Welcome everyone doing school projects on Transmission Gully

You've managed to sustain my hit rate over the three weeks I've said nothing on anything else. There must be around half a dozen classrooms doing this! (I have an invisible counter)

.

Just search Transmission Gully on my blog, you'll find tons that isn't pro-Gully, that isn't pro-rail, but is pro-efficiency.

.

Remember, it is a long way towards being built. The Transit NZ Board has to decide whether to support it as the long-term option, and then funding has to be found, and the project needs about two years of detailed investigation (easily worth $3-$5 million) first. Transmission Gully wont be a problem for this government, it will be a problem for the next one - it wont be affordable then either.

Bolivia adopts Alliance policy on energy

You don’t hear anything from the so-called “peace movement” about a government sending its military in to steal the assets of private companies – this being what is now happening in Bolivia, as President Evo Morales (pictured) – pinup boy of the left because he is indigenous (though they don’t regard Margaret Thatcher as a pinup because she is a woman, because she didn’t espouse their ideology) – confiscates what he calls “our natural resources”. This is the step beyond unbundling that the Alliance (they still around?) would approve of. Trevor Loudon warned us of Morales when he was elected and Morales links to Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro say it all.
.
The BBC reports that the Bolivian army has now taken over the Palmasola refinery, and Morales has demanded that gas companies “renegotiate” the terms of their contracts with the government, and they must “sell” 51% of their assets to the state – no doubt at a price the state demands. He demands that the Bolivian state take 60% of production from all gas fields except the two largest, which will have to give up 82%.
.
Soldiers have been sent to 56 locations, and Morales has said this is just the start. According to the BBC “Mr Morales said the gas fields were "just the beginning, because tomorrow it will be the mines, the forest resources and the land".
.
Fool.
.
Ironically, the left wing (but decidedly pragmatic) President of Brazil Lula da Silva and left wing Spanish government are both concerned – because two of the biggest investors in the Bolivian energy sector are Brazilian (Petrobras) and Spanish (Ripsol) companies respectively. On top of that, Brazil imports half of its gas from Bolivia. Gas isn’t a good commodity to transport in large quantities other than by pipeline, so substitute suppliers wont be easy to find.

.

Petrobras of Brazil has cancelled all plans to invest more in Brazil and Bloomberg reports that these moves are likely to increase prices in Brazil and Argentina.
.
The appropriate response by the companies is to demand that property be returned, otherwise they should use force in self defence. An alternative would be to exit and demolish the refinery, pipes and the rest, take their skills and run. Of course neither will happen – they will face the prospect of having half of their property stolen and negotiate to keep the rest. Ideally the Brazilian and Spanish government should threaten military action to protect their nationals – much as was threatened against Iran in the 1950s when it did the same to British and American oil companies.
.
I expect the left will be cheering this on – claiming that the gas “belongs to the people”. Well good on “the people” – let all the companies remove their expertise and see how well the average Bolivian peasant does in figuring out how to get the gas out of the ground, refine it and sell it. If it weren’t for foreign companies using THEIR knowledge and training people to access the gas, then the gas would be useless to Bolivians – much as radio spectrum was useless to Maori (and in fact everyone on the planet) in the 18th century, as nobody even knew it existed, let alone knew how to use it. Bolivian gas, like Venezuelan and Saudi oil only exists because of the application of the mind by scientists and entrepreneurs to the resource, which previously wasn’t even known to exist. The Brazilian, Spanish and other foreign companies accessing, refining and selling it paid substantial royalties to the government to do something the government could not do – now the companies should walk and take everything left of their’s with them.
.
The confiscation of property in Bolivia is utterly repulsive, and if Morales does the same to other property, then the people of Bolivia will get what they voted for – a wasteful socialist autocracy, whereby success gets confiscated by the state. I am sure Morales is hoping to make a fortune from high energy prices and redistribute the income – but he will have successfully killed off foreign investment from Bolivia. South America's poorest country will remain so.

.

By the way, there is parliamentary support for Evo Morales. Hone Harawira praised him in his inaugural speech, and Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples by press release. I guess because he is indigenous, it's ok to confiscate property and chase off tau iwi investment is it?

- Evo Morales profile on Wikipedia

National and ACT show some principle

Omigod! I'm astounded. Following Rodney Hide's excellent condemnation of the announcement to let anyone and everyone have access to Telecom's local line network, I listened online to Maurice Williamson doing the very same on Morning Report. Well done Maurice, making some of the points I have already made. PC has done a good summary of Telecom's share drop, 10% of value in a day and his updated post of much of the commentary.

.

Other responses are:

.

