Saturday, June 13, 2009

Personal Public Policy Ideals

"The Liberal Party"

-A hypothetical political party.

Andrew D Atkin

Political position:

Western politics, as it stand today, could be loosely described as being composed of two separate orientations: Social-democratic and Liberal-democratic.


Social-democrats believe in democratic (group) rule to a point where group-decisions can over-ride individual decisions, for even when an individuals decisions only affect the individual at hand. They believe that an individuals liberty should not exist by constitutional right, but by privilege as provided by the democratically-elected group. Hence, social-democrats have a collectivist orientation.

For social-democrats the bottom-line is the optimum welfare of the whole - not the rights of the individual. Social-democrats believe that individuals should have to apply themselves, by democratically-enforced law, to whatever will be most advantageous for the group. An extreme example of social-democracy at work can be seen with military conscription; selected individuals are forced to risk life and limb for the sake of their nation, whether they want to or not.


Liberal-democrats believe in a stricter discrimination between individual and group decisions, and believe that group-rule should not be allowed to intrude on an individuals basic "liberal" rights. Basically, they believe that people should be free to live however which way they choose, so long as they do not unreasonably or unfairly impose themselves on others. They do not believe that democratic decisions should be allowed to over-ride individual freedom for where the individuals choices affect only themselves. Liberal-democrats do not believe that the social-whole can relate to individuals as though they are property of the group. The needs of the group are not considered to be greater than the rights of the individual.

The United States of America is an example of a country founded as a liberal-democratic nation. The American Bill of Rights was established as a constitution to protect individual liberty from the prospect of state-induced violations to an individuals freedom.

Note: In America social-democratic political interests have worked hard to undermine the American Bill of Rights. (Respecting their beliefs, it would be a contradiction of their principles not to try to do as such.) The evil is that many of these socialists have tried to undermine the Bill of Rights covertly - making them politically-dishonest socialists as opposed to democratic socialists.

The Liberal Party:

The Liberal party is strongly liberal-democratic, but it does not take this principle to a "religious" extreme. When circumstances are distinctly compelling, individual liberty could be over-ridden for the individuals own good. For example, it would actively stop a person with treatable emotional problems from committing suicide, and in this case would contradict their liberty.

The Liberal Party staunchly opposes the notion that a nation can relate to its citizens as though they are the property of the whole.

Economics: The Liberal parties economic focus is for minimal government intrusion of which functionally conditions people's lives [inducing effective compulsions through unbalanced incentives]. This requires low-tax, high user-pays, universal fair-wage protection and of course high employment. The Liberal party can be described as 'Third Way' which means that we may see a role for both government and private ownership in industrial and commercial operations. The Liberal party is concerned with achieving the optimum for economic development and efficiency; it does not have a specific ideological bent for public or private ownership.

Note: I do not believe that the left-right polarity in mainstream western politics exists anymore. Virtually everyone believes in the "leftist" ideal that people should be given a fair deal for their work, if possible, and that people should be given humane assistance if they are incapable of financially supporting themselves.

I think the main reason why left and right wing political positions are still advertised today is simply because there are votes in it. Social-democrats typically market themselves as leftists so as to create the impression that they are more caring of the disadvantaged. Though there may have been some truth in that historically, I do not believe that that position can be rightly claimed today. Relating to human wellbeing, modern politics broadly aspires to being both compassionate and fair (ideologically at least).



-Every New Zealand citizen will be equally democratically represented. Children too immature to vote will achieve indirect representation through their parents.

Obviously young children are not competent to vote, but that does not mean that they cannot be democratically represented. We can ask ourselves this question: Is indirect representation for children better than no representation at all? I believe it is, and I would like to suggest how we can achieve this.

Children could have the vote indirectly through their parents, effectively providing a 'family vote'. For example, a family of Mum, Dad and a baby should have three voting points - 1.5 for Mum and 1.5 for Dad. Hence, the parents effectively vote on behalf of their child. Once a child reaches the age of about 12 years the child could vote independently, but only by the parents authority should the parents feel that their child is competent. I think it's reasonable that a father from a separated family should retain his children's vote-points if he is paying substantial child-support. With an electronic voting system this more complicated process is still relatively easy to employ and operate.

