Forgotten posts from the past: Compulsory welfare - a quaint remnant of nationalism?

With the whole debate about welfare one question is rarely raised - why does compulsory state welfare only apply to the poor in your own country? Why are the poor in other countries less needy?

Now the obvious answer is that it would be unaffordable to tax everyone to pay for people in other countries to be relieved of poverty, then, in which case, as with anything that you fund, you prioritise.

What is more important, a family with a TV, bed, clothes, car and ample nutrition, or a starving family with nothing?

For to simply say it is "none of our business" you're admitting you're a nationalist.  Human beings not residing in the country you live in are a lower priority to you.

Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating a global taxpayer funded welfare system.  I don't advocate the state based one.

However, given it is the left that is the source of the welfare state and defender of it on moral grounds, on what moral grounds is there to give money to people who, by any measure, are better off than the vast majority of humanity?

Could it simply be that socialism is nationalist too?

and isn't that rather racist?

Buying something from the government is stealing?

Yes, this is Idiot Savant's latest flash of inspiration.

He describes anyone buying shares from the government in SOEs as buying "stolen assets".

Fascinating.

For he does not think of taxes - money taken by force by government - as stolen, regardless of whether or not it is to buy any assets.

Yet he thinks of the government, having bought assets by taxes, selling them, as "stealing".

You see he calls SOEs "public assets", "owned" by everyone.  Yet you are no more able to exercise the rights of ownership over a dam, road, school or hospital owned by the state than you are a privately owned one.   

However, he regards it as "public ownership" because the public, through its elected representatives (MPs), can "exercise control".  Let's just stick with that for now.

Using the electoral system he broadly supports, National got elected on a platform of part-privatisation. It is supported by parties which have either included or consented to that part of its manifesto.

So voters effectively chose a Parliament that has, through its elected representatives, chosen to "exercise control" on behalf of the public.

It's just he doesn't like it, because he voted for the Greens.  Yet he claims to support democracy.

He says "these goods were stolen from us by the government".  Well funnily enough they were, in the form of taxes.  In which case would he support selling them and giving everyone some money in return for the sale?  Of course not.

Instead he suggests "opponents of asset sales should boycott stolen assets".  I couldn't care less if they don't buy shares, and feel free to boycott buying their goods and services.  Don't forget all of the other companies privatised before, such as Air New Zealand (still 22% private), Telecom, Bank of New Zealand, State Insurance, former THC hotels, Intercity Coachlines.

However, you should also boycott EVERYTHING sold by the state.  The shops that now own former post offices and railway stations, the ex. Air NZ planes sold offshore, any closed schools, in fact any land at all that the state once owned.  After all, selling assets is "stealing".  Presumably buying state assets is "gifting".

This amusing view of property rights concludes with a sure fire approach to send New Zealand's sharemarket, property market and currency down to Zimbabwean levels "they should support calls for those assets to be forcibly renationalised at less than the sale price. Asset-thieves should not be allowed to profit from their crime."

That's right, the Soviet Union is back.  Buying shares offered for sale by a democratically elected government is a "crime".  Some belief in elected democracy he has.  No belief in property rights at all.  No interest, care or thought of what that does to both foreigners and New Zealanders seeking to invest their savings.  From big foreign companies to retirees, students or small business people, if they buy shares they are criminals - because they don't embrace his venal Marxist view of the role of the state.  After all, people from many backgrounds and income levels will buy shares, but to him they are all kulaks, the sellouts, the class and nation traitors.

I look forward to the Greens embracing this policy for the next election, for as somewhat socialistic many New Zealanders are, the idea the state can take back property you bought from it by force with a penalty, will frighten the bejesus of most.

He can live in his solipsistic south Pacific USSR if he likes, but all the aspiring successful wealthy people he despises wont be there paying taxes, opening businesses and employing people with him.

Waitangi Day from a distance

Being a kiwi living in London, Waitangi Day is notable only because it is not hard to remember 6 February, although with the exception of a work colleague (Australian) mentioning it, it would be easy to forget it.

Despite the news, only reported in NZ, of the Waitangi weekend pub crawl (and only reported because one man complained about it), there is nothing to note it here.  It's refreshing for me, in part because of the cringe of the usual annual show is largely invisible. 

Waitangi Day has tended to be a time when mainstream politicians celebrate the purported partnership between the state and iwi (said to be Pakeha and Maori, a curiously romanticised albeit blatantly incorrect rendering of the situation).  It is a time presented as a chance for more "understanding" and raises the Treaty of Waitangi in a way that meets the desires of many who see it as quasi-constitutional.

Meanwhile, it is a chance for protests.  This time it is unsurprising that Hone Harawira's gang of Marxist ethno-nationalists have seen it as a chance to be rude and to make far from novel demands for the state to hand over property, power and money to those who his lot approve of.

