Who to vote for in New Zealand's Sept 2014 national election

Share |

There are a great many political parties offering their services in this coming Sept 2014 national election in NZ. I will at this point offer my thoughts on each of the parties. I'm not going to offer a comprehensive outline of all their policies simply because that would be a waste of your time and mine. The reason we can quickly dispense with some parties is simply because of their values. So lets begin.

The Labour Party, the NZ First Party, the Mana Party and the Greens Party are a pack of extortionists who seek to incite their constituents to threats of violence through political sanction. By that I mean they give people a political justification to think that its ok for them to extort wealth from taxpayers for their benefit. This is why:
1. Labour Party has union affiliation; why they seek minimum wages which are above the market rate, and basically jump on every issue which gives them an 'angle' to incite fear in people's minds. The most recent example is the TPPA. I actually have some sympathy for their position; but their position is to elicit a fear response; for you to vote for them. They are not going to solve the problem.
2. Mana Party is of course an extortion party for Maori in NZ. Their intent is to instigate claims of injustice and entitlement. Of course, if you were here first, then you can make all-manner of claims because you are the start. In the same way that, if you believe in Jesus, you created everything, so everyone should be beholden to you. There is no end and no limit to how much you can claim. It can border on the ridiculous, and it does, simply because 'more ridiculous' equals more votes, since supporters can feel morally vindicated by compromising from the ridiculous. Every claim to spiritual deprivation strangely reduces to a question of money and property claims, despite being a culture that never recognised such concepts.
3. NZ First peddles the same type of policy. In their case, they like to appeal to the fears and apprehensions of a different group of anti-intellectuals, namely people who covet national pride or patriotism as virtues. These people hark back to the good old days when NZ had a national railway system, a prosperous agricultural sector, and a great standard of living. They don't ask why this has all turned to dust; they just want it back. Now NZ First's solution is to disparage people whom they consider to have caused the problem. So immigrants are bad for stealing jobs and buying up NZ land. This type of policy proscription does not solve the problem; it treats the 'symptoms'. We need Asians because Kiwis are going abroad. The issue of how to make NZ a better place is lost on them. They are clueless, and have no sound arguments to resolve the grievances of their constituents; but since their members are clueless too, its a compelling myth.
4. Greens Party are a package of deceit in the sense that they have two schemes on the go. They each resolve around certain issues - and good examples are:
      a. Animal rights - This issue is appealing for them because its an appeal to emotion and altruism. People love their pets. They have an intrinsic love of life; so the idea of caring for animals is a lovely source of joy for them. The idea is that we would all be better off it we cared for our animals. The fact that we mistreat animals because we renounce 'self', and the greatest expression of self, is the application of one's mind. Anyway, that's too much 'cold hard logic' for them. That's not to say all of them are morally ambivalent. Some of them have evolved as well...which is a good thing, because it means they are more deceptive in their 'honest' engagement. Their illusion is more sophisticated.
       b. Climate change - The strategy is a scare campaign. What is more interesting with this issue is that it arises from the fact that liberals have evolved. A decade ago, it was hard to take liberals seriously because they did not care for rational arguments, evidence or debate. They simply knew bad things were going to happen. End of the earth from asteroids, ice age, and now greenhouse effect and of course contagion. Now, however these liberals have 'evidence' and 'arguments' that at face value 'look scientific'. They cite scientific papers, they use big words, and by shear weight of their numbers, they convey that there is a considerable weight of support behind their view. You are supposed to simply conclude...."So many people believe it; it must be true". The problem is that science is not a matter of popular opinion. Science is not conducted in the newspaper, and even imminent scientists, or those who profess to be, are not special. They just have an opinion. The implication is that it only takes one opinion to discredit all others. Ask yourself why these liberals are taking their argument to the media. The reason is because they want to 'extort' influence. They are really non-scientists who were given a 'green card' by an academic institution.

Now, in fairness to these parties, they don't have completely illegitimate or ill-founded issues to resolve; the problem is the manner in which they go about things and why. For instance, the Mana Party seems completely satisfied to have land locked up in trusts where it does not help its people, but as their people's leaders; they have complete control, and are able to pay themselves nice salaries, as well as paying themselves loans as well. The same for Labour Party. The Labour Party is taking on the TPPA issue, and it can incite a lot of fear over a document which is destined to prove contentious; but the reality is that its never going to address the real nature of that problem, and that is that statutory laws cannot resolve legal conflicts. Its context-dropping dogma that invites loopholing and injustices for both sides on any issue. The Green Party is not unwarranted in seeking clean rivers, kindly treatment of animals or the preservation of the earth. We cannot dismiss the fact that there is more plastic in the oceans, mistreatment of animals and polluted rivers. The problem is their approach to the issue. Its based on extortion, and the reason you can question their intent is because of the nature of their proscriptions for solving the problem. Its about renunciation, taxation and its always targeted at 'big business'. Big oil is a popular target. "Big oil" only produces the stuff; they never target the consumer. They are not interested in educating the consumer; they want to use politically-sanctioned government to extort power. By doing so, they get you paying money and potentially more lucrative amounts from corporations. Their 'feel good' campaign becomes a 'brand' to extort. If you want an inkling of how insidious it is, you can see how 'Cancer Foundation' brands can be used to vet products. These foundations can be used to 'extort' support. You give them money, and they give you profile. You as a consumer are probably not inclined to examine the legitimacy of the claims to 'good health'. That value is open to the foundation's interpretation, or a paid academic perhaps. Its all pretty sordid. It may not be illegitimate; but the risk is there. Some will argue that these are voluntary associations, so they are ok. I will however argue that their scam is akin to defamation, and should be open to prosecution for the same reason. This is an intellectual failing within the libertarian movement that rests on not identifying the underlying principles justifying their values. But that problem is not going to be resolved before this election, so let's put that aside.
I would also mention that groups of extorters can team up like bullies in school, or gang bangers in a football team, in an attempt to gain the balance of power. The problem is that the less credible smaller parties tend to get treated with disdain, so these members are destined to 'behave' for a time, and join the National Party. By joining the Nationals, Mana gains more influence with Labour in coming elections, but given that National posits as the 'prudentially' responsible party, Mana is actually winning credibility from that association as well. And aren't they well-behaved!