It's not ultimately ideal that a child does not vote for him or herself; but as I believe, indirect representation through the parent is still much better than no representation at all. Besides, surely we can expect most parents to vote responsibly in the interests of their children? Indeed, the increased feeling of responsibility may encouraged parents to do more homework on the political options, so in this sense they may vote better.

-Open the debate for the modification of MMP:

MMP has its advantages and disadvantages. MMP is fairer in that it is a proportional system and it brings fresh ideas and influence into the political arena, but it also leads to third-parties possessing a potent balance-of-power even through they may have only a very minor proportion of the vote. In my opinion, MMP in New Zealand is giving us government that is too fragmented with minor third-parties having too much influence.

MMP in New Zealand should be reviewed and opened to possible amendment by public referendum.

One option, which I believe would be ideal, would be for MMP to function with a 10 percent threshold with the party-vote dictating the number of seats a party can win. If a party does not win 10 percent of the party vote, then no seat can be won in parliament regardless of the number of electorate seats a party wins. This would leave us with a stronger, better focused government that is still essentially proportion. It would still give serious third-parties a realistic chance of getting into parliament, which I believe is important for an effective democracy.

Note: The higher threshold will ensure that third-parties target a broader voter-base. With a low threshold, struggling third-parties tend to aggressively target select groups with "I'll give to you at the expense of everyone else" policy proposals. Politically-motivated vote-buying is clearly not fair, and an abuse of the democratic process. Vote-buying erodes the credibility of national governments (as an ultimate social-organisational system), and at an extreme can lead to serious social tensions, even civil war.

-Political party funding will be reviewed:

It is essential that party funding mechanisms are developed to remove the influence of big-money on an electoral outcome. The situation where vested interests can manipulate politicians and electoral outcomes for their own private advantage is absolutely unacceptable.

Freedom-of-speech idealism needs to be balanced with a restriction on the freedom to inoculate people with unchallenged bias.


-Government immigration prerequisites will be based on the overall economic advantage for New Zealand. There will be no specific agenda to increase population.

For a country of four million people an optimum economies-of-scale can be achieved on most essential items. What's more, effective economies-of-scale can be (and are) achieved simply through good trade-links. In turn, we should have no specific agenda for increasing New Zealand's population, at least not with any urgency. Indeed, too much immigration too soon can lead to serious short-term under-supplies which can wreak havoc on an economy, and rapidly drive up prices on essential items.

-New Zealand citizens will directly participate in final immigrant selection, case by case, by viewing online interviews (similar to national jury service).

This policy respects the very important social dimensions of immigration, and the right of New Zealanders to choose their company. It also allows immigrants to feel more accepted because they can know that they have been more personally chosen by the New Zealand people, as opposed to just an abstract government policy.

-As much as reasonably possible, immigration volumes will be regulated to ensure that the job-market is always "tight".

Ensuring full or near-full employment should be a priority for any country. In response to growing unemployment, immigration should be immediately restricted to protect a low-unemployment status and fair wages. In a small country like New Zealand this is relatively easy to do.


-Universal state health insurance will be employed for all citizens. The primary insurance cover will be tax-payer funded. However, citizens that neglect their health must pay extra insurance to cover their increased risk (self-abuser pays).

This is a humane, fair and affordable pricing system for all New Zealanders. It also ensures that we have good incentive for people to take care of themselves physically, so our health system will not be taxed more than it needs to be.

Update note: 20-6-10;

I now understand that when we neglect our health it does not necessarily cost the tax-payer more - in fact it can cost them less. This is because for any of us we require (on average) intensive health services for the last 6-years or so of our lives, for when our bodies begin to fail completely. People who abuse their health live shorter lives, and so can cost the government less in pensions as they tend to die quickly after they have reached retirement age.