NZ First naturally supports it, as Winston has been one of the biggest Telecom-bashers in recent years, courting the "we paid for it" populist vote. Again Winston thinks "The Government must also ensure that this does not only deliver benefits to big city New Zealand, but that those same services reach all the way down to the country roads" so he wants you to subsidise farmer access to broadband - that isn't cheap, since the Kiwishare has forced Telecom to subsidise farmer access to local lines for ages from the line rentals of city businesses and residents.

.

Greens support it - as any chance to bash Telecom is welcome, although Nandor even said "Current prices aren’t bad" great chance to regulate then. Nandor reckons it will allow virtually free international calling. Well that hasn't happened anywhere, and in many countries it is due to loony protectionist governments maintained statutory telecommunications monopolies - you know, the sort that the left defended until Telecom was privatised.

.

Local Government New Zealand, representing 86 organisations specialising in thieving from the public (local government) supports the move. It thinks rural communities will benefit, which is astounding.

.

The Alliance retards foaming at the mouth are clamouring "it's not enough", wanting the government to renationalise Telecom and then service will be cheap and high quality - hmm like it was for decades under the Post Office. Keep taking the medicine guys.

.

TelstraClear's CEO is sitting thrilled that lobbying government has increased his company's value far more effectively than investing in infrastructure or winning customers over with better service and lower prices (which anyone who has been a user of Telstra Clear's local Wellington service in recent years will note has been declining significantly). Remember before LLU was seriously on the agenda, Telstra Clear was going to build a brand new local access network for all of residential metropolitan Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga and Dunedin, and expand the Wellington network to Porirua. Cheaper to lobby to use other people's infrastructure than to build your own of course.

.

Russell Brown is thrilled because he believes Telecom is ripping him off, and believes attaching equipment to Telecom's exchanges under LLU is high quality "investment" in telecommunications - but then we always knew he was a leftie :)

.

IHUG, like other competitors says the handbrake is off - although it has provided a competitive satellite based and wireless based broadband service for some years. Again, no need to invest further in your own infrastructure.

.

Business New Zealand is wary, and is taking a wait and see approach.

.

Business Roundtable is damning of LLU, and makes the cogent point that the argument that "everyone else does it" is the same argument that other lobbies, like farming, once said about subsidies and protectionism. A great quote from the press release is:

.

“Measures like forced unbundling have been described as infrastructure socialism (“what’s yours is mine”, by government decree). By allowing competitors access to incumbents’ networks on non-commercial terms, the short-term competition they create is parasitical, not the dynamic competition we need from incentives to invest in new and enhanced infrastructure."

.

You see, those supporting LLU seem to be doing so for three differing reasons:

.

1. It is expected to deliver faster, cheaper broadband services because Telecom is refusing to provide those services, or resale the ability to provide those services to competitors (this I believe is the David Farrar reason);

.

2. Everyone else does it, so we should too (the sheeple reason);

.

3. Telecom are bastards who have been "ripping us off for years", capitalist scum, "we paid for it", put the boot in, rah rah rah keep the red flag flying (the Greens and I suspect the reason at least a good third of the public will support it).

.

The second argument is fatuous, if we took that approach, telecommunications in New Zealand would have been a regulated monopoly or duopoly until the late 1990s. Australia opened up its market in 1997, most of western Europe between 1998 and 2000, New Zealand in 1989. NZ has a completely open postal market, almost every other country (Sweden, Finland, Argentina and the UK excepted) grants a statutory monopoly to its state owned (and relatively inefficient) postal operator.

.

The third argument is facile - Telecom was sold by the elected government of the day (Helen Clark and Michael Cullen were Cabinet Ministers at the time), and the proceeds were used to pay off debt "that you borrowed" or to avoid borrowing more for services "that you wanted". You don't own Telecom unless you buy shares in it - get over it.

.

So what about the first? Is Telecom not providing faster broadband because there is insufficient demand? Is it not providing cheaper broadband because it is unprofitable? Are competitors not investing in infrastructure because the clear message from government is that Telecom's will be there to use instead? Has Telecom been acting anti-competitively and if so, why have no competitors taken it to court under the strengthened heavy handed Commerce Act?

.

When I was in telecommunications policy, one of the clearest messages was that setting up a regulator (which did not exist until 2000/2001) would change incentives in the industry from focusing energy on investment, innovation and commercial negotiation to lobbying and counterlobbying, with the regulator NEVER ever pleasing everyone. Lobbying is cheaper than investing in infrastructure - you just need to have half a dozen well paid suits willing to bang on at politicians, bureaucrats and the media about how hard done by your company is, and how mean old Telecom is ripping everyone off - but your company is the paragon of altruism and will save the day.