This brings us to the next group of candidates. Now, these parties tend to be defenders of individualism, aspiration and wealth creation. The first group of parties want to reshape the distribution of the 'wealth pie', whereas these parties are more interested in 'growing the pie'. Their focus is on economic growth, and to varying degrees, upon property rights to achieve that. There are several parties in this latter category, namely: National Party, Conservative Party, NZ Tea Party, Internet Party and ACT Party. Looking at them individually:
1. National Party - The National Party is a centerist party. They attempt to be all things to all parties. Their game is 'keeping it real'; simple practical/pragmatic messages to keep the balance of power. Their focus is on aspiration and austerity because its a source of credibility and 'faith' in a better future. But if there is a big-spending Labour Party; watch how quickly they abandon that premise. Fortunately after a period of largesse, they can normally count upon their fellow 'aspirants' who are peaceably retaining the 'faith'. You are not going to see libertarians or conservatives out in the streets campaigning. They are more likely to repress their disdain, or throw a tantrum and head off overseas.
2. Conservative Party - This is a new party, and of course you'd need some Christian faith to expect small government. The problem for this party is that Christian Conservatives simply lack the intellectual fortitude to defend their policy, so they are always destined to lose credibility. Their dogmatic proscriptions will draw attention to the lack of defensive for their ideas. Its not to say that all of their ideas are indefensible; but simply that they don't display the intellectual coherency to confidently and realistically assert their policy ideas. In fairness their counterparts on the left are equally impaired; but the scepticism on the left at least means that they retain the tragic vote when ideas prove unfounded. The Conservative Party has a solid lead so far. Like Family First in Australia, expect them to get a big lead in this election, but watch how their support base flounders in the next election.
3. NZ Tea Party - This party is not getting any profile yet - maybe it doesn't have the members to even be a party, but it is really just another Conservative Party. Looking at their policies it is apparent that they suffer the same illusions as the Conservative Party. They will sink without a high profile supporter with money.
4. Internet Party - Speaking of money and high profile, we have Kim Dotcom's party. There is a lot to be concerned about, but also a lot to praise with the Internet Party. Foremost, you have to love the charisma of the guy. But charisma tends to lead a party into a bubble mania that ends up exploding like a space shuttle. The problem is policy integrity or credibility. He is a guy who is associated with copyright breaches. In fairness, its not as if its a fair regime, but then he does not seem to be adding to the dialogue for a better system. He is making a lot of money out of it. A digital currency - that's great! The problem is that we effectively have one now. That's not a source of discipline. Spying is actually not a problem either; its the arbitrary law that makes it possible. He wants to support high-value tech jobs. That's fine, but he wants to subsidize such practices. The reality is that its not a bad idea if it works, but why is this a role for government. We are to believe because an internet guru is canvassing it. But can he make money without facilitating piracy? Now, the fact that politics gives Dotcom profile cannot be lost as he backdoor lists his Mega company. He also stands to benefit from political influence, but really at issue is the use of populist proscriptions, and the lack of detail. There is no question that the nation needs competition in political discourse, but it needs more 'rational' details people, not rhetoric from populists. In Dotcom's defence; he means what he says, but he's not saying much, and he's ultimately going to be serving his own agenda. His policy proscriptions attempt to bridge left-right anarchists, so there is no question he is appealing to the youths of NZ who hate their conservative parents, and older ambivalent souls. I think there is a market for them, as long as they don't stray into broader policy subjects. If they attempt to be more than their 10 point plan, I think they will lose their market. I can see them getting 4-6%, which is perhaps why they are talking to the Mana Party to make sure. This however is a dangerous move; and likely a mistake because it takes the party out of its '10 steps' to success. I think this party will be forced to evolve, and in doing so, I think it will be forced to turn left or libertarian. I think it will be left, and I think it will amalgamate with probably with the Greens Party.
5. ACT Party is perhaps the weakest party at this stage, however I would argue that is actually a positive for them because they are a 'cleaner' party in terms of the values they espouse, and the identity they project. This is the first time I have observed a libertarian party spurn its 'conservative roots' in an attempt to develop coherent policy. It is however not all good news because they are still beholden to MMP for Epsom. Its akin to a dirty secret (actually its no secret at all) that everyone accepts because it keeps the 'aspirants' in power, and of course that is a good thing. ACT will develop a very loyal following if they continue on that path. The problem is that their support base is youths who don't take the time to vote, and they don't necessarily develop their minds to a point where they can sustain the belief. This party cannot just be the 'party for principle', it has to be the party for 'principled education'. It more than any other party needs to develop campus groups, and to spread those to other communities. The problem is that there are too many conservatives in the party looking for 'results'. It is their influence which is destined to see conservatives placated. They need to abandon that tact because conservatives will vote 'Conservative', and that is where they belong. Is there hope of 'educating' conservatives. No, there is not. The political system does not permit that. That will only happen in the community when there is an on-going engagement with people. Such influence cannot be rushed.

In conclusion, I believe people should vote for an aspirational party; and I think that whilst there are a number of them, ACT is the only one who can defend their policy platform, and thus act as a meaningful defender of 'liberal principles'. This they do to varying degrees of success. For instance, I was rather disappointed with ACT's debate (Jamie Whyte vs Norman Russell) with the Greens Party. I shall post a link to my repudiation of the Greens position. This however is Greens flagship policy, so it was critical for ACT to undermine them on this because there are a lot of votes in Greens for ACT. The problem is that Jamie is not a scientist; he comes from an economics/philosophy background. I'm all three.

There is an old adage from Edmund Burke that reads:

Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

The problem is that the exponents of good values are only as useful as their last battle, and if they have not confronted their opponents, then they are not always prepared for their policy, and they may not get another opportunity to rectify it. ACT in its glee at getting exposure has given Greens a lead, and they may not get the same exposure to correct that mistake. They need to be prepared on these issues.

Disclosure: It was a tantrum that brought me to NZ. It was Australian politics which caused it.

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

Dr Jamie Whyte is the new leader of the New Zealand ACT Party

Share |

It seems Dr Jamie Whyte is the new leader of the ACT Party. I have mixed views after reading his book and his latest news statements. Certainly he is a shift in the right direct in terms of ideology; though I suspect he might fall prey to the idea that the electorate is stupid, so you have to pull the wool over their eyes.

In any case, I can understand the desire to 'placate conservatives' who are perhaps an important element of the party. The problem is that I suspect this is a precursor to a wholesale sell-out. I'm not sure the extent to which is 'posturing' or 'coaching' conservatives, who would otherwise be destined to join the Conservative Party. I actually think it would be a good idea if religious and other dogmatists joined Conservatives and left ACT to intellectual libertarians, then they might both get 5 seats. There is a large market to be developed here; particularly among youths, and particularly online.

Went to the beach today; surprised that a former National Party supporter now votes Green (a former farmer). Unbelievable how they are losing supporters....to the Greens???

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

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

ACT Party confronts leadership choices before Sunday

Share |

In recent weeks I have been excited with the prospect that NZ's ACT Party would have a new leader. More exciting perhaps was the prospect that there was the knowledge that there was a candidate that did not come from a traditional political background; a 'careerist politician', but rather someone who'd lived in the world, knew economics, philosophy, who had a real job, and moreover, had sensible values because of it. More refreshing still was the fact that that he had written a book 'Free Thoughts', so I would have the opportunity to get inside of his mind. This was a rare opportunity. I've never known a politician to be so open at the start of their career. Most wait until the end before they'd ever allow themselves to be 'pegged'. Well, its probable that Jamie Whyte never intended to be a politician. Still, honesty is a great path, but can he stay on it.
I am speaking of ACT Party presidential candidate Dr Jamie Whyte. His book is available at the Adam Smith Institute. I have not only read the 220-odd pages of this book, but I have critiqued it. This is what philosophers should do. In doing so, I was able to arrive at some startling conclusions:
1. Jamie Whyte has a magnificent capacity to make complex issues seem simple. This is great for articulating ideas; as long as you do justice to the ideas.
2. Whyte has a great understanding of economics, and he's pretty handy at politics too. I am less comfortable with his understanding of psychology and philosophy, but then that debate will have to wait for an issue to make the point.

Now, I am a person who really gets excited when someone like Whyte comes along. Maybe my expectations were always too high; or maybe I simply did not identify what was destined to become of him. i.e. How he was destined to reconcile the views outlined in his book with this political system. On some level I was apprehensive or suspicious about his intellectual roots. He identified himself as a supporter of Frederick Hayek. In some respects, I was always going to have a problem with his views. Indeed, I expected it. I in fact told myself that Whyte was a necessary precursor to people like me. I must say that, having been confronted his views, I'm having less success reconciling and accepting them as I see the concrete implication. Not because 'I'm extreme', but I'm having trouble accepting that any good can come out of his strategy. This strategy of placating 'popular support', or conservatism, arises from the belief that 'you can't change people's minds. You need to compromise. But you might ask whose views are changed, or what values are served, when:
1. You betray your values
2. Your views are examined by journalists who have no compunction but to deride you (because they hold opposing views) because they find contradictions
Why is it that no one gets to argue that "Its not my fault; its the systems?"
"The system made me betray my values".
Its an understandable argument that never gets made. I wonder if Jamie Whyte will get the chance to make this argument, and whether anyone will listen or care. I guess its ultimately the journalists who will decide if anyone cares, by thinking him important enough to write an article about him.

Based on this interview in the NZ Herald, my initial critical view was that 'this is not good', that this is a sell-out, or a betrayal of party principles. Well, its hard to argue that because this party has long been a 'sell-out' defined by 'conservative interests'. This is the price it seems that ACT pays for its coalition with the National Party, or is the problem simply that the ACT Party executive and board want to be 'more relevant', and to them that simply means being 'popular', by appealing to the self-evident values of people. The problem I have with this argument is that parties therein become 'creatures of populism' rather than ever acquainting themselves or their constituents with any values. Show me a party that discusses values. They don't. They extort or command influence, or demand it. They appeal to the 'common good' as if they knew what it meant, or they spoke for it. I know they don't, because I know that there is no such thing as a 'common good'. There is only the presumption of some person's good to be won at the expense of anothers. That is what extortion does. It does not win the argument; it circumvents the need to even discuss ideas by threatening people with adverse consequences if they don't agree, or it can simply presume to represent the interests of anyone who subscribes to some aspect of their policy position. This 'rough & ready' perspective of "representation" is a failure when any system of representation. It is ultimately an argument for voluntarism. Jamie Whyte says in this article:

“He does not want to impose his own views about drug liberalisation on to the Act Party".

The implication is that this is not a party for debating ideas; that this is a party where some people's ideas take precedence over others, even someone seeking to be leader. The acknowledgement by him is that you have to sell your soul to be leader, or that practicality (in terms of populism) in this party trumps facts, evidence and argument. Unless a philosopher, Jamie Whyte, is concluding that he doesn't have one. Is he arguing that he supports drug decriminalisation because he 'feels its a good idea'. The implication is that this party demands that he acquiesce. The question is to whom, or to what moral imperative. This sounds like a betrayal. Is that the best we can do? Apparently so. It appears that people are apprehensive about what an intellectual debate actually looks like.
On Sunday, the ACT Party will decide its new leader. It sounds like the deciding vote has already been lost. It was an epistemological 'cliff-hanger'; the political decision is now perhaps a foregone conclusion. Man overboard.

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

New Economics Party - a new hope for NZ?

Share |

New Zealand has the makings of a new political party. Well, its early days for this one because it seems to have no substantive backers. Its called the 'New Economics Party' but my evaluation will demonstrate that its not 'new' just 'ignorance of economics', and that's far from new. The problem with any new political party, or  group with such ambitions is that they inevitably convey a lack of understanding of economics and psychology.
Their idea is to tax 'resources' rather than 'production'. This is a rather silly idea because any tax on resources is passed through to work, so is there any distinction? A resource is nothing without preparation or reticulation/distribution, so its a moot point. Someone has to pay, and its not the resource. So 'resource rent' is not a magical escape from the cost of supporting a welfare state, if that is implied.