This is a complex issue because healthy people may work a lot longer as well, and retirement ages may be extended. However, it is a factor that will need to be considered in the final calculation of "self abuser pays".

-Service provisions will be fully privatised, and government hospitals will be reduced to SOE's.

This ensures that we have competition which ensures that service-providers provide the most efficient service they can, and also maximises utilisation of the private sector.

-Extra taxation on cigarettes and alcohol will be removed.

People who abuse their health will be expected to pay more state health insurance, to cover the difference from their higher risk.

So long as people are paying their own way, it is not the place of the state to institute unfair taxation just because they do not like people's decisions of which only affect themselves.

-Open the debate for reproductive regulation.

The genetic health of any species is dependant on at least some degree of genetic selection. Nature usually solves this problem by leaving its less fit members to die of their own shortcomings. Obviously humanity does not need to be that brutal, but the fact remains that we must, one day at least, reconsider our support for the reproduction of individuals who have clear genetic inadequacies, such as significant vulnerabilities to severe diseases.

Obviously this is an enormously sensitive issue, but it is not an issue that we can turn our backs on forever. Our great and highly sophisticated universal health system is removing 'evolutionary pressure'. Sooner or later we will have think about the long-term impacts of potential genetic-degradation and our functional relationship to it.

Education: (Considered the most important political issue today).

-Education is the parents and students responsibility.

A child's development belongs to the child - not the state. If anyone has the right to regulate a child's education it is the parent.

Note: To interpret a child as a 'human resource' to be exploited by the state (for the national interest) is to take an extreme social-democratic position. The Liberal party absolutely opposes this outlook, within education in particular. Providing incentives to encourage people to become what would be most attractive for the national advantage can be acceptable in itself, depending on the circumstances. However, using actual compulsion for that objective (as though the state owns the child as their personal resource) most certainly is not.

-The government will test for basic literacy and numerical skills once children reach the age of 10 years. If a child fails the test, then government-compulsion may eventually be introduced for the child of concern. Primarily for the sake of the children, we need to ensure the universal development of these most fundamental skills.

Literacy and numerical skills are so fundamental and unambiguously necessary that the government could consider the neglect of the development of these skills a form of child abuse (though not extreme). Though government intrusion should be kept at a minimum, the government should still do a basic check on children's development, and ultimately take compulsory action if basic skills are not being actualised in reasonable time.

Note: Testing should begin from the age of about 10-12 years. The idea that children specifically need to start developing literacy and numerical skills at the very early ages of around 4-7 years is a proven myth. Children in alternative-education occasionally learn literacy and numerical skills from as late as about 10-13 years, and with sound competence and in good time (late-starting does not generally mean late-finishing). Parents and children should be able to prioritise other aspects of development before the ages of 10-12 years, if they wish. Children almost always learn a subject best when they are personally ready to apply themselves to it.

-The government will provide an internationally standardised testing/qualifications service for those who need formal recognition for their academic development. Individuals must pay for the testing/qualifying process, though only at cost price.

People should have to pay for the qualifications process because that is fair (a qualification is a professional asset) and we need to incentivise people to not bother sitting exams that they will probably fail.

-There is no prerequisite to sit any given test (other than financial payment). An achieved qualification will be dictated by the individuals ability to pass the prescribed test.

A qualification should represent exactly what it is meant to represent - knowledge and skill obtained. Not how, where or when you learned.

-The government will provide an extensive free-to-view educational resources provided online. (This resource may run into the hundreds of millions of dollars to initially develop.)

This provides open and free learning for all people [those seeking a qualification, information, or just satisfying or developing interests] for an almost negligible cost (once established).

The online multi-media format is an exceptionally efficient tool for educational learning, and it is still severely under-utilised. If the government provides a broad online service for free, then that would optimise productivity (by making the service more attractive and therefore more used) and eliminates most administrative costs. The resource should be progressively developed on the bases of critical user-feedback.