.

That has simply been proven right.

Theft of property rights to benefit overseas multinational

Well I'm back in the UK, and the NZ Herald and Stuff reports Clark, Cullen and Cunliffe have decided to effectively nationalise Telecom's local loop in order to benefit, primarily, the balance sheet for the majority Australian Federal Government owned Telstra Clear.

.

Of course it isn't nationalisation per se, more fascism - when you retain the semblance of private property, but the state dictates what you do with it to the extent that you don't have effective control over what you ostensibly earn. All those who wanted a cut of the pie and who didn't want to put their own money into Telecom will have won - assuming that the Greens (who despise private property unless it is the petty personal belongings North Korean type property) and either Winston First or Peter Dunne support the proposed legislation.

.

What is ridiculously bizarre is that the package claims to "encourage the development of alternative infrastructure". Why bother, when the government has forced Telecom to make it let you use its network? Well, Telstra Clear has an answer to that - NOBODY but Telstra Clear can use its network, and if you are a Telstra Clear local line phone customer, then woe betide you trying to get a better deal on national, international or landline to mobile calls with another company - Telstra Clear guards its property rights fiercely - even though it has around 30% of the Wellington market and over 50% of the Kapiti Coast market. Vodafone, no doubt, will be concerned - having spent many hundreds of millions on developing its competing network - it has become too successful to be beyond the beady eyes of a regulator.

.

Of course David Farrar is pleased - like any lobby group is pleased when the government rolls out the trough taken from someone else so they can dip their snouts in the booty of state interference - like farmers on SMPs or manufacturers under tariff protection - the internet community thinks:

.

1. It will do better from this deal than if companies were left to invest off their own back; and

2. It is moral to confiscate property rights when you are unwilling to pay for them.

.

I am particularly disappointed David never responded to my reply to the Internet NZ submission. On the one hand he promotes tax cuts , time and time again and a smaller state, on the other he is like other lobbyists, out to get what they can from the government. More tax money to force people to pay for broadband infrastructure is perhaps the most nauseating example. Why should non-users of broadband pay for infrastructure that, frankly, is mostly used by businesses and middle to higher income households? Ohh its the sacred internet - silly me, it's an exception.

.

Like I said, those who wanted to provide local high speed internet access had several options open to them:

.

1. Build their own networks (Telstra Clear, Walker Wireless, Vodafone all have done this to a greater and lesser extent);

2. Negotiate and pay Telecom (or another local access provider) to provide services on a resale basis;

3. Buy some shareholding in Telecom to share the "windfall profits" it apparently has been reaping from providing service that critics call inadequate and overpriced (wonder why people bothered using it);

4. Offer to buy the local loop from Telecom or enter into a deal to own it in partnership (yes it would cost money, but what's money when it is for the so called "good of the country").

.

David is getting some fisking from some on his blog about this and some of his responses don't stack up, such as:

.

"LLU is not exactly a socialist invention of the far left. It is near universal in the OECD and in fact the OECD itself (which is usally seen as quite right wing) backs unbundling and has been very critical of our telco environment."

.

You see, if rightwing governments implement socialist policies (and have no bones about it, forcing a private company to provide physical access to its network at a price determined by the state is socialist - there is nothing "free market" about it), then they are not socialist!! Maybe a bit like Rob Muldoon and Think Big or price freezes? Just because it is near universal in the OECD does not mean it is right - it is near universal in the OECD to fund roads on a purely political basis, but that isn't right either.

.

So, we wait and see how Telecom's share price responds - of course the Greens, Labour and David Farrar wont give a damn if 10% of the NZ sharemarket value is wiped out overnight - just those evil money grabbing Telecom shareholders with their fangs and horns, sucking the blood out of children (read broadband users) to pay for their lavish lifestyle (read retirement savings of elderly couples).

.

This is simple a government enforced transfer of wealth from Telecom shareholders to Telstra Clear shareholders (51% Australian government - yay!), IHUG, Slingshot and other wealthy competing telco shareholders. That is it.

.

Slingshot is owned by Annette Presley - an entrepreneurial second hander as I once described her in my post on her record in the telecommunications industry. The consumer's friend - the producer's enemy. Not PC has described her as the face of theft - he isn't wrong.

.

Rodney Hide has to his credit damned this move and Trevor Loudon agrees. I Hate Socialism likes socialism on this one, confusing invasive regulation with deregulation - he needs to do a bit of research. I bet the National Party is now debating about whether to criticise Labour's policy, because National policy when it was in government was to oppose regulation - or to support it, and look like it is the friend of the consumer. I am sure David Farrar is in the midst of all that too!

