Why does the role of the state matter now?

The global financial crisis is seen by the left as the prima-facie case against free market capitalism.   Just under 20 years after Marxism-Leninism was shown up, on live TV, for what it was, a cold ruthless oppressive heartless nightmare, those who quietly had to admit that communism didn't work were ready to gloat.  

The collapse of investment banks demonstrated what happens when a handful of men are driven by a ruthless desire to make money using other people's money, with little regard for the risks or the consequences.  That was and is the line taken by the left.  The British Labour Party, with barely a hint of contrition, blames the banks - not the fact that it was in power responsible for the biggest bank of the mall, the one that all the others are dependent on, and nay encouraged to use for unlimited credit.

The first stage of the financial crisis saw banks face collapse over poor investment.  In a free market economy a bank that does that would be allowed to fail, but the leftwing response (indeed the conservative rightwing response if one looks at the United States) was to bail them out.  The left now claim that this is what free market capitalism is about.  Really?  Is there any sector where free market capitalists argue for state bailouts?  No.  

They who meme that capitalism is about privatising profits whilst socialising losses are talking utter nonsense.  For this would not happen in a true free market economy.  Indeed, in a true free market economy there would have been a couple of key differences from what happened.

One is the often repeated rules set up in the late 1990s by the Clinton Administration requiring lenders to loan to a segment of people who would otherwise be bad credit risks.   That in itself meant people who shouldn't have had credit to buy homes got it.  An explicitly redistributive measure that backfired.

However, the more intrusive role of the state is the central role it plays in creating money and issuing credit to banks.  The state creates money from nothing and distributes it by lending it to banks at a centrally set interest rate which they then lend onto borrowers at a profit.  That isn't free market capitalism, as a core component of capitalism - the means of exchange - is state created and its value managed by growing its supply (created managed inflation).

In such an environment, the state boosts the economy by ever increasing the money supply, with more credit being issued, supporting positive and negative investments, until at some point, the bubble in prices in investments, whether they be shares or property, bursts.  In Ireland, the state, which offered an explicit 100% guarantee of deposits, shifted the burden onto taxpayers.  In Iceland, the state let them all fail.  

The so-called deregulated free market financial sector was nothing of the sort.  It could operate largely as it wished in developing financial instruments with the public and businesses and each other, but it did not with the blood supply from the state of credit issued from nothing.  

Free market banking is not banks that issue state issued credit which is turned on and off like a tap.  

What we have had is mixed model banking, and we have it again now.

The second part of the global financial crisis has come directly from statism.  Banks have finally figured out that sovereign debt in countries that run perpetual budget deficits, and don't even have the instrument of printing fiat money to pay for it, is not safe.  Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and increasingly France, Belgium and Slovenia, are all facing up to reality.  The economics of every single one of those states has been ever increasing spending, ever increasing state employment, ever increasing regulation of business and every increasing debt.

The model of the socialist state, that borrows and spends between elections, passing on the burden to the future generation, has been found wanting.  It is a model that the UK has also embraced with aplomb under Gordon Brown and in the US, not just by Barack Obama, but also G.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.  

The level at which people will tolerate taxation is below the level that the left have sold the state to them.  It is that gap that needs bridging across the Western world.  With few exceptions, this is the model that has been swallowed and which virtually all states are now trying to adapt to buy time - yet they are not dealing with the fundamentals.

The US Presidential election is a facsimile of that debate.  Barack Obama believes the answer is to raise taxes to bridge the gap, albeit slowly and to continue with using debasement of the currency, through money printing (quantitative easing) to boost the economy and hopefully ensure GDP grows faster than debt.

Mitt Romney believes in cutting spending, albeit slowly, and although he would also debase the currency he is willing to investigate the merits of a shift to a commodity based currency, rather than currency based on nothing but confidence.  

In New Zealand, this debate is what should be led by Libertarianz/ACT/ the new liberal party.

A belief that the state should hold ever decreasing amounts of public debt, that it should not spend more than it takes in revenue.  That it should encourage independence not dependence, that it should encourage people looking after themselves, their families and each other, not to claim the unearned money of others by force.  That it should promote the benevolence of civil society, community and fellowship, not the sneering, mob rule of people lobbying departments, councils, community boards for new laws, new money, new taxes, engaging in endless rent seeking paid for by force by someone else.

The global financial crisis was not due to free market capitalism, its solutions were not remotely anything to do with capitalism, and today the seeds are being sown for the next financial crisis.   The seeds are quantitative easing, which has been a resounding success in keeping the Japanese economy stagnant for 15 years.

The anti-capitalists seen in leftwing parties and the Occupy movement had a point.  The model that failed four years ago was a massive transfer from all of us to the owners and employees of banks that undertook malinvestments.  

Yet it isn't capitalism that failed, and those who oppose it don't have an alternative, just anger and a desire for more government.

We do have an alternative.  

Libertarianz and a new liberal party?

Unfortunately I can't attend the Libertarianz conference this weekend, not the least because I left NZ seven years ago and haven't looked back.  Unfortunately because it promises to be the best ever, largely because the political environment for a political party that explicitly believes in less government and a smaller state has changed, dramatically.

You see the primary political debate today, as it has been throughout the last century, is the role of the state.  Leaders of major parties try to evade this, because politics has become, to a large part, an exercise in show business, slogans, imagery and trivia.  Rare is there in depth discussion about policy, philosophy or principles, but often is then commentary about politicians' backgrounds, their empathy, how they speak, look and whether they care.

With the rise of television, a medium primarily of entertainment, politics has become the dark science of the sound bite, of imagery.

However, it isn't just about that.  The internet has opened up the opportunity for anyone to comment on politics, to write or talk about it.  That has started to change political discourse, so that what people see and read is not just what the mainstream media wants them to see.

For those of us who seek to advance a consistent stand for less government, both in economics and in people's private lives, politics in NZ is at a turning point.

ACT has shrunk to a rump that is unlikely to be sustainable, and is led by John Banks, a man from the past, with a past that is simply not credible in advancing smaller government on both economic and social matters.  As Peter Cresswell said, its principles are sound, but its policies and strategies have failed to come close to sustaining a party that builds a core support of those who do not want the automatic answer of a politician to any issue of the day to be "I'll pass a new law" "I'll spend some more of other people's money".

Libertarianz has never managed to pass an electoral threshold to make it more than a dedicated club of people who simply couldn't stomach compromising their principles.  Both the presence of ACT, and the very low probability of electoral success, saw Libertarianz largely ignored, perpetuating that lack of success.  Indeed, the two most successful outlets for libertarian ideas and policies have not been the party, but the radio shows hosted by Lindsay Perigo in the 1990s and most recently Peter Cresswell's excellent blog.

So what now?

Maybe this is what I would say if I had a chance to talk to the conference this weekend...

NZ politics is dominated by political parties that share one philosophy - statism - the belief that the state should intervene, should spend other people's money, should borrow on their behalf, should pass new laws and regulations, and that there is no principled reason why it shouldn't do so.

The mainstream media echoes this.  All too often journalists ask politicians what they would "do", not "do you think the government should do something about this" or "should the government get out of the way"?  The education system is dominated by statists, nurtured by leftwing unions and academics, who all sign up to a carbon copy set of beliefs.  At best capitalism is seen as a necessary evil, but along with that are the post-modernist identity politics, the neo-Marxist belief that people are defined by their race and sex, and most recently even religion and body size.  