There is actually some value in this thinking, though I cannot sanction a collectivist notion like 'the Earth (or resources) are for sharing'. This is not substantive enough as an intellectual foundation, however I would argue or support the notion that people did not 'make' or create' resources. They were already there. So what are we to make of resources which are there, but someone makes them marketable. There is some value in their 'potential' value. The question is:
1. Should private persons be allowed to develop them at zero cost. This is not reasonable because resource assessment and exploitation entails impositions on competing land uses. Do people have a right to expect no impedence from competing land users. i.e. Does your lifestyle property have a right not to expect explosive vibration from a nearby development, even if its not on your land? Clearly, resource development is inextricably linked to other issues.
2. Should private persons be able to develop them after related costs. This makes the most sense simply because it recognises the value created by individuals who didn't create the value, say gold mineral, but they did identify it, spend money appraising it, carrying the risk of plant, capital and labour in order to extract it. The argument is that they are making 'super profits', but those profits arose only because of the boom-bust economy created by governments. A private 'unfettered' market would be more predictable, and more boring. Spculators love contemporary market uncertainty because they manage it full time. Fund managers love uncertainty too because they get to manage the funds of apprehensive salarymen. They get to buy out cheap those small resource companies small investors are scared to invest in.
3. Should a 'middle-man' government to able to act as a custodian and tax those resources or any resulting income for the benefit of others. The implication is that these resources are a 'public good' and that the government can impose high royalties upon these resources so that the miner only extracts a 'nominal' return. The implication of this would be that the governments of the world would effectively be planning resource development and production, and inevitably prices. Might the world benefit from resource planning? No question. Its in fact already there, though it could be argued that the information distribution is less than 'fair'. That is another question, insofar as markets need to appraise market information. What is the public's right to know? What is the implication of not knowing. Risk = ignorance. The implication of not knowing is higher cost of capital. This is not good for resource developers, and thus the justification why resource developers have a vested 'common' interest in disclosure. The flipside is that they might perceive themselves to have a vested interest in misleading information, i.e. Not disclosing or minimalising information about a project. This however does require an act of faith by the investor, and this should not be accepted even if corporate custodians are considered 'trustees', their interests are split between corporation and shareholders. Remember that they are employed by the corporation, which is considered a 'separate entity'. Individual shareholders are therefore collectivised in their interests. You might wonder about how to balance new versus existing shareholders.

The rationale for this 'new economics' is the cliche of resource overuse, resource depletion and climate change. This is reactionary populism. i.e. Politics chasing 'pseudo-science'. Resource depletion is nonsense; long ago discounted. There is no shortage of resources; their presence is essentially infinite. The rhetoric is that there is a fixed quantity of metal in the universe. The stupidity of this argument is that:
1. There is not a fixed number of humans
2. Its an incredibly large universe
3. Our per capita resource use is actually falling in the West whilst rates are still high in the third world, and their population growth rates are rapidly falling. The concerns of today will be the opposite in 30 years time. Then we will be complaining about lack of consumption. i.e. We might be compelled to stimulate people to consume. In fact I doubt this will be the case because I think we will have shifted to a new philosophical system.

This party suggests we need multiple currencies; but in fact this is precisely what we have. There is nothing wrong with that; the problem is that they are supported by the arbitrary power of the government to tax.

"Equality, according to research, makes everyone happier"

This is absolute nonsense for two reasons. The concept of happiness is a rather 'arbitrary' measure of well-being simply because it relies on people's honesty in being able to appraise their happiness. I'd argue that people are surprisingly successful in their capacity to delude themselves into thinking they are happy. I would challenge you to ask people 'who say they are happy' to actually tell you why. I think you might find it enlightening. Its often a wish rather than the true state of their apprehensions about their lives, and their suspicions and disdain of others. The other problem is the contemporary measure of 'equality'. This conception is very often a false dichotomy.

Inequality is actually a non-issue. People don't need to be concerned about 'inequality'; they need to be concerned about 'rights', and basic needs. The richest people are found in 'prosperous' societies; so what threat do they pose. They don't unless given an extortionary sanction by governments. So government is the threat. Money can be used for good or bad; its government which has a monopoly over the legitimatised use of force. The other issue is sustainability living to avoid destitution, and that generally requires some survival strategy and provisions for mishap. It does not require a great deal of wealth, simply a house and farm plot and a basic insurance scheme. We live in a world where people's living standards depend on other's capacity to avoid extortive taxation. This can only justify spurning civil society. They have been disincentivised to produce.

The notion of a state state economy is a nonsensical conception for a number of reasons:
1. There is no justification for renouncing success or security
2. Provisions for security are founded on 'forward-looking' provisions, not avoidance strategies
3.

This political party posits as some defence against 'dog-eat-dog' capitalism, but is precisely the implication of its incoherent values. It simply assumes too much.

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

Focus NZ Party: A struggle for identity

Share |

The prospect of yet another libertarian party in NZ. I don't know whether to laugh or cry? I do know that I'm leaving the country, so what's the difference. Well, its nice to think that there is some hope of a libertarian sovereign state somewhere; but given the values conveyed by these 'hicks', I do believe I will be crying. So what's up with them. Well, here is the problem as I see it....the list is a little long.


1. The prospect of a a new (Focus NZ) party is probably only going to increase the chance of a Labor-Green victory because it will mean no list seats for a libertarian party. This will of course spell the death of all libertarian parties. 'Divide and rule'....that depends on how you divide. Three libertarian parties is ridiculously too many, particularly since you make no point of differentiation. If they merge with Daniel Craig's Conservative Party (yeh that was a joke) or ACT, that would be better.
2. The other big problem is that they have pursued the wrong approach to credibility. ACT's strategy of digging up former National Party leaders is ridiculous for a party that should be trying to differentiate themselves. Find credibility within the business community and appeal to high profile people across the country to back you, not just business people....otherwise you look like a pack of hicks or vested interests. But don't just create the perception of being broad-based, actually change your mind-set from concrete 'vested interest' 'exporter of the year' myopia, to all issues. Not just fiscal, monetary and industry policy, but welfare, treaty, energy policies and besides.
2. Another big problem for libertarian parties is that they have no clear identity. This is perhaps the hardest pill to swallow, but 'libertarianism' as a concept is rife with problems. You have to pick a winner. If you accept to 'pick the package' then you diminish your credibility. You are positing yourself as the 'honest party', but you can't be if you are contemporary libertarian, which means, only caring about advancing 'small government' agendas, but being indifferent to the divided philosophical values that divide people. This 'packaged' attempt to be all things to all people works for the 2 major parties; but it won't work for ACT or Focus NZ. The reason is clear I hope - the 2 major parties are 'extortion' based parties - both peddling fear. Labour is peddling concessions based on extorting wealth from the rich; and Conservative-Centre National Party, is peddling a defensive 'we'll protect you strategy', or 'we'll allow you to grow' on a good day. They are entrenched in this extortion-based two-party model. Trying to be the balance of power is not going to work given that the Maori Party is already doing that. This means the libertarians need to differentiate themselves, and that means 'growing market share', and that means being something the other parties are not. But since its different, you need to convey integrity. It does not matter if you have to divide your market share; at least you will convey a coherent system of values the people can trust.
3. Identity - The problem with 3 parties is that there is no point of difference. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that advances 'small government'. Your problem is that people support small government for basically 3 different reasons (i) Indulgent, reactionary, subjective anarchistic reasons, (ii) intellectual Randian objective 'natural law' type reasons, (iii) intellectual utilitarian reasons, (iv) divine/Conservative party reasons.
The implication is that its very hard to integrate that set and preserve integrity because at the end of the day, the Labor Party, and National Party and even Greens, have a fair claim on these people.
4. Broad based policy is needed. Just looking at your website, and that's where journalists will look, one observes the following errors, aside from the pitiful website....
(a) Right wing is not a good term to adopt...its meaningless...better individualism, prosperity,
(b) Focus on 'producers and exporters' - its a mistake. You may as well call yourself an irrelevant farmers party. Farmers are the 'backbone of the country''. Perhaps, but the problem is they are 3% and you have not found a way to teach sheep to vote. Labour has. 