.

One thing to remember - Helen Clark, Michael Cullen and David Cunliffe create nothing - if you relied on them for telecommunications - you'd get nothing. They are politicians - they don't produce, they only regulate, take and redistribute.

.

So watch and see - maybe you'll get cheaper faster broadband, maybe you wont. Certainly Telecom will be worth less, as will the sharemarket overall - certainly hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders will lose asset value from this step, and a handful of investors in other companies will gain some, along with the Australian Federal Government.

.

This government helped another Australian company boost its asset value as well - Qantas - by not granting Singapore Airlines the right to buy 49% of Qantas's biggest competitor (the then privately owned Air NZ/Ansett) which meant Ansett went under and Air NZ was severely cauterised, and ready to collaborate rather than compete. So is the Clark/Cullen government a great friend of Australian shareholders?

Qantas and Air NZ to codeshare trans-tasman

As an opponent of anti-trust laws, I don't have a problem with privately owned airlines in an open market getting together. Although Air NZ and Qantas would not have done that had Dr Cullen let Air NZ be 49% owned by Singapore Airlines in the first place, that is now history. Unfortunately Air NZ is now predominantly state owned - and so it is at best, unclear, whether this collusion between Qantas (which so clearly has the political backing of the Australian Federal Government, as it shut out competition for Qantas on one of its most profitable routes) and the state carrier should be allowed.

However, I can laugh at one point - the claim by the airlines that this is good for consumers. Check these claims:

* Air New Zealand customers currently have the choice of 134 Tasman departures per week. Under the proposed codeshare with Qantas this would increase by 63% to 218 departures.

Well, actually customers can choose between all of the airlines. Nobody is forced to use one airline - at best the claim that you can earn frequent flyer points/airpoints dollars on more flights is true.

* Better schedule spread (access to 63 % more flights a week across the Tasman).

OK, there are less flights - are the remainder going to happen at hours that people don't want that much??

* Greater range of connecting options and enhanced seamlessness of service.

You both have deals with each other for connecting to each others' domestic networks already.

* Potential for new destinations and improved frequencies.

So the new route to Adelaide happened because?? You're reducing frequencies - so what is that about?

* Cost savings from extraction of capacity (removal of two aircraft from the Air New Zealand fleet and one from Qantas) will allow sustainability of low fares.

Yes, though there will be less low fares- you use those to try to fill all those half empty planes.

Oh well, as a libertarian I don't advocate the government stop it - but it isn't much good for consumers, particularly those flying from Wellington since only Air NZ and Qantas fly from Wellington to Australia. Meanwhile, remember that this wouldn't have happened had it NOT been for government interference in the first place- why should Dr Cullen have held up Singapore Airlines' investment in Air NZ in 2001?

In New Zealand

OK, I'm here. Can't comment on Air NZ's new Premium Economy Class because I used up my gold airpoints upgrade vouchers to go in the new business class mmmmm - duvets and pillows and flat beds. Rather nice entertainment system fully interactive - not the variety as in Singapore Airlines or Virgin Atlantic, but better than Qantas. Food was excellent and in greater quantities than last time, and I could sleep in the bed, although it was a little hard it compares well with BA's Club Class.

Ahh New Zealand, land of the parochial soooo:

Things I have missed

Family and friends
Empty clean beaches, countryside, roads
Cheap good fresh fruit and veges
Good edible bread easy to get
More fish than haddock and cod that is easy to get
Sun and blue skies
Relatively good service
Lack of crowds

Things i have not missed

Nauseatingly patriotic navel gazing provincialism, as if New Zealand as an entity is important - it just exists and people there have to do things good to be noticed. Just because it is NZ made means nothing unless it is good.
Nasal drawling accents (LA Air NZ lounge I sat beside a blonde woman with the worst accent I've heard in ages - loud, nasal and SO glad she didn't sit upstairs).
Boy racers.
High taxes on alcohol.
Anally retentive customs (you really think most illegal drugs used in NZ come through passengers at airports?)
Low value currency getting lower (good for me for now).
The preponderance of the stupid prickery using the roads (whereas in London they are homeless or riding buses).
Newspapers with large sections dedicated to parish pump pointlessness and bugger all analysis or incisive comment, and virtually no choice of newspapers.
Television virtually devoid of intelligence, unless it comes from foreign channels and awash with cultural cringe.
Radio largely devoid of intelligence (BBC World Service and BBC Radio 4, as leftwing as they are, are like undergraduate tutors compared to National Radio's adolescent students).
The subculture of welfare, drug addiction, crime, abuse and irresponsibility rampant in certain segments of society - and the political tolerance of it (yes I am very aware of it in the UK too, but it is a different but equally troublesome nature).
The perverse criminal justice system that puts a drug trafficker in jail for years, but lets women who beat up kids out in half the time.
The obsession with the road toll - but unwillingess to confront the cause - stupid driving.