The legitimate concerns over pollution have been transformed into an all-encompassing religion of environmentalism, where evidence is skewed to suit a particular monologue - that man is a disease, pollution is ever increasing, that key words like "nuclear" "genetic engineering" "fossil fuels" are all placed in a basket of horror.  Where legitimate concerns are exaggerated, where evidence contrary to the monologue is ignored and the message is given that without massive state intervention in the economy and people's private lives, the environment will be destroyed and so will humanity.   

Have no doubt, environmentalism is the hijacking of universal opposition to pollution and appreciation of nature, to embrace an almost misanthropic desire to control, to attack capitalism, to grow a paternalistic, regulated state that tells people what to do, what not to do and takes their money to penalise what they don't like (e.g. flying) and support what they do like (windfarms and railways).

The Greens, of course, the ones carrying the banner for this.

Never is there a problem that doesn't demand a new law, or for more money to be spent on it. 

Behind the smiling faces of bright eyed bushy tailed people who claim to be speaking for what is clean, what is good, what is right and to help the poor, are people who sometimes tout xenophobia (if you doubt me, see how they talk about foreign investors, and how that parallels communist parodies of capitalists), who claim to use science and evidence, but peddle scaremongering.  I remember in 1999 Jeanette Fitzsimons said it was the last Christmas when we could trust a potato.  The genetic engineering armageddon hasn't happened, more than a couple are only wishing the global warming one does.   Most recently has been scaremongering about mobile phone transmitters, purely on perception. 

 

They believe in big government, with the small exceptions of scepticism about unlimited state surveillance powers and drugs, it is a party that thinks the state is people.  It sees children as not the parents' responsibility, but everyone's.  It sees people not as individuals, but as races, as sexes, as sexualities, as classes, as labels.  A party of Marxists, nationalists and even misanthropes.  People who believe the way to help people is to give them more of money taken from other people.  People whose contradictions are endless.   

I'll take one favourite of mine.  CO2 emissions should be cut, they say, but foreign ships carrying freight to and from NZ, that visit several ports along the NZ coast, shouldn't be allowed to carry freight between NZ ports.   Even though a ship that is travelling anyway emits hardly any more pollution carrying some freight from say Lyttelton to Auckland, it shouldn't be allowed.  Why?  Because the Greens sympathise with the workers on board those ships, as they aren't paid as much as NZ seafarers.  So the Greens, who say they believe in the environment, and believe in jobs and say they aren't racist, would rather have more pollution to shift freight, would rather deny Filipino seafarers jobs that are, rationally, better than others they have, all to protect their well above average salary (i.e. rich by their measure) union mates.

It doesn't take long to get down to what they really believe.  The Greens want more and more laws, more and more of your money and to spend more and more of it on their pet projects.  Precious little of it is about freedom, and for them the state is your friend, even when it is telling you what to do, spending your money on what you don't want and frightening your children with talk of Armageddon. 

Of course Labour has done a lot of that as well, for much longer.  Between the Greens and Labour it's purely a matter of degree, but I recall when Helen Clark said "the state is sovereign".  She didn't think there was anything that should stop government and politicians from doing as they think is best.  It simply made me realise what drives Labour politicians today - the desire to tell people what to do, to change society by passing laws, by spending other people's money, but most of all the cold, humourless, finger pointing oppression of the suppression of free speech.  The willingness to call anyone racist, who dares question special treatment on the basis of race, or sexist, anyone who doesn't want to introduce quotas for women on boards, has infiltrated our universities, our media and the state sector, and has been a method to deny debate and to debase argument, whilst smearing those who question in like a Red Guard from Maoist China.  Phrases like "cultural safety" have spread a climate of fear in some institutions.   A belief that people should never be offended, never be upset and that the state should police this has been one of the more insidious developments in the last twenty or so years.  It parallels the demand for faux respect of young thugs who gleefully lash out violently at those who look at them the wrong way, as if everyone should be ultra-vigilant about their behaviour and language to not offend these empty esteem-less flowers.

Being able to be open, honest and unafraid of offending people is the hallmark of a liberal society.  Labour has cultivated a culture that has eroded that.  Dare criticise Islam without being labelled an Islamophobe.  Dare criticise Maori organisations or Maori specific initiatives without being labelled as racist.  Dare criticise calls for laws to enforce quotas for women on corporate boards, or to challenge the DPB, and be called sexist.   It's not just intellectually lazy, it's aggressive, confrontational and authoritarian.  Name calling is not an argument.  The left do it all the time, we must resist doing so, unless the facts speak for themselves.

Labour's saving grace is to have courage of its convictions, meaning that almost every Labour government makes changes that endure.   It is a point those of us who want to advance freedom should grasp.   However, for the good that Labour has achieved - and most of us may look back at some of the dramatic changes pushed through in the 1980s - it has also given birth to a welfare state that has promoted and sustained intergenerational dependency, it took the just cause of redress against historic state racism and property theft to create a new taxpayer funded Maori elite, to which it is blasphemy to challenge or to hold accountable.

Labour is driven by the desire for state intervention, by the desire to change people through government, and has been responsible for so much corrosion of individual responsibility, of pride in individual success, of promotion of moral relativism and envy, that it is simply the Greens diluted.

How about National then?  What a relief so many of us felt when it was 2008 and finally we said farewell to Helen Clark, as she was about to embark on a new job, in New York, ending world poverty, on a US$500,000 a year tax free salary, travelling first class and staying in five star hotels.

However, the euphoria didn't take long to end.

The National Party, like ACT, has founding principles that I can largely agree with, but in reality it is a party with one single purpose - to be in power.  With the exception of three years when Ruth Richardson saved the country from bankruptcy, National's legacy has been at best to slow Labour, at worst to preside over a mammoth growth in the state that would make any socialist blush in the form of Think Big.  Right now it is, once again, the party of fiscal incontinence, with a new Think Big focused on building roads and a state broadband network.  National brought us the Resource Management Act, and sees reform of it largely to allow it to embark on its Think Big programme.  National sees the criminal justice system as going only one way, with new laws to allow stop and search of anyone, to allow search of property without a warrant.   National can sometimes throw us a tax cut, can sometimes ever so courageously try to sell a minority stake in a power company, it might even reverse the powers given to local government.

However, for all that, there is little sign National will advance real reforms to liberate planning laws by supporting private property rights, luke warm interest in opening up education to choice and liberating it from centralised command, control and rent seeking from teaching unions.  National is building, once again, the corporatist state, with fervent state intervention and investment in telecommunications.  It wont dare touch the Maori corporatist state or the race based electorates.   Beyond all that National offers absolutely nothing on personal freedom.   It wont even contemplate questioning the war on drugs, despite such radical forces as The Economist calling for an end to it.   It's behaviour on law and order says all you need to know - little respect for the presumption of innocence, little respect for due process.   To National, the people the police question or arrest are not "their" people, they are probably guilty anyway, so aren't really deserving of sympathy.

For a party that's meant to be about aspiration, individual achievement and respect of freedom and private property, this is contemptible.