(c) Talk of 'foreign exchange rate' controls is the wrong way to go about policy for a party that purports to be 'free market'. You need to ask yourself why the currency is high and deal with the problem from that respect. All commodity currencies are high...to give you a hint.
5. Criticising the outsourcing of jobs. There is already a 'nationalist party', why are you going that path. That's not 'broad-based', that's just idiotic. Winston Peters already panders to the ignorant. Jobs are going offshore because its cheap to make things in China. If you increase the costs of living in NZ, then you have inflation. You will diminish jobs in NZ...the exact opposite of your intention. The cost of living will rise. It is true that there is a false economy in outsourcing jobs which will come back in 20 years, but the solution is not simply protectionism. The solution is not to identify the problem and not have a solution either.

The policy position of Focus NZ is actually not bad, at least from their opening page; the issue is more on the strategic positioning of the party. Of course there will be a need to see the detail. The problem with such small parties is that they tend to lack the lack of analytical skills to make a credible effort, and then they tend to fail on public presentation, which the major parties handle convincingly. Most voters are not analytical; but journalists will be voracious, so party speakers need to be. Going after list seats makes sense as a policy strategy until they identify credible public speakers.

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

John Key The Moderate - what does it mean?

Share |

John Key clearly considers himself a moderate. What does that mean?

Prime Minister John Key addressed the issue of the Waitangi Treaty at his annual Waitangi Day address, as is customary. Just as customary is to say nothing substantive, and to engage in rhetoric which contributes nothing to the issue. Now, the prospects of a settlement of Waitangi issues, some settlement of grievances, is considered extreme by Key. He sees himself in the ‘moderate’ of course, and anyone seeking resolution as ‘extreme’. After all, John Key is hardly moving the debate towards anything. I’m an Aussie…I have nothing to gain from this issue. Do I want to see Maori recognised as ‘first occupants’ and worthy of sovereignty? No, that ship has sailed. Perhaps its easier for Key to dismiss the issue if he can erect a ‘straw argument’ like that and dismiss all people who feel a sense of dismay at where the Waitangi settlement is ‘not’ going.
Key speaks of ‘public goodwill’ as if that is a meaningful conception in the context. Either a resolution achieves one of two things:
1. It achieves the interpreted objectives of the Waitangi Treaty
2. It achieves something better
I would argue that the framework and values of the Waitangi Treaty are illegitimate and irrelevant; not because the treaty was not signed by most of the tribes, nor by the British Crown, but because its values are not fixing with justice. This is an opportunity to achieve something more than the treaty sought. At the time of the Treaty, the British people were subjugated to the collective notion of ‘empire’, and that concept ought to be equally as abhorrent to Pakehe as Maori.
Key is making the same old tired claims of old, hoping that the issue will die. It will die by this method; but is that a desirable outcome. Key would sooner quash the aspirations of people, rather than contend with them.

‘People are not reasonable’ he might argue; or that ‘you will never please everyone’. 

But I see no great effort by any government since the Treaty was raised to address the issues. Instead, governments are only too pleased to outsource the task to the courts.
He talks of participation but offers no avenue for achieving it. No government does. It is a common attribute of all representative democracies to malign minorities. For his government that is an easier task than most considering:
1. He confronts a useless opposition
2. He need only offer token concessions to vote as a ‘extortion bloc’
3. He faces no Senate
4. The two major parties developed a Bill of Rights to create the illusion of protection; despite it making little meaningful difference to the nation’s people. Ask yourself – did it make a difference to your life? Did it address issues raised by the Treaty of Waitangi? No, it was not designed to solve problems. It was framed to avoid them. This was actually the original motive of the Treaty of Waitangi in the first place. The British government wanted to avoid conflict. It used the idea of a treaty to invoke a sense of purpose and goodwill with Maori. The Maori simply assumed it existed by matter of intent. They did not know that an unsigned document is useless. Of course, given that the British drafted it, it carries some significance….at least it terms of terms of reference.
John Key asserted that “the Treaty settlements process had given iwi the resources needed to run their own affairs, create jobs and care for their people”.
Really; was the treaty just about money and subsidised jobs? Well, it might well be about that for people who see no other motivation in life but to provide for family and do something constructive. But why can’t it be about more than that? Why can’t it be about things not even raised by the original agreement? For instance:
1. Why can’t it be about the inappropriateness of tribal leaders committing their people to a contract, regardless of whether it was in their interests or not
2. Why can’t it be about the illegitimacy of a contract with a party who does not have the legal efficacy to appreciate the merits of the contract
3. Why can’t it be a question of whether the state has the capacity to impose its will on anyone

All these value judgements are assumed. None of these moral imperatives have been proven. They are accepted because they serve the status quo, and keep people working towards goals subscribed by others. So what does that mean:
1. Working for the government – retaining only a minority stake in one’s efforts
2. Losing choices – because any other ‘non-conformist’ route is punished by lack of tax concessions, damaging your credit ranking, diminishing your right to travel to foreign countries, being denied access to certain services.

John Keys says “settlements largely relied on public good will and acknowledgement that the grievances were genuine”.