OK that'll do, I don't enjoy sitting in front of a computer more than I have to :)

Transmission Gully needs more subsidies

That's right folks - not only was the Hearing's Committee (reported as if it was Godlike) wrong about there being enough money for this billion dollar boondoggle, not only does it have a benefit/cost ratio of less than 1.0 (meaning it produces less benefits that costs), not only does a toll only recover around 15% of the cost of the road (which means if the toll was high enough to pay for it, nobody would use it - showing how little users really want it), not only does Porirua City Council and Kapiti Coast District Council oppose rating the main beneficiaries of the road to pay for it, BUT

apparently (I say apparently because I don't trust the Dom Post much on these, since they got it wrong several times before as I described here and here) Dr Cullen has suggested a regional petrol tax to help pay for it.

This is a fundamentally flawed proposal, despite David Farrar's socialist faith in this think big project, for several reasons:

1. A regional petrol tax means ALL motorists from Masterton and Otaki to Miramar and Island Bay pay for a road that only SOME use. Wairarapa residents might ask why people in Levin don't have to pay, whereas more of them will use it than Wairarapa people.

2. A regional petrol tax means motorists that fill up north of Otaki or in the South Island don't pay to use the road as much as a grandmother driving in Island Bay to the shops.

3. A regional petrol tax means all trucks, buses and diesel and LPG cars don't contribute, since it doesn't apply to road user charges or LPG (and don't even try to apply it to them - RUC is often bought centrally by fleet operators and there is no way of knowing where kilometres bought in advance are being used, and 80% of LPG tax is refunded for non-road users - try having a regional tax on a tax that is mostly refunded)

4. There is no regional petrol tax at present, the last one, introduced by the 1990-1996 National Government was abolished because the oil companies found it administratively simpler to apply to ALL petrol sales nationwide, and hand the Auckland and Wellington Regional Councils the estimated revenue (so motorists in Invercargill paid a tax that was largely meant to apply to only Auckland and Wellington). The only way to change that would be a complicated administration system to account for petrol delivered within regional boundaries, and that means service stations close to boundaries either win or lose.

Now, the DomPost failed to report that the Wellington Regional Land Transport Committee has voted in favour of Transmission Gully - but, and it is a big but - there are still several hurdles left.

.

Transit's board has to agree to the appropriate approach, and may decide against Transmission Gully, or decide in favour, or decide in favour, but in the meantime cannot neglect the current route (which it can't). I think it will do the latter - retain its commitment to Transmission Gully as the long term solution, but apply for fundable economic projects on the current route. The median barrier along the coast is one, an interchange at Paekakariki is another - Pukerua Bay Bypass perhaps another. Even then, Land Transport New Zealand needs to approve funding - Transit doesn't do this - something that politicians that helped set up this system (Peter Dunne and Maurice Williamson) tend to ignore in the rhetoric and which most journalists can't be arsed thinking about (they only report anyway).

.

The simple point is - the money for Transmission Gully is not there - it does not stack up as a project of anything other than low national priority because it has bad economics, and the users are unwilling to pay, even the councils cheerleading it wont raise a dollar of their ratepayers' money to pay for it (meaning they wont risk their political lives on the issue - there is no risk in demanding others pay).

.

So why should you be forced to pay for a road that you aren't going to use or benefit from? and if you are going to use it or benefit from it, then why wont you agree to pay more towards it? Agree to pay the $24 toll that would be required, or go tell the grandmother driving in Island Bay to the shops why she should pay more in petrol so you can go on holiday to Taupo 10 minutes faster?

.

You might ask why supposed supporters of the free market like ACT and National, think this is ok. Even Maurice Williamson, who as Minister proudly refused to get involved in decisions on particular projects, because he believed projects should be decided on their merits by people able to weigh them all up objectively is now reported as guaranteeing the Penlink project in Rodney District will get funding approval if National is elected. Roll out the pork barrels.

Light blog

I’m off to New Zealand and Australia for the rest of the month, so will write here eratically during that time. The weekend in Switzerland was wonderful, Switzerland has the plus of being clean, polite, comfortable and efficient, and the minus of often being closed and rulebound.

I miss certain food, space, good tap water, family and friends - but I don't miss the tall poppy syndrome, the Kiwi navel gazing "thinking we're really important" and the insipid political correctness. Oh well, I wish you well and look forward to seeing a few of you in the next few weeks.