Beyond all that, we have two race based parties, born from the belief that Maori, as a people, must have parties that mean the state specifically looks after them.   Parties that embrace the corporatist Maori elite, parties that believe that it is racist to have a colourblind state, that it is racist for an election to mean one person one vote, that it isn't possible for Maori to be individuals, and to not want Maori statist politicians to represent them.

No other party offers anything that consistently supports less government, less tax, more freedom, and a presumption that the answer to policy issues is not for government to do more.  

That's why we should.

ACT failed because it sold out principles for populism, for bending as the wind blew and so being a party like every other, slippery, slimy and more interested in power than principle and policies.  It is as good as finished.

Libertarianz failed because it has been unable to gather momentum for ideas, for principles and sell a convincing message about less government.   Quite simply not enough NZers believe in a future without the welfare state, without universal basic education and healthcare, and they aren't convinced that capitalism, free markets and most of all, individual initiative, can be an effective as well as a moral substitute for government.

There are good people in the National Party, people who do believe in less government.   They may mean that, in the long term, there is some hope.   However, they are in a party that exists to straddle the mainstream.  They face opponents who embrace the state, who talk of "investing" other people's money and passing new laws, and of being modern and "reinventing" politics, when virtually all of them are just rehashing statism, again and again.

Those good people in National are our allies, but National will not and cannot be a sufficient platform in itself for disseminating liberalism.   

So what do I mean by liberalism?

It isn't the leftwing definition, whereby it means being liberal with other people's money or being a moral relativist about crime.  It doesn't mean letting murderers and rapists out of prison in a handful of years because it wasn't really "their" fault.  I am using it as a synonym of libertarianism, classical liberalism or whatever you want to call it.  

I mean belief in less government.  The belief that government can't and shouldn't pick winners in the economy.  The belief that the state sector's role in the economy exists primarily to protect law and order, enforce contracts and protect property rights.  The belief that state welfare should not incentivise its usage as a choice, rather as a last resort and that those who wish to help those less fortunate should be encouraged to do so, with their own money.  The belief that the state shouldn't dominate the education system, but allow it to flourish with diversity, variety and choice, so parents choose and their choices are reflected in where the money goes in the system.  The belief that healthcare policy is not a choice between a paternalistic centralised state system or the broken US corporatist/state system.   Finally, the belief that pensions and retirement cannot be guaranteed by a ponzi like state scheme.   I do not fear foreign investment, but embrace the idea that state owned enterprises should be privatised, perhaps by handing out shares to taxpayers as well as sales to cornerstone investors.

I also think that the basis for a free, secure society is rule of law, which means reviewing all criminal laws, to decriminalise or abolish victimless crimes, including reviewing drugs policy.  A point that needs to work with welfare, education, health and even ACC policies.   The Libertarianz policy of legalising drugs needs to answer real concerns from parents that it will mean schools are awash with brain damaging substances - one of the answers is to look at Portugal.

It means that the rule based RMA, driven by local planners who just think they know best how your property should "fit in" to their grand ideas, is replaced by a property rights based framework, so that what you do and don't do with your property is based on how it affects the rights of others to do the same with theirs.

I also think that monetary policy's role in the recent financial crisis needs to be investigated and the fundamentals of monetary policy reviewed.

A new party needs to come up with some clear messages.  It needs to defend capitalism without shame, it needs to take on every attempt to create a new law, a new regulation and a new tax, with arguments based on principle, experience and reason.   It needs to harness the natural scepticism most people have of politicians and bureaucracy.  

After all, would people really expect their MPs to buy their groceries, their clothes, their holidays?  Why should they trust them to buy them homes, their healthcare, their pensions and their kids' education?

Why should the future of Maori be defined not by what they themselves achieve as individuals, as employees, employers, entrepreneurs, parents, as people - but by what the government gives them in money, jobs or "rights"?

The new party will not have the policies of Libertarianz, not because they are wrong, but because they are unrealistic in a Parliamentary term for a small party.  What we need is a clear statement that the new party will vote consistently for steps to reduce the size of the state in its non-core functions, that it will support fiscal responsibility, so that a tax cut means a spending cut, that it will support property rights and enforcement of real crimes, but not creating new crimes just on the whim of the latest outrage.  It means rejecting Think Big whether it be roads or railways, broadband or solar energy.  It means supporting steps towards individuals having more choice in health and education, and weaning people off of welfare, by making it easier to start up and sustain business without the state wanting its share from day one.

It means changing the terms of the debate. 

It means arguing for less state, not more, for the state to do what it is meant to do well, and to leave everything else to businesses, voluntary groups and individuals.

and to do so proudly.

Where to from here for those of us who believe in freedom?

ACT, Libertarianz, Freedom Party, Liberal Party, whatever name there is for the future of those at the libertarian/freedom oriented end of the political spectrum is not important right now. What is important is that those of us who share some fairly core values and principles agree to sit down and talk. The options that have been taken up till now have been somewhat spent. ACT has long been the pragmatic option, but until 2008 was never part of government. In government, many (including myself) believe it under-delivered, and certainly the strategy taken by the leadership the past few months has been an abject failure. I wont repeat my previous views on this, but needless to say ACT as a liberal force for more freedom and less government cannot limp along simply led by John Banks to the next election.  I suspect even he realises that the status quo isn't sustainable.

To be fair to Libertarianz, every election since the 2002 administrative debacle has been an improvement, both in campaigning style and result. Yet without getting virtually any media attention or having enough money to buy advertising, it struggles to get heard. Even when it had its peak in 1999, it was due to Lindsay Perigo’s leadership and presence on a nationwide radio station. Yet this end of the political spectrum has been sadly filled with the sorts of chasms and arguments that are not entirely dissimilar from that of the far left. It occasionally has been a little like the Trotskyites vs. the Stalinists vs. the Maoists. ACT has blamed Libertarianz for being too purist, Libertarianz has blamed ACT for being soft sellouts and others have said that Christians have felt excluded, along with non-objectivists, or even those who are conservatives in their personal life and have conservative values, but don't believe the state should impose them.  Bear in mind I’m an objectivist libertarian and Libertarianz member who has voted Libertarianz four times and ACT twice since MMP came along.

The bare faced truth that needs to be admitted is that there is a difference between seeking to win Parliamentary representation and influence, and to be a lobby group that seeks to influence more widely than that. Those on the left, including the environmentalists are expert in doing this, having set up a number of moderate to high profile lobby groups that focus on specific issues. Those of us who want less government, need to do more organising, less in-fighting and recognise the difference between running a successful political party, lobbying on issues and being movements of populism or philosophy. 

I agree with Peter Cresswell that those of us who are freedom lovers need to start talking. So I suggest there be a conference of some sort in that light.

The default invitees being senior members of ACT and Libertarianz, and others specifically invited by people from both parties (who may come from National or elsewhere inside or outside politics). It should be a session to think, not necessarily to decide what to do, but to spend time to chew the fat and provide the catalyst to do more thinking, before acting.  It shouldn't be a session to grandstand or for publicity seekers, but a serious closed conference.   It wont be to make final decisions, but to make substantive progress on what to do next.  It should form the basis to produce proposals for discussions with existing party members, and to reach a conclusion within a year.

The agenda should be as follows:

- Introductions ;

- What sort of objectives should exist for a political party of freedom;

o Principles and values; 

o Political goals 

- Understanding philosophy (where do our principles and values come from ((intention to understand, not debate, how different people came to the freedom/liberal/libertarian end of the spectrum));

- Key policies and issues (identifying policies that unite us, and those that divide us. Not looking for detailed discussion about tax rates, but to establish common ground and to understand clearly the issues that cause some of us problems and finding a way to address, discuss them);

- What’s right about ACT and Libertarianz, and what is wrong;

- What a successful party of freedom would look like, campaign like, and focus on;

- What to avoid (Open, frank and honest discussion about what a future party should avoid);

- Options (revitalising ACT, strengthening Libertarianz, starting from scratch, rebranding and merging) with the objective of narrowing down preferences to two;and

- Next steps (widening discussion with respective parties, another meeting to create concrete proposals). 

This should happen next year, around mid-year (so people will want to stay inside). It should be good willed, good natured and well disciplined. It shouldn’t just be a meeting of suits, or a meeting of loud mouthed angry ranters, but a meeting of good people, with good intentions, who have by and large, shared values, but haven’t been talking from first principles and objectives with each other.  Bear in mind also that what may finally come could be a two pronged strategy - one involving a political party, another involving a think tank/lobby group (or two?).

The most important thing of all, for everyone, will be to listen. 

In advance of that, those of us in ACT, Libertarianz, and indeed freedom oriented members of National, ALCP (and others if they find themselves in a less conventional political home) should sit down and talk amongst ourselves, and with each other.  It is time to rise above the morass of noise, detail and personality clashes.  Nothing should be in or out, but it should be obvious that unless there is a consistent belief in there being less government and more freedom, then we will get nowhere. 

It’s time to not be too solipsistic and realise that this election less than 1.5% of the public voted for parties that expressly espouse less government. Many of us have been doing this for some years, but we also have eager, hard working and enthusiastic young people who reject the mainstream view that the answer to any problem is automatically that the government should do more. Let’s do it for them, do it for us, do it for the country we want New Zealand to be - I believe that at the very least it means free, prosperous, optimistic, where people are judged not by their ancestry, sex or background, but by their deeds and words. A country where being a tall poppy is not something to sneer at, but something to celebrate and aspire to. 

The conservative right has got its act together, and has built a highly credible platform that could cross the 5% threshold in 2014. 

We must do the same, but better.

Who’s with me?

P.S.  The reports that John Banks is talking to the Conservative Party to consider some sort of relationship, simply exemplifies the fact that ACT is finished.  LET Banks take whatever is left of ACT with him, let him go.  He'll never win Epsom under that banner.   I'd don't need to say the three word phrase that starts with "told", but I am SO glad I did not vote ACT to be represented by Banks.   It isn't schadenfreude at all, it's just frustration when this whole debacle is res ipsa loquitur.

Libertarianz in 2011

Libertarianz members are having their annual conference this weekend.   I've been a member of the party for 14 years, so it is hardly surprising that I have supported it every election since.   However,  as I get old it raises some fairly fundamental issues about my participation in politics and my desire to change the terms of the political debate in New Zealand, and change New Zealand public policy.

The first time I was ever able to vote was 1990.  I voted Labour.  Why?  Because for months beforehand I watched National oppose the privatisation of Telecom, with Jim Anderton.  Because for the years before I watched Roger Douglas transform the economy, largely in a rational and extraordinarily courageous manner - for little he did was popular or for short term gain or popularity.  I was less than comfortable with the new bureaucracies for "Women's Affairs", "Youth Affairs", the reintroduction of compulsory unionism, and the new leftwing racism and subjectivist mysticism seen in the creation of the Treaty of Waitangi industry, but I grew up under Rob Muldoon.  I saw National as the party not of free markets, but of kneejerk resistance to change.

Yet in 1993 I voted National, for I saw the same courage in Ruth Richardson.  I despised National's embrace of an authoritarian feminist agenda for censorship, the sellout on education and Jim Bolger's ridiculous embrace of electoral reform, but the big political push at the time was from the authoritarian thieves of the Alliance, and the bottom feeder Winston Peters and his personality cult of followers.   Of course, Bolger sacrificed Richardson on the altar of pragmatism.

In 1996 I voted ACT, because I hoped that following Roger Douglas's first act, there could be hope of a National-ACT coalition implementing further reforms, especially exposing the health and education sectors to competition, and choice.  However, ACT was profoundly disappointing.  From talking of abolishing income tax, to flat tax, to lower tax.  More fundamentally, I had moved on philosophically.  I had read Hayek some years before, but had now read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand and became an objectivist.

My philosophical position became clear.  I had long been an atheist, but as an objectivist I had a rational grounding for not only believing in small government, but also an ethical basis for capitalism and for life.   I joined Libertarianz.

Of course it isn't very hard to become disheartened belonging to a small political party that has not come close to being elected.  However, there has been influence, with terms like Nanny State being used more and more, and political discourse starting to talk about government not being the solution to everything, but it would be fair to say it hasn't met expectations.

The alternatives have not been promising either.  ACT under first Richard Prebble and then Rodney Hide, was all very well talking about economic freedom, but personal freedom was uncomfortable.  Simple libertarian points like questioning the war on drugs or censorship were not where ACT could go - for it had more than a few fundamentally conservative backers.

Of course there was also Don Brash and the National Party in 2005, campaigning in part to end the leftwing racism that had the state privilege Maori above others, regardless of their need and personal position.  However, that campaign was ruined by the mainstream of National, which like Bolger in 1996, prostitute it all to try to win elections, and which is conservative in the small "c" sense.  As in do as little as possible to change.

So the issue has been and remain simple.

Do I remain pure and honest and principled, and continue to put my full New Zealand effort into Libertarianz, or do I compromise and put efforts into ACT, or even National to influence those that do have entrees into actual political power?  Are they in conflict?

This election, libertarians nearly faced an obvious answer.   Rodney Hide's performance in ACT has been roundly disappointing.  He's been little different from a National Minister, with his great performance being in largely implementing Labour's local government policy.   The only crowning success will be Roger Douglas abolishing the compulsory membership of the University branches of the Labour and Green Parties known as student unions.

Don Brash led ACT looks like it could be different.  Despite the blunderings of some who are incapable of being truly racially colourblind AND wise to how others can portray it,  it may be different.

As I get older, I get impatient, and I want change to happen sooner rather than later.  I have priorities for change which are focused around education, reform of the welfare state and protection of property rights, as well as a fundamental shift of the criminal justice system away from victimless crimes, but being focused on deterrence and protection of the public from the violence of others.

I also want a cultural change, a philosophical change that embraces the celebration of creativity, producers, innovators, science and reason.  One that embraces self-esteem and personal responsibility.  One that resists the post-modernist cultural meme that everything is ok, that all cultures are equal, that no values are more important than others.  One that celebrates life, that treats the inviolability of the bodies and property of others as sacrosanct, that embraces honesty, good will and benevolence in human relations.  Not the nihilist claims over the property of others, demand for rights that are actually demands on other people to be forced to surrender their bodies and property.  Most of all rejection of the racism, sexism and collectivist bigotry of the left, as well as of the far-right. 

In politics, I am keeping an open mind.  Beyond that, there must be other means and other ways to change the terms of debate.  However, my hope is that Libertarianz knows it is more than a party, but as a touchstone for those who believe government should only exist to protect people from the initiation of force by others, whether internal or external to a country - and that it is a monumental job to change a culture where it is considered absolutely normal for government to initiate force, and there is a preponderance of political parties who embrace MORE state violence.  The Greens, for example, are a party that positively embraces ever more state violence, in the warm, smiling shrouds of "fairness and equality".  

So I wish Libertarianz well.  It is the party I am most likely to vote for in 2011.  Yet I am keeping an open mind.  I would not be unhappy if there was a National-ACT coalition that saw substantive changes in education policy alone, to break the back of the dominant state sector, or which torn up the RMA in favour of private property rights or another major step towards more freedom.  However, I am yet to be convinced that there is enough substance for me to positively support ACT.  

Even if I did, it does not mean Libertarianz does not have a role.  However, it does have to be more clever about its messages and it needs to remember that the mass media only understands easy concepts.   For me, it is less government, more freedom.  It is about consistently believing that government shouldn't spend other people's money taken by force to give to others.  It is about believing laws should only exist to protect people's bodies and property from force or fraud, and that human relations should always be voluntary.

So what now kiwi lovers of less government?

Some voted for National in 2008 to get rid of the big government "the state is sovereign" leadership of Helen Clark. Labour openly preached what it saw as the benefits of government spending more on health, education, welfare, housing and subsidising business. It also created new bureaucracies, gave local government almost unlimited powers to do what it wished with ratepayers' money and sought to tell people how they should live, for their own good.

Labour unashamedly embraced big government, a partnership where the iron fist of state regulation, tax and subsidy would direct the economy, and all major areas of social policy.

National was thought, by many, to offer something different, a change in direction, suspicion of the state, belief in less taxes, less state intervention in the economy, and being more open about choice in education, health care and superannuation.

After all, National offered part of this in 2005, and to a limited extent went in that direction (haphazardly and inconsistently) between 1990 and 1999. Isn't it fair to assume a change in government is a change in direction?

Well no. You see this National government runs deficits, doesn't reduce the size of government, spends more on state health and education, maintains the national superannuation ponzi scheme and has continued to subsidise and interfere with the economy. Property rights are no better off. National is being what it is used to being - a conservative party that keeps what Labour did before and tinkers.

To be fair to National, John Key didn't offer too much more than that in the first place. So some thought it was right to vote ACT.

Bringing Sir Roger Douglas back into the fold gave some hope that a Nat-Act coalition could see one of NZ's two bravest former Finance Ministers having a key role in Cabinet. After all, if Labour scaremongered over Douglas, it wouldn't be hard to ask why Clark, Cullen, Goff and King would complain about a man being in Cabinet who THEY all shared Cabinet with. However, John Key (and the National Party) are political invertebrates.

So ACT got Rodney Hide as Minister of Local Government. Well that was something. Time to reverse the Labour/Alliance "powers of general competence" granted to local government, time to at least cap rates to inflation, time to have local government protect rather than abuse property rights.

No. Not only did it mean none of that, but the Nats took Labour's Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance, and implemented almost all of its recommendations. A new big Auckland council, with almost unlimited powers to do as it wishes.

Is that what ACT voters wanted? Bigger, stronger local government?

No. Same with the dabbling with the "hang 'em high" crowd represented by David Garrett.

ACT had potential, it did believe in less government once, it did have senior leaders who would talk the good talk. As flawed as Rodney Hide is, and Sir Roger Douglas, there were more than a few occasions when one could say "bravo".

However, ACT's first real chance at power (it wasn't part of the 1996-1999 National led governments) hasn't just been disappointing, it has even seemed counter-productive.

So what now?

The obvious answer I would give is to offer Libertarianz, although some may say it is still a small party, and many have harbour hesitation whether those within it have the capability or the interest in stepping up to be a serious electoral option for the next election.

So I might suggest this, from afar. It is time for those within ACT and National, who do want less government, less tax, the shrinking of the state consistently, to contact Libertarianz. To attend at least one meeting, and talk about how to move forward.

You don't need to agree with all of the policies, but to believe in the principle of much less government.

No one else is going to do it.

Get rid of the colon in this headline

I don't think providing a training ground for future candidates and Labour MPs is a benefit everyone else should be forced to pay for. Do you?

Give Maryan Street a laugh with this line though "The problem with voluntary membership was that those benefits were not apparent to students attending university for the first time and they may not believe they provided value."

But we'll take their money, make them join and tell the world that we represent the views of students anyway. All for one and one for all right?

If the Nats fail to take this to where it should go, it will show how utterly bereft of any principle the National Party is, that it will keep privileging organisations that support National's opponents. For that is what student unions are - training grounds for the left. Training grounds for those who want to keep National out of power. If you can't put them on the basis that students wont be forced to join them or pay for them, then what can you possibly call yourself?

Vote for freedom in Mt Albert

By-elections are always a little strange, since they tend to produce results that do not tend to favour the incumbent government or incumbent party in that seat. Voters know that on this occasion they cannot change the government, as there is no party vote, so it is about having a local representative. Having said that, most people spend their lives not bothering their local MP. Of those that do, some are perpetual whingers and slightly unhinged, and MPs see them regularly as a result, others are people who see the MP perhaps once with a concern hoping the MP can make a difference. This is often because the state provides so many services taxpayers are forced to pay for, that the last resort when bureaucrats don't move is to bring in the MP.

So in that sense, constituents are probably best served by someone who is suspicious of bureaucracy, who can gently avoid wasting too much time with nutters, not claim credit for something they didn't do (Darren Hughes is one who claims credit for getting roads built when he had virtually nothing to do with it).

I said on 4 May that "It might be better to just wait to see who all the candidates will be, before making a choice." of candidate. So I am pleased that Julian Pistorius, a Mt. Albert resident no less, is standing for Libertarianz.

Let's be clear, the motorway will be built, but only Julian can be a solid advocate for the private property rights of landowners who may face compulsory purchase, and for ways to respect that while progressing the road (for example, the Melbourne Citylink motorway was built by the private sector negotiating the land purchase from all those along its route).

Let's also be clear, a Labour MP will mean no change, a backbencher in a party that has no power over the next 2.5 years and which has shown a willingness to pillage taxes to buy an electorate. What one next?

A National MP will mean no change. Melissa Lee is already in Parliament, being MP for Mt. Albert will just give her a little more to do, but she wont be fighting for private property rights.

A Green MP will mean no change. Russel Norman will lead obstructive direct action against motorway building, whilst cheerleading on the pillaging of Mt. Albert taxpayers for a railway that ever ARC has as a low priority.

ACT candidate John Boscawen has shown his level of judgment in voting for the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Act.

ALCP candidate Dakta Green is worthy of your vote if that one policy matters above everything else.

However, Julian Pistorius IS worthy of your vote if you want to shake up Parliament, and get a man dedicated to standing up for Mt. Albert taxpayers and property owners (who are, after all everyone). He wont be a backbench voice on a major party, or speaking to increase taxes or spend more of other people's money. He wont be claiming to speak for property owners on the motorway issue, but at the same time running roughshod over them with the RMA. He wont be supporting the megacity or indeed local government that continues to have a power of general competence to do as it sees fit.

