs changing. The Consumer NZ non-profit group needs your support, and I suggest providing your insights to marc@consumer.org.nz.
---------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The problem in NZ politics - ok Western democracy

Share |

This instance highlights the lack of integrity in the Maori Party, but most particularly the parliamentary process since this behaviour is typical of politicians. Tariana Turia is the co-leader of the Maori Party. But she is also a minister in the NZ coalition with the National Party. In a recent parliamentary vote she was obliged to depart from her party position (which she supported) in order to vote with the government (ie. National Party).
The issue was the policy initiative of the National Party to limit assistance to single mothers I think to dependents less than 6 years of age. The stupidity of the system is that this is actually encouraged, and worse still because it is deemed acceptable.

Do we have any hope of good policy when:
1. Ministers are more loyal to the Cabinet than their own principles
2. Ministers sacrifice the interests of one group for the sake of another
3. Policy issues are decided by votes (i.e. numbers) rather than reasons or principles (concepts)
4. Minister self-interest is about retaining one's career.

The implication is that the system actually rewards such displays of disloyalty. This is the problem with the system and it needs to change. I don't know why people are so proud of our democracy. Any idiot should be able to see how rediculous the system is. It actually rewards bad behaviour.

Mauri party seats on Auckland City Council

Share |

There is a debate raging in NZ over whether Maoris should have seats on the Auckland City Council. The arguments between vested interests appear to be divided over:
1. Democratic representation: This argument holds that we live in a democracy, and the principle of democracy is that each person has a vote, irrespective of their race.
2. Treaty settlement: This argument holds that Auckland is not simply about democratic traditions, but rather was the result of a Treaty settlement with the original inhabitants of the area.

The problem I have with each of these arguments is the following:
1. Democracy is not a desirable political system in as much as reason is not the standard of value. Numbers matter more than reasons, so I would argue that Maoris have too much 'numbers' power in the Greater NZ political system, so I would not be so keen to offer Maoris a similar share of a bad system. Having said that, Maoris should have a voice in a system where reason is the standard.
2. Auckland is not a national government. There is a great deal of difference between a national government which subsumes universal education, defence, etc policies and a regional government which tends to dictate land use patterns. I think there is an important distinction to be made in terms of traditional Maori issues, and the origin of those issues. I think Auckland is a Western 'modified environment', so it ought to be evident that it should be driven by Western values, not Maori values. That said, Maoris still have a presence in Auckland. They therefore ought to have recourse through the court system, and of course they do on matters of principle.
3. Maori Party is not necessarily representative. The Maori Party does not necessarily represent all Maori people, even if most Maoris do vote with the party, there should be no necessity that they do. Clearly a push by the Maori Party for more representation in the Auckland City government is an attempt to get more 'arbitrary' power. What is really needs, and only has a right to is the power and influence of a better argument. Judging by their lack of 'influence' in national politics, they would hardly be the best custodian of Maori interests anyway. That is of course the decision of Maoris to decide, and to the extent that democracy and legal provisions offer that participation, that is the sensible approach. Of course I maintain my objections to democracy. Its a poor system that shackles the creative genius of the human mind.

In conclusion the Maori Party does not deserve seats on the Auckland City Government. If it wants to protect the interests of its people, it should engage with the national government on sovereign issues. It could greatly benefit by engaging in judicial activism.

Want to learn about a better system? Read here.