Net meeting: The online resource should also be integrated with direct links to relevant tutors, experts and consultants. This way students and professionals can get key information quickly and efficiently. An independent credit system should also be integrated with the site, so users can purchase professional services automatically (no cumbersome transactional processes). With the development of cheap broadband, it should also provide direct links to appropriate documentaries, for where relevant productions can be found.

-Though the state will remove itself from the tax-and-subsidy cycle within education as much as possible, the state will ensure that professional education is affordable for all New Zealand citizens.

As soon as the government hooks itself up to education via a tax-and-subsidy cycle, it takes then liberty to impose conditions to ensure that tax-payers money is "well spent". In turn the government inherits a controlling stake in education which can and does lead to intrusion.

Education for the young is an extremely sensitive (and highly ideological) territory, and indeed there is a lot of controversy associated with government-mandated learning systems today [learning systems that have more to do with mental-conditioning than academic learning]. My point is the room for violation of a child's autonomy and a parents rights through government-imposition is substantial and serious. The government should remove itself from the tax-and-subsidy cycle as much as possible for the immediate and long-term protection of children's and parent's rights.

Note: It pays to appreciate that the tests that we employ to measure educational achievement are based on subjectively-derived parameters, and even the tests themselves have an accuracy and meaning which is ultimately subjectively-interpreted. The science (research-based) that we have today only tells us how to get kids to perform on prescribed tests; it does not and cannot tell us what the tests (and therefore supporting curriculum) should actually be, nor what the tests ultimately represent. In other words, there is no such thing as an authority in education, at least not of the type that could justify prescriptive control over your child's development. It's important to understand that when you buy into someone else's standards in education, then you also, wittingly or not, buy into their subjective ideology. No one has scientific authority to define what somebody else's educational development should be, because correct or ideal educational development is impossible to define (non-subjectively) let alone measure. In a metaphorical nutshell: You can measure someone's ability to perform on an IQ test, but you can't measure their intelligence.

-Government educational establishments will not teach values on a compulsory bases.

It is not the place of the state to teach values, neither directly nor indirectly, excluding of course the most fundamental values which boil down to promoting and enforcing basic respect for others.

Values can ultimately be taught in schools, but only at the parents volition. This also applies to values relating to professional and life-balance priorities (it is for individuals to define for themselves what is 'success' or 'achievement' etc.), and even the value of academic education itself i.e. 'existential values' should also be respected as the student's own concern.

Tertiary education:

-The government will not differentiate between the tertiary sector and other educational sectors. Tertiary education subsidies will be reduced to only what is certainly required for the national economic advantage.

A tertiary student has no more right to demand "free" education than the tax-payer has the right to refuse to pay for it. However this position should not intimidate tertiary students. Tertiary education (like all education) does not need to cost much for students who are prepared to learn independantly (or in independant study-groups).

-To win a qualification students only need to pay for the testing process. Contrary to the status quo, there will be no instituted forced-dependency on educational service-providers, and likewise there will be no forced-expenditure. Most educational programmes will be freely available online.

With the presented policies, most students will in fact have far greater freedom to learn in their own way and time, and ultimately at much lower personal cost relative to the way that they usually must learn today. And of course, when they enter the workforce they will not be paying (much) for other people's education through their taxes.

Early childhood education:

-There will be no specific policy relating general early childhood education. However, young children will be subject to compulsory periodic evaluation [possibly every 6 months for under 5 year-olds] to check for gross developmental problems and child abuse. Compulsory measures may ultimately be enforced if serious issues are identified.


-Benefits will be designed so that all New Zealand's citizens can properly satisfy their essential needs no matter what their individual circumstances. However, clearly unnecessary beneficiary status will not be tolerated.

If you do not put food on peoples plates then they may be forced to steel for their money - the fallout costs of which go way beyond a few benefit dollars. In any circumstance a welfare system is essential, at least to some degree. Of course children should never have to go without as a consequency of their parents circumstances.

-Special benefits will be retained for those who need extra funding to function.