You see Julian will call for the government to undertake the tax cuts it promised. Julian will support private property rights as an absolute. Julian will also support the right of ALCP candidate Dakta Green to campaign to legalise cannabis without harassment, because Julian too supports legalising consumption and sale of cannabis for adults on private property.

Mt. Albert voters might baulk at voting Libertarianz when it is about choosing the government, but who could have a louder voice for Mt. Albert than a Libertarianz MP? Who will in principle oppose the confiscation of land for a road, or any purpose, and call for less government so Mt. Albert residents can make their own choices?

So go on Mt. Albert, vote Julian Pistorius as your local MP. Beyond anything else it will give Helen Clark the most unwelcome surprise when she wakes up in New York the next morning to see who she handed the seat over to.

Why Libertarianz and NOT Act

My reasons for 2005 are here, but since then National has moved to the left and ACT? Well it has changed too.

Those on the small government side of the spectrum are split between those who advocate voting for ACT, and those who say vote Libertarianz. The arguments on both sides are fairly short and sweet.

ACT advocates say:
1. A vote for ACT is a vote to move New Zealand towards less government, albeit at a far slower pace, degree and extent compared to Libertarianz.
2. ACT is almost guaranteed Parliamentary representation because Rodney Hide will almost certainly win Epsom.

So it comes down to ACT is pointing in the right direction and is in Parliament. However what does “the right direction mean”?

Being fair to ACT, the party looks better now than it has ever done. It has more policies to hinder the growth of the state than ever before, Rodney Hide has upped his game, and having Sir Roger Douglas on the ticket is notable, as he is light years ahead of any National MP in terms of courage and intellect.

ACT is better than National, but it didn’t need to work hard.

You see for me, I want to see six major changes in policies:

1. At least the option of opting out of state health and education.
2. Serious shrinkage of the welfare state
3. A significant reduction in the size of central and local government.
4. Significant reductions in tax consistent with the above.
5. Protection of private property rights.
6. Repeal of victimless crimes.

Obviously the Nats will do none of the above. How about ACT?

1. ACT policy is education vouchers, a step forward, and talks about an option for people to buy private healthcare. So, that gets a tick.
2. ACT would shift sickness beneficiaries towards an insurance based approach. Not exactly cutting the welfare state, but an improvement, so on balance the right direction.
3. ACT would cap central government to growing spending at the rate of inflation and population growth. That isn’t shrinking the state, it’s maintaining it at the same level as Labour. Standing still isn’t a direction. It would shrink local government, so why not central?
4. ACT’s tax policy sends mixed signals. It wouldn’t cut taxes until 2011. That is LESS than National. However, if you don’t shrink the state it is hardly a surprise. ACT also advocates a carbon tax. Yes you read right, it would replaced ETS with a carbon tax.
5. ACT would review the RMA so it would only supplement common law principles, but it doesn’t mention private property rights, except in terms of “where private property is taken or regulated for public good purposes.” So where are private property rights again? Why is it afraid of saying it?
6. Victimless crimes? ACT never discusses them, never touches them. It is tough on crime, but that doesn’t include reviewing criminal law. It has a “national security policy”

So with ACT I get something positive on health, education and welfare, I get the government of the same size as what Labour has left us with, and no tax cut for two years (but might get a carbon tax). I get the RMA reformed, but with no mention of private property rights, and of course ACT is silent on victimless crimes.

How, honestly, can a libertarian say that is worth voting for? I want tax cuts, I want the state to shrink. I don’t believe New Zealanders should have to put up with government as big as Labour has left us with and no tax cuts for two years. I want private property rights protected, I want a government that knows the difference between real crimes, like murder and theft, and victimless crimes, like bans on cigar magazines, smoking cannabis and allowing smoking inside your bar.

A vote for ACT is saying none of those things matter enough. To me they do. So vote ACT if you wish, but to do so you are accepting compromises with those who don’t want tax cuts, those who don’t want to protect private property rights from the RMA, those who believe zero tolerance should apply to all crimes, whether there is a victim or not.

I voted some days ago for Libertarianz, because I want to make a statement with my single vote, that the government shouldn’t own my life. Some Al Gore supporters in 2000 complained that those Americans who voted for Ralph Nader took Democrat votes off of Gore. They didn’t, they voted for what they wanted.

Your vote is a tiny indicator of what YOU believe in. It is nothing more than that. It isn't a veto - after all, it takes tens of thousands of votes to shift a single MP from one party to another.

So I am not “robbing ACT or National” of “their” vote. It is my vote. I voted for more freedom, less government – I invite you to do the same.

State radio openly biased

Not PC points out, the "impartial, balanced and independent" state radio - that you are forced to pay for - has a political editor who is willing, a week out from a general election - to openly call Libertarianz "nutbars".

Now Liz Banas can believe whatever she wants. We all know John Campbell of TV3 is a raving socialist, but you don't pay for TV3, you don't own TV3.

You do own Radio NZ and you are forced to pay for it, whether you listen to it, or not.

It's a mockery of the so-called independence - which of course Labour, the Greens and others on the left say is the hallmark of "public broadcasting".

Liz Banas has proven she isn't impartial, independent or balanced. Many of you may think Libertarianz are "nutbars", but as Libertarianz Leader Bernard Darnton points out "All parties other than Labour ought to be concerned when a week away from the election, it is clear the RNZ political editor isn't afraid to let her political views get in the way of her job".

Who else does she think are nutbars, who does she not think are nutbars, how can anyone have confidence in her editorial decisions?

Moreover, why should we be forced to pay for a broadcaster that hires people who clearly wouldn't care less about sabotaging a political party's campaign?

Why voting for Libertarianz can make a difference

It's rather straightforward. Assuming the Nats don't completely drop the ball and Labour can't be Santa Claus, the Nats will be the largest party in Parliament after the next election, by a reasonable margin. I'm expecting the 56% or so in the polls to be more like 45-46% on election night. Anyway, National wont need your vote to do this, hundreds of thousands of people know only that to get rid of Labour they vote National.
.
So National will be looking to coalesce with who? Like Labour it will prefer to go to the centre, like NZ First, United Future and, dare I say it, the Maori Party. That's what you face, none of that will scare the electorate at all.
.
ACT is proposing 20 changes in policy that are frankly no more radical than the sort of policies that were around in the late 80s, early 90s, IF that. A tax free threshold almost double that of NZ First, dropping the top tax rate (was National policy in 2000). Education vouchers was National policy in 1987 and more market oriented health care from 1990 to 1993 (but got seriously curtailed by lack of courage). ACC competition in 1999. Labour market freedom was 1991. Privatisation was policy from 1987 to 1999. The ONLY Act policy that is a shift beyond that is to shift social welfare to an insurance based model.
.
So what happens if ACT gets a sizeable vote, and National needs ACT to stay in power. Well ACT's policies get compromised. You get a smaller tax cut, you probably don't get education vouchers (but get bulk funding), you get ACC competition, but not insurance based welfare. You get RMA reform, but nothing too serious. In other words, you get what is already not that ambitious being less ambitious. Now if ACT pushed the 20 policies I suggested a few days ago instead, then you might get the compromise looking like ACT's CURRENT 20.
.
Ah, some may say a more moderate position gives ACT more room to say its policies are reasonable. Well shifting the goalposts to the left means the destination point remains closer to the left too. Rather unambitious for a party putting up the man who pioneered privatisation, proposed flat tax and shifting the entire social sector to insurance based models.

