As you approach Hades, treading into eternity, you traverse the River Styx. The toxic stream that Achilles was dipped in by the ankle. Upon entering the underworld, you will be confronted by a monstrous three-headed dog on his eternal patrol.
Mythology does not explain how Cerberus coordinates his duties. Three minds. One body. Does it bite itself or act with a hive mind? The questions that challenged the ancients remain unresolved.
Let us examine our own Cerberus. National. Act. New Zealand First.
Rather than report on the barking, I’d like to look behind the snarling fangs and poor dental hygiene to the ideological differences that underlie the tensions.
Let’s start with Act, because this is the party I understand best. I’m not a member but do slip them a few denarii once a month. Not enough to influence policy but sufficient to cover a pamphlet drop.
ACT is not a libertarian party, as evidenced by David Seymour’s policy balloon of banning smartphones for children. Yet libertarianism is foundational to how the party’s leaders and members perceive the world.
Tax is theft. It is immoral to take the wages from one person to pay for collective welfare. Politically, however, letting a child go hungry or allowing an entire cohort of students to grow up illiterate is unpopular even if ideologically sound.
The Non-Aggression Principle, the foundation of libertarianism, means it is not permissible to force a person to do anything, and this includes compelling the neighbours to pay for your kid’s schooling or preventing them from building a three-storey house. Excluding Epsom. Obviously.
Paul Henry will be pondering why the party cares so much about the people who work in libraries? I am sure someone will give him a copy of The Road to Serfdom. He will not read it, but it will look good on his bookshelf.
National’s ethos is very different. They are conservative. With a small c. And the c stands for Chesterton’s Fence. If something exists, it was put there for a reason. Caution must be exercised before tearing down something if we don’t understand its purpose.
A conservative is humble in the face of uncertainty as to the effect of policy and defers to the preferences and rights of the individual as against the Crown but is less doctrinal on this than a libertarian.
National looks at state-funded education, notices it has been around for a long time, and concludes replacing this system is risky. Perhaps just force the teachers to teach rather than sell the school grounds for housing development. They take the same approach with a single-payer health sector. It exists, so best improve its performance. Which Simeon Brown has been doing, in part by paying private providers to clear the waiting lists, but the model itself remains intact.
National believe themselves more competent and responsible than the student politicians in Labour and the ideologues in Act. They are more a party of responsible management than ideology.
Which brings us to New Zealand First. Peters founded his party in 1993 after leaving National. He represents an older version of conservatism, where the state can be a force for good where it reinforces the values and economic ambitions of middle New Zealand. The Crown is not a neutral player but should intervene to achieve positive economic and social outcomes.
The party wants a well-run and culturally conservative society. Government serves to support business with tariffs and incentives where necessary but also protects the rights and interests of the law-abiding and honest. High migration unsettles the social order and is therefore bad. The central bank should be used to manage employment as well as inflation because the party believes in the beneficial power of responsible government action.
Let’s look at how these three reacted to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Act opposes the state regulating anything on principle and would scrap it even if it was a net positive. National only agreed to removing it once it was confident that this particular fence served no purpose. NZ First wanted it gone as soon as it began doing things sensible Kiwis found idiotic.
Like Cerberus, this government has managed to perform its duties without falling over, tearing itself apart or falling into the River Styx. This collaboration has been achieved because they support their collective wider goals even if they do so for different reasons. Tensions in key areas, such as the Indian Free Trade Agreement and the fiscal deficit, highlight that this government is one of convenience.
Much of the posturing in the coming months will be politics, and the recruitment of celebrities like Henry, Randall and Laws is more branding than capacity building. But behind the cacophony of yelps and growls lies a deep philosophical divergence in how New Zealand should be run – not just who should be running it.
This election matters not only in which Chris becomes prime minister but in the balance of the forces making up his majority......The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
Let’s start with Act, because this is the party I understand best. I’m not a member but do slip them a few denarii once a month. Not enough to influence policy but sufficient to cover a pamphlet drop.
ACT is not a libertarian party, as evidenced by David Seymour’s policy balloon of banning smartphones for children. Yet libertarianism is foundational to how the party’s leaders and members perceive the world.
Tax is theft. It is immoral to take the wages from one person to pay for collective welfare. Politically, however, letting a child go hungry or allowing an entire cohort of students to grow up illiterate is unpopular even if ideologically sound.
The Non-Aggression Principle, the foundation of libertarianism, means it is not permissible to force a person to do anything, and this includes compelling the neighbours to pay for your kid’s schooling or preventing them from building a three-storey house. Excluding Epsom. Obviously.
Paul Henry will be pondering why the party cares so much about the people who work in libraries? I am sure someone will give him a copy of The Road to Serfdom. He will not read it, but it will look good on his bookshelf.
National’s ethos is very different. They are conservative. With a small c. And the c stands for Chesterton’s Fence. If something exists, it was put there for a reason. Caution must be exercised before tearing down something if we don’t understand its purpose.
A conservative is humble in the face of uncertainty as to the effect of policy and defers to the preferences and rights of the individual as against the Crown but is less doctrinal on this than a libertarian.
National looks at state-funded education, notices it has been around for a long time, and concludes replacing this system is risky. Perhaps just force the teachers to teach rather than sell the school grounds for housing development. They take the same approach with a single-payer health sector. It exists, so best improve its performance. Which Simeon Brown has been doing, in part by paying private providers to clear the waiting lists, but the model itself remains intact.
National believe themselves more competent and responsible than the student politicians in Labour and the ideologues in Act. They are more a party of responsible management than ideology.
Which brings us to New Zealand First. Peters founded his party in 1993 after leaving National. He represents an older version of conservatism, where the state can be a force for good where it reinforces the values and economic ambitions of middle New Zealand. The Crown is not a neutral player but should intervene to achieve positive economic and social outcomes.
The party wants a well-run and culturally conservative society. Government serves to support business with tariffs and incentives where necessary but also protects the rights and interests of the law-abiding and honest. High migration unsettles the social order and is therefore bad. The central bank should be used to manage employment as well as inflation because the party believes in the beneficial power of responsible government action.
Let’s look at how these three reacted to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Act opposes the state regulating anything on principle and would scrap it even if it was a net positive. National only agreed to removing it once it was confident that this particular fence served no purpose. NZ First wanted it gone as soon as it began doing things sensible Kiwis found idiotic.
Like Cerberus, this government has managed to perform its duties without falling over, tearing itself apart or falling into the River Styx. This collaboration has been achieved because they support their collective wider goals even if they do so for different reasons. Tensions in key areas, such as the Indian Free Trade Agreement and the fiscal deficit, highlight that this government is one of convenience.
Much of the posturing in the coming months will be politics, and the recruitment of celebrities like Henry, Randall and Laws is more branding than capacity building. But behind the cacophony of yelps and growls lies a deep philosophical divergence in how New Zealand should be run – not just who should be running it.
This election matters not only in which Chris becomes prime minister but in the balance of the forces making up his majority......The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
1 comment:
“this government has managed to perform its duties”
Err…I guess, but inflation is skyrocketing, I guess it thought that unemployment was lonely having such a big number so wanted to join it.
At the other end of the scale, GDP ain’t doing so great either. And hey, have those 2026 ferry deliveries arrived on time? What about the rest of our infrastructure debt?
Oh maybe Damien means landlords are getting their tax handouts int he form of tax deductibility. That’s great for the country. Well done.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.