Nobody in a civilized society should have to line-up at a food bank, unless their condition is clearly self-induced.

-All woman will be able to stay at home until her youngest child is six years of age, if they wish.

It is usually best for young children to stay at home with their mothers. I believe no trained professional can substitute a mother (children respond to emotional-attachments more than professionally-trained behaviours).

-There will be no sickness benefit as such, only a professional-invalids benefit. (A person with a sickness who can still work will not be considered a professional-invalid).

Having a sickness does not give an individual the right to demand that others compensate them for their unfortunate condition. If an individual with a bad back, for example, can still sit at a computer and do some administrative work, then they should.

-Government support will be based on need - not age. The retirement income will be removed within 10 years. People that are too old to support themselves (with work) can apply for a professional-invalids benefit of which they may recieve indefinately.

Old people may have contributed towards society but so are and so do many others, and many people (especially people with young families) have needs at least as pressing as the needs of the elderly. Likewise, I see no fundamental reason to base government assistance on age.

This policy also creates a strong incentive for people to save, and protects tax-payers from potentially formidable retirement costs.

-Unemployed people living in locations where they have little chance of finding work will have 2 to 5 years notice to find employment (depending on their circumstances). If they fail to find work within that time they will be expected to move to a new location of higher opportunity, if they wish to retain their benefit.

Imagine if I lost my job and then decided to live in the middle of no where, and then demanded an indefinate benefit because there is no work available for me. Obviously that is not reasonable or fair. There should be a limit to the time a person can spend living in a no-work zone while recieving a benefit.

-After-tax income achieved on the average minimum wage (40hr week) will be approximately 2x that achieved on a typical benefit.

Benefits cannot be reduced further than what they are now (without wreaking havoc), and incentivising beneficiaries to find work is essential. It makes sense to ensure that even the lowest available wages make working more attractive for benificiaries. Bottom-level wages can be increased significantly, and without fallout costs to society that will not be overwhelmed by the advantages of high employment.


-The employment contracts act introduced by the National government in 1995(?) will be reinstated.

-Employers will have the power to demand no union presence as a prior condition to employment.

SEE: Replacing traditional unionism with a better function

-A probation period of three months will be introduced.

Unemployed people struggling to find work should have the right to offer this.

-A mandatory online employee-to-employer reference system will be introduced to improve employer-accountability.

We have employer references for employees, and it should work the other way around too. Employers will be greatly (and rightfully) incentivised to provide good working conditions for staff as they are effectively accountable (an employer with a bad record will otherwise struggle to attract good staff).

-The government will introduce a system for flexible job-specific minimum-wages.

This is to ensure that all workers are paid fairly, and to ensure that all workers can enjoy the fruits of economic progress.

Note: It is also important to create wage-pressure on employers to ensure that they are incentivised to achieve real efficiency gains. i.e. higher wages drive employers to boost productivity as a ratio to staff, whereas an exaggerated reserve of low-wage staff provokes complacency. Why invest in automation, for example, when staff can be employed for a dime a dozen?

-Employers will have the right to dismiss staff with at least 3 months notice, without reason, unless individual contracts state otherwise.

A developing economy means an evolving economy. Employers need to be able to chop-and-change their staff with relative ease if they are to qualitively develop their enterprises. This is not bad for workers. By making it easier for employers to lay-off staff, you also make it easier for employers to employ new staff because there is less risk associated with doing so. Also, the greater ease of finding a new job increases competition for workers amongst employers; and this, in turn, naturally translates into a better deal for workers (at least in the context of low unemployment). So, not only do you get rising wages as total wealth grows, you also get fair (or at least fairer) wealth-distribution, and improved overall job security from an inherently flexible economy. The price, I suppose, is that people have to put up with a bit of retraining at times.

Note: With these low-regulation employment policies it is essential to ensure it is more of an employees as opposed to employers job-market. Otherwise you will end with the New Zealand scenario of the last 20 years or so, where low-skilled employees have had to deal with an employers job-market without adequate wage protection. The end result has been somewhat third-world working conditions for low-skilled workers in an otherwise first-world country, and stagnant economic development as employers have not had to respond to rising wage-pressures.