Yet there is another view.  It is one that treats New Zealanders as individuals.  That doesn't mean must or should deny their ancestry, or claim whatever ethnic, national or other identity one wants.  It is not, despite the squeals of racists like Hone Harawira, about being "anti-Maori".  What it is, is about the state being colourblind.   It embraces the Treaty of Waitangi for what it is.  Not the creation of a distinction between the amorphous non-entity called "Maori" and the Crown, but the granting of individual rights and property rights to Maori residents, in exchange for ceding final authority to the state.  

It is a view that means that Maori language and culture can thrive, if those who want it to do so make their own efforts to promote it, whether as individuals or through iwi authorities, or other non-governmental bodies.  It is also the view that government doesn't promote culture either, but steps to one side not only from Maori, but everyone in areas where its role should not be as great as it currently is.  It means using property rights, contracts, rule of law, societies, voluntary groups, relationships and choices to build and develop the communities, institutions, businesses, sports, art, culture, inventions, discoveries and everything else that is the creation of humanity.

Yet, even setting aside my vision of a smaller state, there is a valid view that today, in the 21st century, the state should not treat individuals or corporate bodies differently depending on their ancestry or the ancestry of those who own or control it.

It rejects the infantile claim that New Zealand is bicultural, when it is populated by people of multiple cultures (the "bicultural myth" was generated by Maori nationalists wanting to portray Maori as being separate from the state which represented "Pakeha" culture.  Multiple cultures undermines the myth that Maori are also not represented by the state).  Cultural is not homogeneous.  It is not defined by ancestry, or ethnicity, or religion.  It is multifaceted.  In a world where people make connections across boundaries with modern communications technologies, people are themselves multicultural as they have relationships based on business, family, sports, arts and other interests.  The cold monaural world of "identity politics", which more than a few Maori educators inculcate among their students, is quite simply inaccurate.

The neo-Marxist "identity politics" view means that anyone who "identifies" as Maori is, by definition, disadvantaged by the state and society.  This is regardless of their personal wealth, education achievements, employment or own individual status.  Maori are, in the world of the likes of Harawira, automatically oppressed.  Daughters of lawyers and doctors, who are Maori, are deemed "disadvantaged" and deemed fit for affirmative action programmes, whereas sons of labourers or convicted violent criminals or cleaners, who are "Pakeha", are deemed to not be so deserving, as the state is presumed to be on "their side".

Identity politics have plagued much of the world for centuries.  It isn't just Europe or countries once colonised by Europeans that have been damned by it.  

Those that reject this view blithely and cheaply throw the word "racist" at it.  They think that for Maori to exist and be acknowledged, the state must treat Maori as a distinct entity, separate from the state and implicitly not represented by the state.  The Maori seats help entrench that by implying that a Maori voter is somehow, peculiarly, not represented as well as a non-Maori voter.  

Maori are separate from the state, as individuals themselves are.  However, it is time that the tired view trotted out by the likes of Hone Harawira, Margaret Mutu, Metirei Turei and other nationalists is confronted for the poison that it is.  It denies any need for the state to be colourblind, it demeans and diminishes the status and rights of all those who do not identify as Maori, and actually diminishes the individual rights of Maori by focusing on "rights" of corporate iwi entities, politicians and governmental entities.

There are three parties in Parliament that explicitly embrace the nationalist view of Maori relations with the state (Mana, Maori and Green), and three which appease it (Labour, National and United).  Could there be a party that rejects this without being so blundering in its language that it can be interpreted as being denigrating to Maori?

Maori don't want to work and prefer welfare

Waikato University activist E. Powell today said that "Most Maori don't want to work, they'd rather sit around and live off other taxpayers and will mug and steal if they aren't given welfare ".  He said that, Maori "do bring with them, as much as they deny it, an attitude of brown supremacy, and that is fostered by the country".  He says movement of such Maori from different parts of the country should be restricted because it threatens race relations.

Powell said "New Zealanders generally support Asian immigration because they aren't lazy and don't come to live off the taxpayer, and Maori who understand a culture of hard work, independence and non-violence"...."They are in a minority just like Maori in this country. You have a minority of Maori who are very good, they recognise the racism, they object to it and speak out strongly against it"

Apparently in New Zealand it is acceptable free speech to stereotype different races and demand immigration restrictions based on race, based on simply making up what you think people are like as a group.

Nothing else can justify a university professor talking like this and still keeping her taxpayer paid job. 

Of course, while New Zealand has Margaret Mutu, South Africa has Julius Malema.  Racist, calculating, hate filled authoritarians, who if given the chance would happily kill those who oppose them.   They both embrace political violence, they both should be treated with the contempt that fascists are typically treated.

Urumqi explodes, somewhat

Few will know of Urumqi, capital of Xinjiang province in China’s far west, but the reports from the BBC that riots that have erupted (and the news reports of them) show much about what China isn’t anymore. There have been riots, protests and counter-riots between the Uighur minority (who are the majority in Xinjiang) and the Han Chinese. Reports of 156 dead Han Chinese from Sunday’s riots are what the monopoly state media report, but some Uighur are saying many of their people were killed too. The truth is difficult to determine whilst China remains largely closed to alternative media.