Tolling Transmission Gully

Well it had to happen - Transmission Gully could not be built as an untolled road, not because of cost, because it wont generate much revenue at all - but because if untolled it would be a subsidy for people commuting from Kapiti Coast and result in substantial amounts of housing development in Kapiti and Horowhenua because taxpayers - not road users and certainly not users of that road - would be paying for it. Tolling will mean two things - the users will be paying around 20% of the cost of the road (including fuel tax and road user charges), but at off peak times most people will use the existing road. Why pay if it wont save you time? BOTH routes should be tolled to pay for it - particularly since the main beneficiaries are those whingers who bought houses along the existing highway wanting a windfall increase in property values by taxpayers paying for a new road that wasn't even seriously considered until the 1990s.

.

The Dominion Post continues to fail to report accurately claiming that the Hearings Panel report on public consultation was generated by Transit and the Regional Council, which is nonsense.

.

The new regional plan proposes that Transmission Gully could be built for $955 million, in a decade. Of this, $412 million would come from already guaranteed funding, $428 million from special Government loans, and $115 million from loans to be covered by tolls. $955 million is a joke - seriously - this project will face overruns of around 10-20% if other state highway projects are anything to go by. Transmission Gully will cost around $1.1-$1.2 billion. The already guaranteed funding doesn't exist - that funding is actually $405 million and there is no such thing as a special Government loan - yet. A case could be put for it, but I wouldn't be lending money for a roading project which had lower benefits than cost - may as well build a gas to gasoline plant at Motunui.

.

So we will see. If Transmission Gully is to go ahead, it should FOLLOW the rail improvements already agreed, and a number of minor improvements to the current route (median barrier, interchange at Paekakariki and possibly bypass at Pukerua Bay) should proceed.

.

I still think there is every likelihood Transmission Gully wont proceed - because it is so hienously expensive. The next most expensive project in Wellington is $180 million and for the money spent on Transmission Gully, Wellington city could have a proper inner city bypass (4-lane cut and cover tunnel from Terrace Tunnel to Mt Victoria Tunnel, with both tunnels duplicated and 4-lanes to the airport) and a lot more besides. Such a project would transform the region by dramatically improving access to and from the airport and hospital, remove a third of the traffic from inner city streets - enable the waterfront route along the quays to have a lane removed in each direction, buses would flow far more freely through town.

.

Transmission Gully will just knock 5 minutes off the off-peak time from Wellington to Kapiti and perhaps 20 minutes off the peak journey, and remove 60% of the traffic from Pukerua Bay and Mana - both communities very used to through traffic. Transmission Gully wont fix Wellington city congestion.

.

Maybe a better approach is congestion pricing to pay for a proper city bypass and Transmission Gully? I simply think the region hasn't thought through its priorities sufficiently and too many are worshipping the cult of Transmission Gully - if they ever get it, they will be very disappointed.

Morality and telecommunications.... (unfinished business)

As I rarely forget anything I do remember that I have to respond further to AJ Chesswas's points about my post in response to his one (whew) and I have failed to meet up to what I said a month ago about posting on it. So here is my response. Allan's comments are in italics, with my response in bold.

.

Thanks for taking up the challenge Scott. There is a lot of good thinking in there, and as a right-leaning bloke there are a lot of things I empathise with. I agree an individual should be essentially free and encouraged to make his or her own judgments and decisions. However I have a couple of concerns witha purely libertarian/anarchist/individualistic understanding of society, namely;- People being socialised to think of themselves, and their own needs and desires, rather than entering into a bigger picture group consciousness that recognises their role and relationships within a community, as a contributor to and participant in the "happiness" of others.

.

I don't think people are socialised to think of themselves, I think it is a biological imperative as part of the instinct to survive. I also don't believe in group consciousness. There is no such thing as a collective brain. While people may share opinions and feelings, the idea of group consciousness is dangerous as it is claimed by those with power - who want to deny the validity or the argument of those who present alternative views. I don't believe that anyone has the right to tell anyone else within a community what their "role" is, besides not initiating force against anyone else. The contribution to and participation in the happiness of others is spontaneous, and is part of being a social being - but it isn't a "role". It is just as legitimate to be a hermit rather than being very gregarious and sociable. You see I think the selfish needs and desires of people are, in fact, the motivation to do everything, even if what you do benefits others. A clear example is trading. You trade to make a living, but as you exchange value for value it benefits those you trade with, and those you purchase goods and services from. You may make a living for yourself, but also your family and to socialise with friends. You may give gifts, buy a drink, play sports or do other things together - you do it because it is something you enjoy and benefit from.