-The tax-and-subsidy cycle will be reduced to only what is necessary to ensure that the essential needs of all citizens are properly met.

Appreciating the included policies, taxes will inevitably be hugely reduced. The difference will initially be translated into higher minimum wages, but not to a point where wages are over-flattened or international competitiveness is unduly compromised.

-Taxation will be straight up to $80,000 pa (this is flexible and based on 2007 NZ monetary value).

When you flatten incomes with non-straight taxation you directly erode the incentive to work (the working-for-families package is an abomination on this level); in fact you directly encourage people to move into easier low-paid or part-time work. To preserve a healthy economy it is essential that people's incomes are closely proportional to their productivity. That means straight taxation.

State services:

-State services will be employed in the circumstances where a not-for-profit system offers compelling operational advantages over a private for-profit system.

Sometimes organisations that are not operating on a profit-based business-model can offer significantly higher productivity (social) as a ratio to their total operating cost. This can and should be appreciated by the government, on a case-by-case basis.

-SOE's may be established where efficiency can be assured.

I see no problem with state-owned enterprises if they are operating efficiently. They can offer the advantages of reduced taxation, security-of-supply for important services, and also resistance to anti-competitive price-fixing (price-fixing can happen formally or informally) from privately-owned organisations.

Law and order:

-More economical and humane methods of imprisonment will be investigated and utalised where possible.

-Serious violent and sexual offenders will never be allowed back into society until we can know, beyond all reasonable doubt, that they will not reoffend.

The following represents the function of prisons, as I understand it:


-Public protection (via isolation as well as deterrent)

-Rehabilitation (if possible)

-Revenge (if that is what a given society wants)

I believe the most critical function of prisons is deterrent and public protection, in particular with respect to violent offenders. In turn I believe that the public should not be expected to take a risky second chance with someone who has already demonstated that they are capable of the worst. I believe that violent offenders should be permanently isolated from society until we can know that they will not re-offend.

Note: None of us chooses our genes or our environment, so you could always find excuses for violent offenders if you looked hard enough. I myself believe that all guilty criminals are themselves victims. Regardless, I consider the issues of blame and revenge to be basically beside the point. Our primary concern should be to find a practical method of permanently isolating dangerous people from our society - it doesn't matter how or why someone became dangerous, public protection should always be the first consideration.


-Regulations will conform to a cost-benefit rationality, and be progressively reviewed on that basis.

Evaluating the ultimate cost-benefit relationship of regulations in advance is difficult - mistakes will always be made. In turn, regulations should be progressively reviewed to ensure that they are working properly. Bad regulations should be modified or removed as soon as possible once shortcomings have been identified.


-Congested roads will be congestion-charged (tolled only enough so as to control congestion). The government will independantly invest in road-building where the costs clearly justify the benefits. Public-private contracts may be used where there is substantial risk.

Congestion is very expensive on society as a dead-weight cost, and it also restricts qualitive economic-progress by inhibiting innovation opportunites (limiting practical access for new ventures). Because public transport can only effectively support CBDs (CBDs support about 10 per cent of transport demand in most cities), congestion-charging is the only realistic short and medium-term solution to traffic-congestion. The money from the toll revenue should substitute (in part) local taxes.

Note: Congestion-charging can be better than revenue-based tolling because it does not lead to under-utalisation of the road, and therefore allows the road to achieve higher real productivity for society.

-The government will build and own a broadband infrastructure at least powerful enough to provide reliable DVD-quality streaming-video and video-intercom to all New Zealand homes, except maybe the most isolated homes where the cost of installation cannot be justified.

The critical point is that a broadband infrastructre is worth far more to a country than what can be represented in terms of direct telecomunications revenue, especially for an otherwise isolated country like New Zealand. Telecom, by contrast, will only invest on the narrow bases of personal company gain. That is not good enough because broadband is simply too important for New Zealand's competitiveness.

