Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Vote, Act

Entry 2077, on 2020-09-27 at 14:40:04 (Rating 2, Politics)

I strongly believe in progress, and making our world better. I don't think the way the world works at the moment is perfect, and I think there are numerous ways it could be made better. There are many things about society as it is, which are unfair, and I think we should be investigating ways to fix them.

Those statements above make me sound like a "progressive", so you might think I would be a supporter of progressive politics, which mainly exists on the left. But am I? Well no, not any more. I'm certainly not a conservative either, because wanting to keep things the way they are as a default position gives little chance for progress.

But regarding conservatism, there is one thing I do say, which conservatives might agree with: if we are going to make changes, we need to make sure they are for the better, because change for the sake of change, or poorly planned change, or change based on ideology instead of reality, is almost always worse than no change at all.

And maybe that's why many genuinely progressive people, like myself, have started moving more towards the right side of the political spectrum in recent years. The left really are out of control, and their brand of progress is driven almost entirely by mindless ideology, to the point that it no longer should even be called progress. These progressives have become regressives.

So when people ask me who I will vote for at New Zealand's upcoming election they are often horrified to hear me say Act, which is New Zealand's libertarian party.

Act's philosophical principles are based around ideas like personal freedom and responsibility, small government, and neoliberal economics. At this point, if you have read previous posts in this blog, you might be wondering why I support a party whose economic agenda is based around neoliberalism, a philosophy I have criticised in the past.

Well yes, that's a good question. Looking back through my opinion on this subject over the years, I realise that my anti-neoliberalism stance has become far more nuanced recently. I still don't think free markets and privatisation are the best answer in every situation, but I am increasingly unsure about what a viable alternative might be.

But let's leave that aside and have a look at why I consider Act to be the best option at election time. First, I need to explain my methodology for making political decisions.

I don't take too much notice of the details of specific policies, because often those policies are never enacted. This is because in an environment where there is more than one party with some level of control - such as we have here with proportional representation - it is difficult to guarantee any policy can be enacted. But that aside, there is still the awkward fact that many governments still don't do what they say they will do.

So I tend to look at the overall philosophy of the party, along with their actual policies, the quality of the people in the party, and the style of leadership they have. I also fully understand that no party will be perfect, so neither rejecting nor supporting one based on a single issue makes much sense.

There is one last introductory point I need to make here too. That is, that many people decide which party to support - usually based on irrational emotive or historical factors - then use that to evaluate parties in a totally biased way. I try to evaluate the party fairly and within the context of the current social and economic environment, and make a decision based on that.

So I've never voted Act before, but I have voted for many different parties depending on what I thought of as their suitability at the time. People who always vote for the same party every time, just through habit or loyalty, aren't really participating in the democratic process appropriately, I believe.

So with all of that out of the way, here are some statements from Act candidates, and my response to them...

Statement: We have forgotten what hard work and choices mean, as there is always someone else to blame. This does not do anyone a favour if we are no longer responsible for ourselves.

Reaction: I think this is one of the most pernicious consequences of modern leftist ideologies. When a "minority group" seems to achieve less in society they blame society - usually in the form of the "patriarchy" or "colonialism" or "racism". I agree there are times when those factors do exist to some extent, but I think the first place we should look is in the group itself. Is there a cultural norm there that leads to poorer outcomes? The answer is almost always yes, yet we cannot even begin to discuss this or we are accused of "victim blaming".

Statement: Government should be there to help in the hardest of times, but it should not breed dependence or try to impose some people’s vision of the good life on others

Reaction: There are two points here. First, that there is an acceptance that government has a place - so this isn't extreme libertarian dogma - but that it should be the exception rather than the norm. And second, that the social engineering aspect of government interventions is extremely concerning. Both of those points are very relevant at this point in history.

Statement: When the government taxes and funds services, such as education, it should give people a choice of provider

Reaction: I think choice is almost always better, as long as the choices are provided through a fair and equitable mechanism. I think private schools and public-private partnerships in major projects are good ideas in general. We do have to be careful here though, because private provision of traditionally public services - for example, prisons - has a very mixed record of success.

Statement: On social issues, people should be able to live (and die) as they please so long as they are not harming anyone else.

Reaction: The "and die" part of this clearly refers to the (Act initiated) assisted dying referendum we are going to be asked to vote on at the election. But in general, this is just a re-writing of the "golden rule" which few people would disagree with. The main point of contention seems to be the interpretation of the word "harm" though. Many leftists have a very broad understanding of the word, to the extent that discussing a defect in a group, even when it is undeniably true, is seen as a form of harm.

Statement: I am standing for Act because our principles not only promote freedom to live within the law but also efficient policies while treating everyone as equal.

Reaction: Few people would say they don't want equality for everyone, but the problem is in how that word "equality" is interpreted. In fact, many leftists now prefer to use "equity" instead, which is the exact opposite of equality, because it specific treats people differently. It's a matter of philosophy, but I prefer equality to equity for the simple reason that I don't trust a government to decide who gets special privileges to achieve equity.

Statement: I believe in personal responsibility and personal freedom, in particular, the right of free speech. I believe that the way forward for New Zealand is less bureaucratic and government intervention in our lives.

Reaction: And here is the key message which has gained Act a lot of support this time. Free speech is being repressed by governments such as the one we currently have. They are doing it with good intentions, but that is the exact mechanism which leads to the most repressive and unfair outcomes. Do we really trust some politicians to decide what we can and can't discuss? If you say "yes" then you really need to go away and think about that a bit more, I think.