Unfortunately they are not so important to be a matter of priority after 140 years.
He argues that the “actions of "permanently aggrieved" protestors, including those at Waitangi, would endanger the public consensus there was over the issue of settling legitimate grievances”.
What a farcically meaningless comment to make. The entire purpose of a parliament is to countenance points of conflict. No, sorry, modern democracy or at least ‘conservatism’ entails avoiding those morally questionable issues that you cannot resolve. It therefore has to be about concrete, self-event things like money. Well, they are not self-evident, but both sides of government seem able to handle those. You might wonder how without conceptual frame of reference. But in their case, it’s all about extortion or ‘political pull’, and their capacity to make it happen.

“Public good will should not be taken for granted. It needs to be treated with respect. It is short-sighted and counter-productive of activists to use tactics and language which have the effect of eroding public support for initiatives aimed at turning around the very situation that the activists are complaining about”.

If you think about it…that is actually a nice, drawn-out way of saying, as Hitler did:

“You are nothing, your nation is everything”.

Hitler had no time to waste on fluff. The modern political party lives on fluff. Whilst they fluff around, they must be making money. Why would you want to preside over government without making money? Where is the sense of pride in being ineffectual? There must be something in it…certainly no self-respect. These issues have been kicking around for 140 years. We are about to have a court case – waste of money – as Maori question whether they have a legal claim to the water in the Mighty River Corporation privatisation. It’s a joke. Is it extreme to raise that as an issue. Well, the Supreme Court did not seem to dismiss the issue out of hand. If one wants to examine the track record of John Key, the National Party, Labour Party or indeed the entire parliament, ask yourself what effort their government took to seek peace in countries taking protection of rights…and yet in the name of liberty or democracy, they are entering Iraq. It must surely be about money/oil? Why nothing about:
1. East Timor
2. PNG
3. Solomon Islands
4. Fiji
5. Muslims of Mindanao
6. Australian aborigines

Even in this last case, long considered ‘extremists’, the Moros of Mindanao in the Philippines are finally getting some justice. No thanks to Western adherents to high standards of conduct. This is despite NZ having very little trade with the Philippines.
I’m no ‘wet-nosed’ liberal. I just think governments ought to be motivated by something more than rhetoric to keep their jobs, to lock in some mindless state of subservient harmony. I think Western governments are transfixed on Japan as a model of how to achieve a ‘compliant society’. In Japan, people don’t question government. The two major parties do as they please. Celebrities tie themselves to governments, and in the end they are seduced by it.

“Turning around the current waste of human potential would do more for Maori and for New Zealand than probably any other single change”.

This is undoubtedly the case; but first John Key has to identify the nature of the ‘waste’…why the human potential of Maori has been diminished. I can identify several reasons:
1. Catch-up: Maoris started behind – they were handicapped from a time going back 130 years.
2. Legacy: They were left with an entrenched legacy of ‘Maoridom’ which rested on the premise that they were disempowered, marginalised victims, that any rhetoric of justice was not real; it was just for show. They were not given or confronted with the values which made Pakehe successful and Maori unsuccessful. Those issues were avoided because they feel compelled to leave in place the notion of a collective Maori identity, which has greatly diminished the lives of all indigenous persons around the world. It was about ‘achieving compliance’ in the short term. The implication however has meant 140 years of unresolved contention. This government, like the others, will not resolve it.

“He spoke approvingly of a United Maori Mission boarding hostel for 50 boys within the Auckland Grammar zone, saying it gave those boys a chance for a good education”.

This is not a basis for prosperity among Maori; its an elitist argument which says:
1. These Pakehe wannabes are your custodians because they are educated and think like us ‘white folk’
2. These people are successful because they are very smart, and probably wealthier, and from a good family, so there is no reason you can’t succeed like them.

“It is one of the reasons why we have a positive and forward-looking relationship between iwi and Crown. I have no doubt that we New Zealanders are better off because of it”.

No John, you don’t have a relationship with Maori. You have a relationship with the only people your governments sanction to represent Maori. You decided by forming a coalition with the Maori Party that these people are worthy of being in a coalition. You went out of your way to strike that deal, as king maker, because it suits your agenda. Most Maori don’t subscribe to your distorted world view because you have popularised these people. No doubt your ‘Auckland Grammar boarders’ will be targeted by your party as you attempt to brand your party as the part for the people. You are only so long as you dumb people down and remain dumbfounded by execution paralysis.

Quotes from NZ Herald, 6th Feb 2013.

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

John Key unable to grow population

Share |

New Zealanders are abandoning NZ at even faster rates. There are a number of good reasons for expecting this:

1. Canterbury (Christchurch) earthquake has given residents the hebbee geebees; and they don't want to place themselves in a situation where they could be vulnerable to another spell of it. The reality is that the earthquake rebuild will mean this will be a time of prosperity for those who go to Christchurch; though people will want to be careful about where they live, and what they live in. i.e. avoid brittle (brick in particular) structures; avoid loose sediment piles subject to liquefaction.

2. Cost cutting by government is going to see Australia absorb a lot of the public servants that the National Party is cutting. This is of course great for Australia since it adds to their demand; even if its 'good for nothing' public servants. The reality is that John Key is just killing NZ's potential for a recovery in economic demand. Paradoxically, public servants are probably among the nation's biggest savers. They have university education; but they didn't do much with it, so they lose point. They do eat and fart though; so Australia will take them.

The paradox is that NZ has some value propositions going forward. There are some brilliant Asian immigrants entering the country who really have a good work ethic. People are inclined to make generalisations about Asians. What they need to realise is that the ones that come here are usually the brightest in their 'over-populated' nations. I know some of them are difficult to understand. Geez, I spoke to a Chinese girl in Sydney. Very impressive....very smart...problem was I could barely understand here. Anyway, that aside, these people are very hungry, and they will greatly add to NZ wealth if NZ embraces them. Unfortunately, surveys show that Asians are the most discriminated group in NZ; followed by the Samoans. I personally this Aussies are persecuted here; but we can take it. We know its coming from a place of immense insecurity, so we can brush it aside. They all change when they migrate to an Aussie. They are never cured of the self-righteousness though. My mom has a NZ BF....he is forever saying he loves the country...but he never goes back.

The good news though is that NZ is dealing with the blow out in local government spending. Personally though, I don't believe centralising spending will make matters better. In fact it will just result in further job losses from rural areas, and this again could see more NZ'ers leaving. This government seems determined to drive NZ'ers out of the country. Everything they do is 'anti-jobs'. I appreciate the desire to make savings; but you don't replace a useless job with a useless welfare recipient. This will just compel them to go abroad. This will result in more job losses and business closures in the private sector; particularly in the rural areas of NZ. These towns are already over-serviced and over-capitalised, with depopulation still in some areas. We need the population of NZ growing.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

Pike River Coal Mine Disaster: The cost of public administration

Share |

The Pike River coal mine disaster highlights why you cannot rely on government to be engaged in operating or executive roles. There are several problems:

1. They are idiots - they do not know about life. Their entire thought process is antithetical to critical thinking. They are modern-day serfs; not suited to regulation or monitoring under the current system of govt.

2. They have a conflict of interest - The Pike River Mine was owned by the operating & marketing company Pike River Coal. This company was listed in Australia and NZ; but in reality the company was not so independent. It was substantially owned by Solid Energy; a 100% government owned enterprise. You can imagine how little compliance or accountability will result when you have two idiots talking to each other.

In the context of this case - a disaster was imminent:

1. The lack of public oversight

2. The gassy coals

3. The lack of UG mine experience

4. The recruitment of poor staff - those that couldn't get a job in Australia for 2x the wage.

Read this article. The problem here is public adminstration under representative democracy - it does not matter whether it was a Labour Party or National Party government. i.e. Labour cut coal mining inspectors; and National Party could equally care less.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

The Maori Holocaust - a point of reflection

Share |

A NZ Maori academic has angered New Zealanders for comparing the colonialisation of NZ to the Maori holocaust in the wake of Waitangi Day. The question is whether the comparison is legitimate - or whether these comments were an effort to extract sympathy concessions from the colonisers.

In some respects you can say that the colonisation of NZ was analogous to the Jewish Holocaust. Consider that a very large proportion of the Maori population died with the introduction of European diseases; there were also battles with the army and skirmishes with settlers which were also going to take a toll on their population as they fought the European colonisers.

But there are some important differences as well. For instance,

1. The Maori did not develop their intellect sufficiently (largely because of their collectivist roots, lack of protracted struggle and small population) such that they confronted resilient, sophisticated enemies nor develop an enlightened theory of values, i.e. A framework for the development of personal rights. They would hence remain collectivist and some defiantly so.

2. The Maori had some element of empowerment in the sense that they were able to launch warfare themselves. The NZ Crown was responsible for Maoris, so as custodians they did tend to take steps to protect them, even if those efforts were under-resources, too little, too late, and subject to rationalisation.

I am inclined to say that there are no descendants able to complain about European colonisation; but this does not end the story. Maoris are today living in a certain context which was the result of NZ occupation. I would however be more worried about the context in which they are living today, not the injustices of centuries past. Why? Well, irrespective of whether they were treated well or not, in many respects they were treated better than the Pakeha (NZ colonialists). The reason is that NZ colonialists had to confront Maori attacks. They had greater resources at their disposal, but they had in some respects been subjected to the interests of the government more than the Maori. Maoris were eventually given land, and their grievances carry more weight today than 'British subjects' because there is some recognition of the plight of Maori....but there is no recognition that Pakeha are suffering; and that is because Westerners are more inclined to repress their subjugation. i.e. Pakeha are economic slaves to the government; forced to provide welfare support to Maoris; not because we like being slaves, but because we are forced to contribute to a form of government which does not solve the problem.

We might ask what was the nature of Pakeha subjugation to the British government; now subordinated to the NZ parliament. Well, its nature is that Pakeha are assumed to have certain rights as citizens; but this is 'conveniently' not a comprehensive or effective range of rights, such that they are actually slaves working for the sake of political middlemen; largely while many Maori live on benefits. We are not accustomed to treating benefits/welfare support as 'suffering' - more as 'support', but this is not entirely accurate because it is akin to child abuse to pander to Maori indulgence, and this is what the Pakeha have done to appease the political influence of modern-day Christian liberals as well as concrete-bound Maori who don't look beyond their short term expenses and consider their long-range self-esteem. There is no doubt that Maoris need support, but it has to be conditional upon certain objective standards. If its not; then the current issues of child poverty, high unemployment, high illiteracy and the current 'guilt industry' are destined to polarise NZ'ers into racial divisions.

Maoris are deserving of empathy; but Maori (in their sustained suffering as a result of poor Pakeha public policy) should not forget that Pakeha are deserving of empathy as well. This might not be easy when you are a sufferer, but its a prerequisite as a believer in justice. We have to rise above our concrete context, and think as intellectuals. Sadly, that message is lost upon both Pakeha and Maori. Its not about whose suffering was worse: its about how to expunge what still remains; a dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. Let's not turn this into a race issue; but focus instead on the question of delivering our expectations to government. The consternation of Maori ought to be shared by Pakeha and vice versa. Their common enemy is the government which:

1. Denies everyone personal sovereignty - whether Maori or British 'subjects'

2. Specifically a lack of economic rights - the govt right to tax needs to be at the people's discretion otherwise there is no prospect of accountability

3. This discretion need not be a financial discretion - but plausibly an intellectual discretion

4. The basis of our political discourse needs to be rational - not majoritism or 'numbers' based extortion of political influence.

When Maori and Pakeha jointly grasp that possibility; only then will they realise that representative democracy is not serving them; and that only a meritocratic democracy will. A meritocratic democracy is not a aristocracy; its a forum for rational discourse. It is a forum which affirms the interests of the rational; whether they are one person or 1 million; whether they are NZ or foreign citizens. Any other framework is a basis for abuse. If the option existed in the 18th century, it might have prevented the settlement of NZ. Its hard to say; as ultimately this political system had to develop. But unlike the contemporary system, a meritocracy will advance people's thinking, and not result in the systematic 'dumbing down' of voters we see today. More is said on this issue of course in politics blog.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

The misappropriation of political information

Share |

The NZ Herald has attempted to defend its story by garnering the support of a 'victim' of the 'News of the World' scandal in the UK. The effort is rather pathetic. Consider the lawyers arguments:

Barrister Mark Lewis said “The "teapot tape" should be released and is in no way comparable to the News of the World scandal”.[i]

Really? In no way the same? Not even a little? They occurred on the same planet? They involved taped conversations between known parties; journalists with a personal interest in the activities.

Barrister Mark Lewis: "The News of the World were really using what is lazy journalism - they were hacking people's phones to get cheap stories".[ii]

What difference does it make whether the journalists were lazy or deliberate in their activities. The issue is not whether they tried to record the incident; the issue is whether they are attempting to profit from it after the fact.