The longer we delay the development of broadband, the longer it will take us to develop the complimentary infrastructure to exploit it (the developmental reaction to broadband is just as important as the broadband itself).


All these policies will translate into rapid economic growth of which is fairly and humanely distributed.


Race, religion, sex and culture:

-All citizens will have total cultural freedom so long as they respect human and individual rights. As much as possible the state will be ethnicity, culture, religion and sex blind.

Cultures, communities, values and associations are for individuals to create and define - not the state. However, the state should always defend fundamental human rights. No culture, for example, should be allowed to 'define' a value for involuntary slavery, murder, rape, theft or serious child-abuse etc.

-Possible anti-discrimination laws will be balanced with a respect for people's right to choose their associations at their own discretion.

The state can and should insist that minorities are treated with the same respect that every citizen should expect. However, to create a simple example, if a so-called homophobic or racist individual wants to reject certain people simply because they do not like gays or Asians etc, then that should ultimately be respected as their right. People should be entitilled to their social preferences without having to answer to them. There is a difference between isolating yourself from people because you simply don't like them, and actively abusing them.

[For the record, the author does not consider himself to be a racist or homophobe].


-Policies will be introduced to ensure stable non-inflated prices for houses.

-State-owned ready-to-occupy land (and maybe house) reserves may be introduced to ensure that rapid immediate increases in housing supply can be achieved. This is to provide stong protection against the threat of housing speculation.

Providing stable house-prices is of particular importance. When house prices are allowed to go up and down due to invasive speculation or deliberately instituted housing/land under-supplies (New Zealand's current situation) then you seriously and unfairly (creating winners and losers on unfair grounds) interfere with peoples lives.


-Environmental policies will be based on objective science with the assistance of an independant non-ideological department. The goal will be to develop policies that allow us to maximise environmental profit for a given cost.

The public's understanding of environmental issues is almost entirely controlled by what the general media tells them or implies. Likewise, it is essential that we lay the foundation for objectivity in this ever more political (and politically distorted) area.


-Most advertising will be outlawed.

Television will naturally switch to a pay-per-view model. However, the state may retain one or two free-to-air (and adless) channels.

-An online product/service information service will be employed to substitute advertising's traditional informative-function. Registry to this website will be mandatory for all products and services operating in New Zealand. It will also function as a public accountability service (Basically, the public can rate products and services, and average rankings will be displayed online).

SEE: Advertising


-An objective debate over 'Management versus Oppression (prohibition)' should be opened.

An ideal model may be to make all drugs legal but distribute the harder drugs within a controlled-environment. This way we would destroy the blackmarket which, most importantly, empowers us to keep drugs away from kids. Getting rid of the blackmarket will normalise the price of drugs and this should lead to a major reduction in crime and prostitution (which largely only exists to support otherwise costly drug-addictions).

By distributing the harder drugs within a controlled-environment, we can far better identify the people who are functioning as a menace to society and/or their families. It gives us greater power (through superior identification and control) to force these problematic cases to 'dry out'. Furthermore, by distributing drugs within a controlled-environment we can ensure that people are educated on what they will be taking before they first try a given drug. This could lead to a major reduction in addictions in itself, considering that many addictions would be primarily based on ignorance and peer pressure (both factors of which can be removed within the controlled-environment). Again, I believe good management may prove to be much more effective than our oppressive status quo.

The liberal perspective, which I support, is if an informed adult wants to shun rehabilitation opportunities and kill themselves with whatever given substance, then so be it. You can and should take state-paternalism only so far. For the most part, I believe we should focus our resources towards those who want to help themselves.


-Laws will be created to resist the development of very large organisations that would, potentially, undermine democratic autonomy. This should apply except for where large organisations provide a distinct economic advantage due to their capacity to execute unusually large projects, and where significant economies-of-scale can only be achieved through a large corporate structure.