.

If you didn't do it because you benefited from it, you'd be sacrificing yourself - and few people want others to sacrifice themself for them. Imagine a relationship which you didn't get anything from, but which you maintained because you thought you should.

.
The emphasis on euphoric happiness can result on people neglecting roles and vocations vital to the future and eproduction of a society, such parenting, mentoring and involvement in the voluntary sector and domestic spheres...resulting in the potential for collapse of a civilisation/people - ie The West meets Islam.

.

I don't think there is an emphasis on euphoric happiness, just happiness. I think parenting is something people enjoy, as is mentoring and voluntary work. Most people I know doing those things do it because they enjoy it and get satisfaction. I am not endorsing hedonistic self-destruction, but simply enjoying being alive. I think society has existed and progressed because people get satisfaction in producing and teaching and applying their minds and hearts to the world around them. Yes, some people are hedonists and don't give a damn, but experience of groups who have pursued that show that eventually most people give that up because they don't want to live in squalor, and need to work to earn money to get what they want. I don't think people have predetermined roles, but spontaneously, without any central planning - there are people to be doctors, teachers, taxi drivers, engineers, farmers, builders etc - it happens due to freedom, choice and the ambition of most people to live and pursue work they get some satisfaction from.

- People who do not think positively of themselves and their own needs, and as a result have given up a pursuit of happiness largely because of relational disappointments (as relationships are typically crucial to happiness). Such people can be instead prone to destructive behaviour which, because they have chosen it, we redefine as "a pursuit of happiness", discarding our moral apprehensions as a relativistic misunderstanding.

.

I agree, and it happens in more areas than you would believe. Alcohol and drugs are obvious, sex less obvious, over and undereating as well, reclusiveness, overshopping, overexercising and the rest. Unfortunately, you as an outside observer can never tell if someone engaging in any of the above is being seriously self destructive, going through a bad patch (e.g. post breakup or mourning a loss) or simply exploring different facets of life. Most people overdo something at some point in their life and learn from it, and nothing the state can do will stop it.

.- People who take advantage of the above people, being motivated by perverse and corrupt desires, whose deeds are discounted on the basis of the redefined nature of morality as discussed above.

.

Well I don't know what perverse and corrupt desires are, although I can guess. For me, it is perverse and corrupt to lie, steal, defraud or force someone to do something. If by perverse and corrupt you mean sexual practices you don't like or approve of, then that is a separate discussion. If two adults agree to enjoy their bodies together then it frankly does not matter to me, and I struggle why it matters to anyone else, unless either of them are in a relationship with another that they are not being honest about.

- The lack of structure and guidance in a less ordered society can pose challenges to maturing citizens looking for guidance and direction, and a meaningful role to play in their community. The sociologist Emile Durkheim discussed the condition of anomie which can result when a person's identity is challenged in this way. Furthermore, a poorly structured society is potentially less effective in responding to an emergency or sudden action (ie The West meets Islam).

I understand the point, but this is up to parents and a good start is to teach the first rule of no initiation of force or fraud. Being honest with people, respecting their bodies and property is a cornerstone of civilisation. Then to apply the mind, and reasoning to problems. A person develops identity as an individual and the more that it allowed to flourish, within the context of respecting others, the happier and better off society will be. I believe people will act and respond quickly in times of emergency, in those situations people are willing to give a hand or to fight if need be - they do so out of esteem and respect for the society of independent and free people. One that does not judge people for actions that are not an attack on others.

PC has also posted some salient points on this that I urge you to read.

also, David Farrar was to respond to my response to InternetNZ's submission calling for the government to remove some of Telecom's property rights over its local lines and for everyone else to be forced to pay for high speed internet infrastructure in certain locations. I await it with antici-pation.... But maybe the rain, isn't really to blame (snaps out of Franknfurter role).

Finland - a model for schools?

According to The Economist (pay edition or the 23 March print edition), education policy wonks could do worse than look at what Finland has done with primary and secondary education.
.
Finland changed its system from being centralised, with curriculum, schools, teacher pay run from Helsinki to deregulating it to schools and teachers. There is no national curriculum in Finland and few national exams. In essence, says the Economist, the formula was “about getting good teachers – and then giving them freedom”. So that means rewarding good teachers and allowing them to teach what they want, how they want.
.
Finland’s 15yos have the highest level of maths and science skills, and reading literacy of any rich industrialised country. In the 1960s it was one of the worst performers. Finland stands above most European countries, as most European countries are at or below the OECD average for mathematics, the top performers are Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan and Finland.