Statement: I love this country but we have slowly taken away people's ability to think for themselves without them even realising it.

Reaction: Absolutely! I have used the word "sheeple" more in the last few years than I ever have in the past. I see mindless parroting of the prime minister's propaganda, like "we are a team of 5 million" (we aren't), and "let's be kind" (actually, let's be sensible and intelligent instead). Again, should we trust a government to tell us what and how to think? If you answer yes, it's probably already too late for you!

Statement: I have felt a growing concern for some time over the steady erosion of the basic tenets of democracy in the country I love. Botched firearms legislation overriding our basic private property rights, nonsensical introduction of hate speech law, a bloated regulatory regime creating roadblock after roadblock preventing development. Government overreach into our private and business lives has become unacceptable, and a stranglehold on progress and productivity.

Reaction: This is another statement of basic libertarian philosophy. And again, these rules are put in place with good intentions. But that is exactly where we need to be most careful, especially with an ideological and incompetent government like the one we currently have.

Statement: I believe that free markets and the private sector beats regulation and the state sector in the vast majority of times when it comes to outcomes. The unintended consequences of left-wing ideals needs to be exposed.

Reaction: Despite my reservations on privatisation I broadly agree. I would probably prefer somewhat less emphasis on private enterprise than Act currently have, but in general I think the private sector should be the default way to provide services, and regulating markets to optimise outcomes is better than state control.

Statement: My core beliefs surround freedom of speech and the inherent dignity of the individual.

Reaction: And this is perhaps the difference between me and the political left as it is today. I am a strongly individualist person, and I reject collectivism in most cases. If we aren't trying to achieve the best outcomes for individual people, then what are we trying to do, and more importantly, why are we doing it? And, like I said in a previous post, freedom of speech is the most important right in a modern, democratic society. If we can't discuss ideas freely how do we make any real progress at all? Well, we don't.

So, in summary, individual freedom is what life is all about for me. That's why I'll vote Act!

Comment 1 (5430) by Anonymous on 2020-09-28 at 22:41:18:

A general comment: I believe I have noticed that you remove comments that somehow seem to displease you or unworthy of preserving. This is censorship behaviour that sits uneasily with your defence of free speech. No doubt this comment will soon disappear too.

Comment 2 (5432) by OJB on 2020-09-29 at 11:00:43:

No, I never remove comments just because I disagree. I do remove stuff that looks like spam though. If you post anything that seems to disappear just email me (ojb@mac.com) and I'll investigate.

Comment 3 (5434) by Anonymous on 2020-09-29 at 11:45:46:

Yes, I've noticed that your right to freedoms seems to be far more important than any sense of responsibility. Nice one, you'll fit in with ACT. You really must stop dealing in such absolutes, life and the world in general is far more nuanced that you realise.

Comment 4 (5435) by Anonymous on 2020-09-29 at 11:56:53:

Gosh... "Statement: I have felt a growing concern for some time over the steady erosion of the basic tenets of democracy in the country I love. Botched firearms legislation overriding our basic private property rights, nonsensical introduction of hate speech law, a bloated regulatory regime creating roadblock after roadblock preventing development. Government overreach into our private and business lives has become unacceptable, and a stranglehold on progress and productivity."

It's just nuts. It's just an irrational tirade, totally subjective and not backed up by facts. I thought you dealt in facts, not feelings?

Not trying to be agist or anything, but are you approaching retirement age? It seems that the sometimes observed "Veer to the right/self" (aka to hell with everybody else) syndrome is starting to set in...

Comment 5 (5437) by OJB on 2020-09-29 at 12:40:36:

I think it makes as much sense and any other political statement I have seen. Also, personal responsibility is as much part of Act's philosophy as personal freedom is. The two are closely related.

Comment 6 (5438) by OJB on 2020-09-29 at 12:45:35:

I am approaching retirement age, but the veer to the right thing might be more related to being more mature and having had time to think about social issues, rather than the childish idealism I had in the past.

Comment 7 (5439) by OJB on 2020-09-29 at 12:47:40:

And finally, I in no way dealt in absolutes. I even pointed out several ways I find Act's ideas problematic in the post. I am very aware that all parties and/or political philosophies have strengths and weaknesses.

Comment 8 (5441) by Anonymous on 2020-10-02 at 17:50:03:

A good blog Owen. But then I am probably a bit biased.

Comment 9 (5491) by Anonymous on 2020-10-15 at 17:13:31:

Ummm, conservative doesn't mean "wanting to keep things the way they are", it's a particularly type of social and economic dogma... remember, the rising tide lifts all the boats.

Comment 10 (5496) by OJB on 2020-10-15 at 22:40:13:

Yeah, fair enough. That is a very simplistic way to summarise conservatism. And I actually agree with a lot of conservative ideals. In fact there might be no political philosophies which I think are completely without merit. As far as the "rising tide" thing. I know, I've heard it before, and I think it can be true.

Comment 11 (5507) by Anonymous on 2020-10-16 at 10:17:15:

Hang on, so you are now believing in the trickle down effect (aka rising tide)? Surely not.

Comment 12 (5509) by OJB on 2020-10-16 at 11:25:31:

Of course, the trickle down effect *can* work, depending on the circumstances, and exactly what you define as "working". There is no doubt that the rise of capitalism has lead to a huge decrease in poverty around the world. Sure, the gap between rich and poor has increased, but the poor are now a lot better off in absolute terms. Unfortunately, people tend to evaluate their wealth based on comparisons with others rather than absolutely. I'm not saying this is an ideal outcome, but we have to give credit where it's due.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.