-Except in very special circumstances, the anti-competitive practice of selling below production-cost price [so as to destroy smaller competitors via a sustained price war] will be illegal.

Very large organisations operating within a competitive environment are forced to respond to the bottom-line religiously so as to avoid being undercut by their competitors, which would, in turn, otherwise force them out of business via an ever-decreasing market share. That is the great danger of a market-competitive system: It can, by law of survival-of-the-most-ruthless, drive organisations to conform to an absolute profit-objective and at the ultimate expense of all other values. This is not because businesses are "bad", but because competitive dynamics forces this scenario to be so.

Proft-driven organisations must, of course, be regulated to avoid potentially unacceptable social and environmental fallout. Hence, the competitive dynamic becomes truly concerning when organisations evolve to become so large that their concentrated economic-power starts to appreciably control the regulator (government) itself, as the dynamic of political manipulation becomes part of the competitive game. From here, just about anything can conceivably happen. Competitive economic forces may dictate the structure of society, driving society to conform to the profit motive like it's "the meaning of life" in itself.

Example: It is no secret that Henry Ford and other major industrialists used their collective economic power to influence the American government of the day so as to drive a brand of compulsion-schooling of which was intended not for intellectual development (as propoganda claimed) but the virtual opposite. It was designed to condition children into the unflattering demands of industrial production-lines, and that basically meant creating a class of people well-adjusted to long hours of mindless drudgery. Would compulsory behavioural education have been able to happen, as it has, if American policy was uncontaminated by powerful business interests? Extremely unlikely. This is the sort of thing that can (and does) happen when competitive enterprise leads to organisations economically concentrated enough to define society, rather than the other way around. The split between corporate and governmental motivation should be steadfastly protected.

Monetary reform:

-The possibility of monetary reform, relating to the ideas promoted by the Social Credit movement, will be objectively investigated. If it appears that it is reasonable to reform our monetary system so as to reduce our dependency on private debt financing, then this will be done.

It is a fact that, for example, the American Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned organisation which issues finance for the American government. This finance is not backed by anything other than the borrowers commitment to pay back their loan, originally obtained from the bank. Hence, the Federal bank quite literally creates money to lend out of thin air. The American Federal bank, in conjunction with smaller (subordinate) banks, charges interest for the priviledge of doing only what the American government could otherwise have done for itself - that is, creating money to issue of which is backed by nothing. The key point is that if credit was directly provided by the state, then the interest-returns currently being paid to the private banks' shareholders would instead be paid back to the state, and likewse reducing the tax burden.

From what I understand, the New Zealand situation is similar in that we borrow debt from overseas where, generally, we could have otherwise just issued our own credit locally, relieving us from the otherwise parasitic interest. If this so, as it appears to be, then our (apparent) American-style status quo obviously should not be tolerated.

Personal position relating to professional politics:

In the future I may wish to enter politics, possibly developing my own political party with the help of like-minded people. Of course I would need to establish financial backing, and support from competent and mature colleagues to actualise this (no zealots, ego's, childish argumentive types or career-politicians!), and that could prove to be a quite a mission. Joining up with an established political party that would, basically, want a moldable hack is also not realistic (I'm too independant). Hence, I will see!

1 comment:

  1. I see all problems boiled down to just a few factors. All parties seek to promote and protect the powers in power. They all pretend to be different from each other but they are not. We end up with the same thing, no matter who is in power.

    Power is power because it subjects (against our will) the people, the masses, and uses their labor to serve the power. What you speak of is serving the masses of people. Power would never do that. Power would have to dissolve itself and seek the welfare of all. No party will ever do that. I submit that God will but most do not believe that is real. If not then I would suggest we are doomed for power can not be overcome by slaves in chains. Just a fact of life.

    The problem here on planet earth is that human nature is out of control. We suffer unfulfilled needs which thereby drive insane desires that can not be quenched or satisfied and hence the desire to have infinite power over others. It would take a power far greater than those of the current ruling elite to overthrow that power. Either it is God or a fairy tale.