.
So how about Libertarianz? Ah your first point is "it's a wasted vote". Well let's just see how important your vote is. Don't forget, for all the hype your head is being counted along with a lot of others - it is a tiny influence, National isn't winning a seat just because of you, neither is anyone. What it SHOULD be is an extension of what you want. If you worry about what other people vote then you're making the influence of others important on your own decision.
.
Then you might say "well the policies are lunatic or too extreme". That's your judgment, but let's assume you want a lot less government and want some serious tax cuts and reform. Who is more likely to send the signal that there should be? The party calling for abolition of GST, the first $50,000 tax free and a flat tax, or the one calling for $10,000 tax free and getting rid of the 39% rate. The party wanting an end to state welfare, health and education or the one wanting to reform it with insurance or vouchers? The one wanting to cut it to core functions of law and order and defence, or the one wanting to cut it to - the level of Australia?

.
Imagine if there were 6 MPs who always voted no to more government spending on non-core activities and no to higher taxes and no to more regulation of people's day to day lives. Would you rather them or some National MPs? Even if Libertarianz fail to get 5%, imagine if 2% of the vote was for freedom. Other parties would start wondering why they didn't get the 2-3 seats those votes would entitle them too. ACT would certainly be more bold, and the next election more would notice they could vote for freedom too.

Look at the Greens. They influence government and policy considerably, with a core 5% of the vote on the hard left, and they certainly wield influence beyond that number. Shouldn't they be countered by a party of principle on freedom? ACT has had a chance to show it could be as radical as its founder once was, and as radical as it was in 1994. It doesn't seem to want to do that, although if the polls continue to show little change, it may change tactics closer to the election.

So voting for Libertarianz can make a difference, it wouldn't mean Libertarianz would be in government, and it might not mean it is in Parliament, but it does mean you've voted for individual sovereignty over your life, body and property, and for the state to exist to protect not to initiate force. So many people believe that, many vote for second best, and many more vote for third (?) best.
.
As the election campaign rolls on, we will see how all the parties perform and for now, I wont be making a final judgment, as much can happen. It is time to be bold politically and stand up for beliefs and philosophies, not pander to fears and prejudices. Your vote is a very small influence, so it should be one that says what you believe in - and that should be more than simply "I want rid of Helen Clark".

Libertarianz announce mammoth tax cut

Well, following on from ACT taking the Libertarianz tax policy from the last election of making the first $10,000 of income tax free, Libertarianz have announced a new tax policy with its alternative budget. All the details are here on Pacific Empire, but the key points are:

.

- First $50,000 of income tax free;

- Abolish GST;

- Public expected to buy healthcare, education, superannuation and insurance against misfortune if they so wish;

- Privatise hospitals and schools by giving away shares in them to the public;

- Privatise other state assets not essential for law and order and defence;

- Proceeds of privatisation to fund residual national superannuation, ACC and invalids benefit obligations, and a three year phase out of the DPB;

- Significantly increase defence spending to rebuild blue water navy and strike capabilities.

.

So there you go, if you want to send a message to politicians that you want your money back, vote Libertarianz. Although I'd like to know the rate of income tax about $50,000 (it was 15% in the previous policy I believe). Now I'd fiddle a bit with some of these policies, but they represent a bold message of cutting back the state to its core functions.

ACT's great chance

- Low flat tax;
- Choose private, integrated or state schools and funding follows every child;
- Have a health insurance account you choose to get the care you need;
- Choose the accident and sickness cover you want based on your risk;
- Pay for your own retirement nest egg that can be inherited without the state.

No it's not a libertarian agenda, but it should be ACT's. An agenda to reflect its name, the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers. An agenda that means school funding follows parents' decisions, that means what you pay for healthcare reflects your risk and waiting lists are traded for hospitals dealing with customers who expect service. Moving the no fault flat rate ACC model to one where people with low risk pay less premiums than those that are high risk, and finally making retirement a personal responsibility. Big tax cuts so people can pay for health and sickness insurance that reflects their risk, responsibility and what they want.

It would be a point of difference from National, but will it happen?

Following on from the Libertarianz annual conference in the weekend, some of the usual inter-necine mumblings between ACT and Libertarianz have reminded me of what we should all be arguing about - quite simply this election is the best opportunity in recent history to present freedom at the ballot box since the 1980s.

Why?

The 1990s National government once had a strong appetite for economic freedom, and was still privatising and deregulating even up to 1999 (ACC and Postal services being the last example), although it had virtually no appetite for personal freedom. ACT and Libertarianz both grew in 1996 and 1999 because of increased frustration at the limp wristed attitude to freedom of National After National lost in 1999, it struggled to regain power against Labour (which of course has no interest in shrinking the state). In 2002 National offered next to nothing and ACT had its best ever result.

However, the last election was difficult for both ACT and the Libertarianz. National in 2005 offered a semi-libertarian leader and a platform to cut taxes, privatise and abolish race based privilege by the state. Supporters of ACT and the Libertarianz voted National as they saw the chance, which appeared distant only a year before, that Labour could be defeated. Funnily enough having nearly won an election on principle, National has run a mile from it.

Labour is finished. National can almost sleepwalk to victory, and as it does so it has moved to the centre. National is Labour lite, and no one who wants a smaller state and more freedom can see a vote for National being good for anything other than replacing Helen Clark with John Key (maybe worthy but not much more than that).

So this is where ACT can come in.

Sir Roger Douglas in his widely reported ACT conference address advocated a positive agenda that is NOT all ACT Policy, including shifting healthcare to an insurance based model, education vouchers, make the first $20,000 tax free, drop the 39% tax rate, implicitly opening ACC fully up to private competition including personal accident and sickness insurance (replacing sickness benefit perhaps). Positive stuff. Frankly, with Sir Roger Douglas ACT has a chance to have a presence and to debate head on, ON PRINCIPLE, with Key and Clark. After all, Clark was in Cabinet with him.

ACT could advocate zero income tax like Sir Roger did in his book Unfinished Business, or flat tax like it did in the late 1990s. However, regardless of detail it can outline a vision of less government and substantial more choice for education, health (and ACC and sickness insurance which are ignored but directly related) and retirement. Kiwisaver for example could be shifted into private accounts that could replace National Superannuation in due course.

This agenda could inspire people to think "wow I could send my kids to private school without paying twice" or "i can live a healthy lifestyle and pay less for healthcare AND have my own insurance account to ensure I get cover when I need it". At one time Sir Roger Douglas believed 50% of voters would go for this, then he reduced his ambition to 30%. Surely 10% would be attracted by this prospect of serious reform of education, healthcare, ACC, the welfare state and cutting taxes. Especially with the credibility of Sir Roger Douglas on the ballot.

Whilst National limps to power, ACT could inspire those who want serious change to vote for it as a viable coalition partner, instead of the morally bankrupt Maori and NZ First Parties.

If not now, then when?