It is easy to accept that China’s state media is pro-Han Chinese, so will always report the official view that all of China’s ethnic minorities are well treated and part of the People’s Republic of China family. Any protests are seen as counter-revolutionary riots inspired by foreign devils.

What has been reported so far is that there were Uighur protestors who turned on Han Chinese passers by, and the security forces. Since then, local Han Chinese have turned on Uighur owned shops and properties. In short, it is a nationalist conflict, being mediated by a state that is hardly known for its even handedness. China is, after all, a deeply racist society, which can be seen in its patronising attitude to minorities, and also if you scratch the surface about attitudes towards Africans, Europeans and other Asians.

However, let’s eliminate a few ideas about what these riots are:

1. Desire to overthrow the communist party: No, it’s not anything quite as fundamental as this. It started as a dispute regarding treatment of participants in a fight at a toy factory in Guangdong province between Han and Uighur peoples. Uighur are not so politically organised (or indeed brave) to confront that issue head on.
2. Muslim fundamentalism stoking in China: Yes Uighur are traditionally Muslim, but there is little sign that Uighur protestors are motivated by Islam.

This is a racial conflict, between Uighur who feels constantly discriminated against by Han Chinese, and now Han Chinese who are aggrieved by violence shown to them by rioting Uighur.

So what does it say about China? Well the tight security in Xinjiang seems to have waned significantly, as having protest to this extent and scale in this province is largely unknown (although protests are more common than most outsiders would believe). It also shows there will be grave fear that this could spark unrest elsewhere that could lead to the division of China – something the Communist Party fears second only to losing its monopoly on power.

It has echoes of Tibet, not that Xinjiang should be independent, but rather that calls for accountability, transparency and for the state to be colourblind are only fair and natural. However, one should be cautious about supporting the Uighur unreservedly. Turning on innocent passers by, attacking and killing them isn’t exactly a way of gaining ANY kind of moral authority.

However, it would probably be in the best interests of China, the Han Chinese and Uighur if the people of Xinjiang had the same sorts of freedoms, and independent state institutions that Chinese enjoy in another part of China – Hong Kong.

Sri Lanka poisoned by nationalism

Tamil protestors have been out in force in London for several weeks. I said to one that the tragic support of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) meant I saw both sides as equally in the wrong. However, none of this takes away from the humanitarian disaster that this war has seen inflicted on Tamils and the Sinhalese. The apparent ceasefire by the LTTE may hopefully see an end to the killing, but it wont resolve the underlying sore - the malignancy of nationalism on both sides.

The LTTE is a terrorist organisation that maintained a gangster "state" in the north of Sri Lanka for years. It's own tactics which included, until recently, child soldiers as well as bombing civilian targets have badly hurt the cause of Tamils in Sri Lanka. The LTTE, with shades of Hamas, happily has used civilians as human shields. However, which most Tamils support a cause which is based on resisting the nationalist chauvinism of the Buddhist Sinhalese, there is a darker side to this resistance. It is based not on promoting a Sri Lanka where the state is blind to nationality, but on separatism. To resist bigotry and nationalism by promoting your own nationalism by murderous means is not claiming the moral highground. For Tamils to start to claim that, they need to condemn and reject the LTTE, and demand equality under the law and before the law in Sri Lanka. After all, Tamils in India have little appetite for separatism, as India itself is not ethnically or religiously defined.

However, while Wikipedia has lists of attacks by the LTTE, it also has them of the Sri Lankan military. There is little doubt that the Sri Lankan military is far from innocent in this conflict. Its own application of severe censorship on reporting the war means its own antics will be hidden. Sinhalese paramilitary have assisted the Sri Lankan government in attacking Tamil areas. China too has helped armed the Sri Lankan government, demonstrating its willingness to turn a back while its customers kill.

So it looks like the Sri Lankan government will win, but for the conflict to truly be over, Tamils must no longer fear that government - which means it should be open, which means removing restrictions on the media - it should seek transparency and reconciliation, acknowledging what wrong has been done, so Sri Lanka as a whole can start to put this conflict behind it. Tamils and Sinhalese both have to admit people in their communities have assaulted, murdered and destroyed, and the will must be to live side by side.

However, whilst too many in Sri Lankan politics pander to Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism, they will continue to see Tamils as the "other", a group that deserve nothing, instead of treating all those in Sri Lanka as individuals. Sri Lanka has tremendous potential in tourism, and in enjoying a share of India's economic revival.

It can only do it best if the religious, nationalist and Marxist elements of Sri Lanka's politics can be eschewed. Yes, Sri Lanka, start treating each other as individuals, not as Tamils, Sinhalese, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever.