It takes prominent NZ academic, Anne Salmond, to tell us Kiwis don't subscribe to such ideals - the foundation stone of everything that has enabled nations to break free from their oppressive pasts; to achieve greater well-being and prosperity these past three centuries. Instead, Salmond's social, legal, anthropological, cultural, political & economic public lecture this week states, "Libertarianism, which elevates individual liberty and private rights over notions of collective responsibility, is historically and culturally specific. It traces back to strands in Greek philosophy & Christianity as well as philosophers like John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Its support among the NZ electorate is slight, as indicated by ACT's 8.4 percent share of the vote. Libertarianism is also radically at odds with the framings of Te Tiriti o Waitangi".
To argue liberty is not a feature of NZ culture is a patronizing misrepresentation and insult to us all: past, present and future. Who is Salmond to speak on our behalf as to what values we hold? Does she know more about them than we do? Does she know Locke inspired the US Declaration of Independence; that he was behind the line it begins with, namely "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed - that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it". It was used in Martin Luther King's speech at the Lincoln Memorial to support abolishment of segregation. Salmond's evidence that Kiwis don't subscribe to liberty and private rights is how many votes ACT won at the last election. But all our parties support liberty, private rights & happiness. ACT (and National) simply promote different ways of achieving them, like lower taxes, although liberty is also central to what Labour, Greens, NZ First and Te Pāti Māori stand for. Does it occur to Salmond that the Greens want less pollution because they believe young generations have the right to be free from the scourge of a bad environment, allowing them to lead happy lives, liberated from this threat? Does it occur to her Labour supports higher taxes on richer households so as to provide 'free' education & healthcare for children in low income families, whose only 'fault' is that their parents are poor? Does it occur to her Labour wants to liberate these children by securing opportunities and private wealth for them? As for John Stuart Mill's "utilitarianism" to which she refers - that good government is one providing the greatest happiness for the greatest number - it was the basis for PM Ardern and Robertson's Labour Party 'well-being budgets' & policy approach.
So who is this academic, Dame Anne Salmond, to speak on behalf of the National, Labour, Green, NZ First and Te Pāti Māori parties, and five million individual New Zealanders, telling us what we stand for; who we are; what our culture is; what ideals we subscribe to? Are we not free - do we not possess the liberty - to hold our own views? Does she seriously think our private cultural beliefs can be ascertained from studying who we voted for? Some of us don't even much like National PM Luxon, nor are big fans of Seymour or Peters, but a clear majority of us did believe they were the best of a bad bunch at the time - the previous lot being so awful they had to go. On the Treaty, isn't the argument, even of Te Pāti Māori and its supporters, that it was framed to protect and guarantee the private property rights of Māori? That, in exchange for such protection, Māori agreed to being governed by an authority - maybe not necessarily "sovereign" - but at least one that would promote a common law & order? Isn't that identical to John Locke's idea that "humans, though free, equal, and independent, are obliged under the law of nature to respect each other’s rights to life, liberty, and property". That we should "agree to form a government in order to institute an impartial power capable of arbitrating disputes and redressing injuries". Locke held that the obligation to obey civil government under the social contract was conditional upon the protection of the natural rights of each person, including the right to private property. Whether it was John Locke and the US Constitution, or the Treaty of Waitangi, aren't we all talking the same ideas with similar aims in mind?
More generally, isn't it time New Zealand produced journalists, writers, academics, teachers and such like, who have the knowledge and temerity to hold to account members of the titled "establishment" like Professor Dame Anne Salmond, who pretend to hold a monopoly on the moral and intellectual high ground?
Sources:
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/31/anne-salmond-whats-the-matter-with-the-treaty-principles-bill/
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-contract
To argue liberty is not a feature of NZ culture is a patronizing misrepresentation and insult to us all: past, present and future. Who is Salmond to speak on our behalf as to what values we hold? Does she know more about them than we do? Does she know Locke inspired the US Declaration of Independence; that he was behind the line it begins with, namely "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed - that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it". It was used in Martin Luther King's speech at the Lincoln Memorial to support abolishment of segregation. Salmond's evidence that Kiwis don't subscribe to liberty and private rights is how many votes ACT won at the last election. But all our parties support liberty, private rights & happiness. ACT (and National) simply promote different ways of achieving them, like lower taxes, although liberty is also central to what Labour, Greens, NZ First and Te Pāti Māori stand for. Does it occur to Salmond that the Greens want less pollution because they believe young generations have the right to be free from the scourge of a bad environment, allowing them to lead happy lives, liberated from this threat? Does it occur to her Labour supports higher taxes on richer households so as to provide 'free' education & healthcare for children in low income families, whose only 'fault' is that their parents are poor? Does it occur to her Labour wants to liberate these children by securing opportunities and private wealth for them? As for John Stuart Mill's "utilitarianism" to which she refers - that good government is one providing the greatest happiness for the greatest number - it was the basis for PM Ardern and Robertson's Labour Party 'well-being budgets' & policy approach.
So who is this academic, Dame Anne Salmond, to speak on behalf of the National, Labour, Green, NZ First and Te Pāti Māori parties, and five million individual New Zealanders, telling us what we stand for; who we are; what our culture is; what ideals we subscribe to? Are we not free - do we not possess the liberty - to hold our own views? Does she seriously think our private cultural beliefs can be ascertained from studying who we voted for? Some of us don't even much like National PM Luxon, nor are big fans of Seymour or Peters, but a clear majority of us did believe they were the best of a bad bunch at the time - the previous lot being so awful they had to go. On the Treaty, isn't the argument, even of Te Pāti Māori and its supporters, that it was framed to protect and guarantee the private property rights of Māori? That, in exchange for such protection, Māori agreed to being governed by an authority - maybe not necessarily "sovereign" - but at least one that would promote a common law & order? Isn't that identical to John Locke's idea that "humans, though free, equal, and independent, are obliged under the law of nature to respect each other’s rights to life, liberty, and property". That we should "agree to form a government in order to institute an impartial power capable of arbitrating disputes and redressing injuries". Locke held that the obligation to obey civil government under the social contract was conditional upon the protection of the natural rights of each person, including the right to private property. Whether it was John Locke and the US Constitution, or the Treaty of Waitangi, aren't we all talking the same ideas with similar aims in mind?
More generally, isn't it time New Zealand produced journalists, writers, academics, teachers and such like, who have the knowledge and temerity to hold to account members of the titled "establishment" like Professor Dame Anne Salmond, who pretend to hold a monopoly on the moral and intellectual high ground?
Sources:
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/31/anne-salmond-whats-the-matter-with-the-treaty-principles-bill/
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-contract
8 comments:
Well said indeed.
Sadly New Zealand is no longer the country Salmond grew up in and she like so many others is the cause of the divisive changes that have occurred.
Sadly Salmond has form, with poorly reasoned pronouncements such as this. And, while once she relied on erudition without trying to overreach too much, these days she seems to trade on her dated reputation to support her radically revisionist interpretation of old texts (especially ToW), all while failing to properly understand the reasonable limits of interpretation - well worked out by semioticians such as Umberto Eco many years ago.
Directly responsible for the farce that NZ academia has become.
Also a dangerous place - it has been suggested that the AU Education Faculty might be restructured - and the post of Prof Elizabeth Rata might be " in -scope" = to be disestablished. As her reputation extends from beyond NZ, she will have other professional options.
There is an article on Newsroom right now - "Anne Salmond: What’s the matter with the Treaty Principles Bill" In the comments section there is a post purportedly by Dame Anne that says:
"The Research Association NZ that holds market researchers to the “highest professional and ethical standards” is holding an inquiry into Taxpayer Union Curia polls. It would be wise to treat any of their polls about the Treaty with the utmost caution until the outcome is announced: https://researchassociation.org.nz/Update"
This comment ignores David Farrar's reasoning for resigning from REANZ because he believes the complaints process has been weaponised against Curia (primarily by one complainant) to shut down free speech. If it is actually Anne Salmond who posted that unbalanced comment I have no respect for her writing whatsoever.
Ms Salmond is showing her use by date because the Treaty Principles Bill has NOT been presented yet by ACT even though she postulates that it is.
"Why does Dame Professor Anne Salmond Defend the Treaty by Attacking Liberty? "
Simple answer is that she has a track record of spouting this kind of nonsense.
She is a "communist professor".
A well-deserved rebuke to a very arrogant, would-be social influencer!
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.