The fact that these politicians made parts of their conversations or the imagery pertaining to the conversation available or ‘public’ does not mean that every aspect of their life has to be exposed. The fact that the media asked for permission to publish the tapes is evidence enough of that.

“Mr Lewis said he believed it was in the public interest for the transcript of the tape to be released”.[iii]

How can he know if the releasing the tape is in the public interest without knowing the contents of the tape. Ethically, only the police can determine what is ethical or proper to do in this case, as well as the journalist and media executives who have viewed its contents. They will be morally and legally liable if they misuse the information. If there is any criminal content; this would not even necessarily justify release of the taped information, though I suggest it should in order to permit collaboration of evidence.

Barrister Mark Lewis: "There is a difference between the News of the World hacking into someone's phone to find out private information and seemingly - whether accidentally or on purpose - effectively a journalist investigating some kind of political statement”.[iv]

This barrister really has no concept of philosophy. There is a distinction to be made between private and public lives. i.e. You cannot plant video cameras in public toilets. That is the principle involved. Yes, hacking into someone’s private communication represents a higher level of deceit, but both actions are morally reprehensible. A barrister should know that.

Barrister Mark Lewis: "But if it's particularly a political statement which affects the future government or the ways to achieve future government in a country, then that's something in the public interest and it sounds like it should be reported without the unfavourable comparison to what was clearly a criminal act”. [v]

Well, that is fine if the content of the tape was public, or if the content which the media sought to publish was ‘public policy’, but they are after scandal. So it’s a big ‘if’ that this barrister has not even explored. Even if there is content which might be deemed ‘in the public interest’, that is for the owner of the private information to decide. Only if the evidence suggests illegality should this information go to the police; and otherwise there ought to be no publication without the intellectual property owners authorisation. It has been duly rejected by John Key.

Why a barrister is inclined to screw up on this point is that they fail to see the broader context of public accountability; which is a respect for principles. In a sense, the barrister is saying that we will discard principles for the right to affirm the public's interest....whatever that is. i.e. He is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

According to the NZ Herald,

“News Corp is trying to negotiate a settlement with the Dowlers and has offered them £2 million (NZ$3.9 million)”. [vi]

Barrister Mark Lewis’ comment on the John Key-John Banks tape recording therefore entails a ‘conflict of interest’, and I would suggest his inflaming the NZ political issue could well make him liable to legal action by the PM, John Banks, the ACT Party and the National Party. The conflict of interest arises because he is apparently trying to render his case as more serious, unique, and thus of greater significance. This would of course justify a greater pay-out for his client.

“Mr Lewis said there was a difference between taping the PM speaking about something which could be deemed "very crucial politically" and recording him talking about personal matters, like his health or his family”. [vii]

Actually there isn’t. If the media is so hungry for public policy so that the public can get to know their political candidates, then I’m sure there is no shortage of time available by them; particularly the minority candidates who seldom get much. The reality is that the media wants us to think there are some important sound-bites on here. Maybe there is some crude language or embarrassing comments about Don Brash. Maybe they even hint to the resignation of Don Brash after the election. These are private opinions; they are strategic concerns of the people who did not intend to make them public. The notion that a journalist can accidentally benefit from secret tapes is ridiculous, whether they intended to do it or not. It could only sponsor a raft of ‘disorganised crime’ or purposeless crime. i.e. Smuggling of drugs. Oh sorry, I did not know my BF planted drugs in my baggage, but since I did not know, its ok if I sell them in the destination country.

Barrister Mark Lewis: "If it's to do with how the country is governed then that's good journalism".[viii]

Actually its poor journalism because apparently the action was not deliberate, and the decisions since show poor moral judgement by all concerned.

Barrister Mark Lewis: "The public choose their politicians ... they really ought to know wherever they are in the world".[ix]

Nonsense. Politicians are not always public persons; they also have private lives, and it is the decision of the politician, not the media, to decide when it is public or private, or it can be determined from the context. Voters should only be interested in the public policies of politicians; the fact that they make private comments, etc is really of no importance because they are not well-considered, deliberate or analytical thoughts, as I am conveying here. If my analysis is flawed, then I can be rightly criticised for it. Some of my writing is less well-considered, and whilst I can be criticised for it, I hold myself to a lower standard for that. It is a question of context. I could care less that John Brash curses Don Brash in private or public; the issue is whether they are effective politicians. In that assessment, I do not think people should hold them to unreasonable standards, nor sanction the use of misappropriated information/property.

Mr Lewis suggests a better comparison would be with ‘former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's gaffe when a microphone he was wearing picked up his comments that Labour supporter Gillian Duffy was a "bigoted woman".[x]

Frankly, I actually think this is a similar situation. If the journalists intentionally released that information and they had good reason for believing they were private thoughts; then they ought not to publish it. If he was making those comments to specific people, as opposed to strangers, then that is private.

Barrister Mark Lewis: "Politicians need to be careful about TV cameras and microphones. They should watch out that things aren't recording". [xi]

Notwithstanding the practical value of anticipating ‘crouching tigers’, we would tend to argue that we do not live in a caveman society, but rather a conceptual society where we expect people to act in accordance with the law, and that the law will entail consonance with ethical principles and more importantly human nature. Where is the ethical principle that the victim is 100% responsible for the consequences of their actions and others actions.

“Mr Key said his police complaint was based on principle. "What happens when it moves to other high profile New Zealanders having a conversation with their wives about personal issues?” [xii]

This is a fair comparison, but the following ethical justification by John Key is not.

John Key: "What happens if a couple of high profile New Zealanders have a conversation about their son or their daughter being suicidal - a Sunday paper reports that and that child takes their own life. We're at the start of a slippery slope here and I for one am going to stand up and ask the police to investigate it".[xiii]

A defining quality of a “suicidal” people is that they have a propensity to commit suicide. John Key seems to be embarrassing a utilitarian or consequential or pragmatic conception of justice here – sadly. The issue is the means by which a person acquires the information. Certainly if the information was misappropriated and caused embarrassment, it could precipitate suicide. This might reasonable considered a ‘causal’ connection between the illegitimate action and the suicide.

References

---

[i] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[ii] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[iii] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[iv] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[v] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[vi] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[vii] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[viii] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[ix] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[x] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[xi] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[xii] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[xiii] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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