Oh and Libertarianz? Don't worry, there is still room there. I don't expect ACT to advocate privatising schools and hospitals, ending the welfare state, abolishing the RMA, reforming drug laws, abolishing laws on blasphemy and the rest. No. ACT is not the libertarian party. Libertarianz is a bigger package, a complete one to shrink the state on principle to its core functions. Personal liberty has never been much on the ACT agenda, although to be fair in the last three years ACT has been far better on this front than it ever was before.

ACT DOES have Sir Roger Douglas who has more political courage than virtually anyone in National, and it has Rodney Hide who, on a good day, can be quite inspiring. If you can't ride a wave of anti-Labour sentiment to grow, become a critical fixture for National and pull National towards some serious reform then you should give up. Don't be limp wristed, be bold, be like the Greens, be advocates for consumer choice, taxpayer rights and private enterprise. Attack the inability of state health and education monopolies to deal with people's needs, demand that government shrink and taxes shrink with it.

It is, after all, what you exist to advocate. After all, do you think a National Party Cabinet would be better or worse off with Sir Roger Douglas and Rodney Hide on it? How likely is it if nobody really knows what ACT is offering?

Abolishing income tax?

No Minister has posted about how the UK Libertarian Party has proposed abolishing income tax, by simply cutting government spending to where it was 5 years ago, given how high VAT is (17.5%).

He asked in relation to New Zealand "How much scope is there for a radical overhaul of our tax structure? Perhaps this is a task for Peter Cresswell and others to consider. How detailed are the NZ Libz with their policy prescriptions? Or is abolishing income tax 'pie in the sky' here too? Does ACT offer anything here?"

Well the Libertarianz (NZ) DOES have detailed policy on tax, on the party website here. It actually proposes the OPPOSITE tax reform, with all OTHER taxes being abolished other than income tax, which would be set at a flat rate of 15% with a $10,000 tax free threshold. This would be a transitional measure which itself would be phased down.

Why leave income tax and abolish others? Well it is a matter of two things.

Firstly, other taxes are largely invisible to the general public. GST, residents' withholding tax and various duties are paid, and the public treats these as part of the cost of goods or earning interest at the bank. It would be far preferable to notice that the cost of government is transparent and you pay that, rather than it hidden in multiple other taxes.

Secondly, abolishing all of the other taxes will lower compliance costs for businesses, end the "black economy" nonsense about paying under the counter for goods and services, and dramatically simplify tax arrangements overall.

How would this be paid for? Well by dramatically shrinking the state. Libertarianz has proposed alternative budgets for some years.

Now I remember Sir Roger Douglas proposed abolishing income tax in his book Unfinished Business, and it was originally ACT policy (he replaced income tax with compulsory health insurance, superannuation and education). ACT policy has been flat tax and more recently two step income tax. I'd be interested to see if ACT revives flat tax for 2008, but for now Libertarianz is the low flat tax party.

Roger Douglas and ACT?

Well if Sir Roger Douglas wants to return to politics and appear on the ACT list, good luck to him. However, it will raise the issue as to whether ACT IS the liberal party that Rodney Hide has been inching it towards. It could be an interesting challenge, after all ACT's original platform had a number of characteristics, that varied from the tempting to the confusing to the disturbing.

The tempting included:

• Zero income tax. That's right, the only tax ACT was pushing back in the early days was GST, with income and company tax gone.
• Privatisation of all government businesses and some activities such as ACC.
• Opening up social services such as health and education to a wide range of choice and competition. People would not have to put up with compulsory die while your wait health care or paying twice for their kids education if they wanted to use independent schools.

The confusing was:

• Absolutely no policy on anything that wasn't economic. For example, justice, law and order, defence, foreign policy, constitutional matters.

The disturbing was:

• Replacing income tax with compulsory private superannuation, compulsory health insurance and education cover. In other words, instead of the state forcing you to pay it to provide services, the state forced you to pay the private sector (although it wasn't always clear if schools would be privatised or not) for the services. Yes it might have been more efficient and more competitive, but it was still compulsion - and absolutely no indication that this was a transitional step which, on balance, I could support.

So let ACT go forward and be rescued by Sir Roger Douglas, but I doubt very much if it will be the liberal party it has aspired to be. Having said that, for some National supporters he might just give them a reason to tick ACT. Given National is largely devoid of policy, ACT can fill part of the vacuum, if only it would fill the vacuum it always has within itself. It is the vacuum that meant ACT had no policy on civil unions, no policy on legalising prostitution and doesn't lead campaigns to get rid of crimes such as blasphemy and sedition.

That, of course, requires a commitment to individual freedom, and only the Libertarianz have that in New Zealand at the moment.

Census prosecution

Nik Haden, Wellington economist, is being charged by the Statistics Department, because of his alleged behaviour in relation to protests last year against the compulsion around filling out census forms. This protest was about one simple point – that the state should not require you, by threat of force, to fill out a form just because you happen to be in the country at a certain time. There would be nothing wrong with it being voluntary, but the concept of people actually being able to choose themselves is alien to statists. Like I said at the time, I never filled out the two before it and nothing happened, and well I was in London for the last one.

Most of the economy seems to work on the basis of surveys, such as the entire broadcasting sector. Imagine if you were legally required to fill in a TV survey form every year, or a radio one and if you did it incorrectly, you would be prosecuted? No, seriously. It IS like that.

It is a crime in Clarkistan, though it also was in Bolgeria and Shipleyvakia. When Katrina Bach was a Deputy Secretary at MED, a contractor had his contract summarily terminated for sending round the joke email about entering your religion as a Jedi – the sense of humour bypass clearly was a roaring success. By contrast, the UK Office for National Statistics was relaxed about it for the 2001 UK census, because more people filled it out because they enjoyed putting their religion as Jedi.

If you want to know who supports this sort of prosecution then you might ask one David Farrar. He said of this issue:

“as the census is used to in construction of electoral rolls etc, then my view would be that if you refuse to fill in a census, then you lose the right to vote.
AFter all if you want to be a non-person, then you can't demand rights.”

So filling in a census grants you rights!! So is the anonymous census actually used to match people to houses? Hmmm… What gets me is that yes, to many people this seems simple – fill in a form, what’s the big deal?

The point is principle, something that most people associated with a major political party sell like a whore, it is that I have the right to remain silent. The same should also apply to entering the country, given that many countries have virtually open borders (I crossed between Denmark and Sweden four times in two days and didn't have to show a passport, and as a UK resident (not citizen) I do not need to fill in any damned form when I arrive from anywhere in the world).

If I peacefully go about my day to day business, I have the right to not be forced to fill out a damned form because the state wants to assist itself with planning etc. Yes, if I want to vote I should go on the electoral roll and then let electoral boundaries be determined by who is on the roll, not the entire population.

I am quite agnostic about there being a census, but it should be voluntary. It is telling that the state can charge Nik Haden so swiftly, whereas if you are burgled or your car is stolen, you’ll probably never hear of it again. The efficient by which the state prosecutes those who threaten its taxes and statistics far outranks its efficiency in protecting the population.

Go Nik, defend this on principle. There is a right to protest against the census law, a right that few are interested in, but which does go to the heart of what a liberal democracy is. You shouldn't be prosecuted for protesting against a bureaucratic law.