"Lazy frogs go back to work" says airline CEO

The Daily Telegraph reports Philip Meeson, chief executive of jet2.com, a low cost British airline based in Leeds, has called for the French air traffic controllers by asking“lazy frogs to get back to work” on the airline website. He has also complained about French police not clearing away students lying on the runway at Chambery.
.
He’s justifiably expressing anger at a monopoly (French air traffic controllers) holding others to ransom, and says they should get back to work or get another job if they don’t like it.
.
While disagreeing with the language, a Liberal Democrats MEP has said that France and Italy are in a headlong economic race to be the sick man of Europe. Quite right.
.
France is slowly stagnating under the enormous economic millstone of socialism, which means that companies cannot fire staff unless the company is losing money, will lose money for an ongoing period and there are no other positions for the people the company wants to fire. Imagine that – you can’t cut staff until you are unprofitable, so you could be losing money in several areas of your business, but since you are profitable overall you must cross-subsidise those other jobs.
.
One final note, noticed how few low-cost French airlines there are? There are none, compared to ten in the UK last time I counted. Fortunately the open internal European market means non-French EU airlines have the right to fly to and from France as they wish – fortunately for French consumers that is.

UN scum judge New Zealand

The UN Special Rapporteur for promoting racist socialism and hating capitalism – or rather on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen has written a report justifying a socialist view of government in New Zealand particularly in relation to Maori. Trevor Loudon rightfully damns it as its writer is a Marxist and therefore "it is entirely predictable that the report supports the Marxist based "Maori Sovereignty" agenda that has done so much to damage race relations in this country".

.

It justifies racist pro-Maori policies, but interestingly also states:
.
“ return to the assimilationist model appears increasingly in public discourse, redirecting concern about collective rights and the place of Maori as a people within the wider society, to emphasis on the protection of the individual rights of all New Zealanders, including the rights to equal opportunity, due process of law and freedom from illegal discrimination on any grounds, including ethnicity or race.”
.
This implies that there are “models” for people treating Maori, instead of simply treating people as individuals. Once the state has no policy for Maori in particular, but treats everyone equally and gives equal respect to individuals of all cultural backgrounds, then all can get on.
.
However, as Louden explained Stavenhagen is a right socialist busybody. He recommends:
.
“The Treaty of Waitangi should be entrenched constitutionally in a form that
respects the pluralism of New Zealand society, creating positive recognition and
meaningful provision for Maori as a distinct people, possessing an alternative system of knowledge, philosophy and law.”
.
Besides being vacuous cultural relativism, what stops Maori using traditional knowledge (though most like using all knowledge at their disposal) and philosophy to act as they wish? As far as law is concerned, if laws are limited to those to protect people from each other and the state – then Maori can choose to sign up to any further provisions that they want socially – but they cannot be “laws” that apply to anyone else. Objective law is not something up for debate.
.
He also wants iwi and hapu to be able to claim legal aid, regardless presumably, of their wealth. Companies also ought to be able to claim it at this rate, for they are no different, as should incorporated societies. In fact, legal aid should be abolished except for individuals in criminal cases. He also wants more socialist education funding and an independent commission to monitor the media being non-racist – in other words, an attack on free speech.
.
So what is this all about, besides an insidious interference in New Zealand’s domestic politics?

.

Well, it comes from the Commission on Human Rights of ECOSOC, the UN Economic and Social Council - a body established originally. The Commission includes among its members China, Cuba, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe. A bit like having rapists and murderers coming round to your house and telling you that you should vacuum more and it would be nice if you dusted the mantelpiece.
.
Why should we listen to a body that is so morally bankrupt that it lets systematic violators of basic individual rights judge New Zealand on its race relations? Unlike many libertarians, I believe the UN should exist -but bodies like the ECOSOC Commission on Human Rights are virtually useless as long as they accept as legitimate members the vilest abusers of human rights in the world. Of course, cultural relativists like the Greens love the UN and think Marxists can teach us something, because the UN almost always supports a socialist state collectivist agenda.

Greens want more democracy for Maori only

Green MP Metiria Turei has called for the Maori electoral option to always be available for Maori voters. She said:
.
“A Maori voter might make the decision to move to the Maori roll might because they are unsatisfied with the representation they are getting from candidates on the general roll. Yet because the option only opens every five years, they are forced to stay on the general roll for the next election. This seriously undermines the democratic process and highlights the structural inequalities for Maori of the Westminster system we operate under.”
.
What? So you should be able to shift electoral rolls if you don't like your candidates. Wonderful stuff

.

The Greens regard Don Brash’s approach to the Maori seats as racist, but what the hell is Metiria on about? What happens if I am unsatisfied with the representation I get from candidates on the general roll?
.
I don’t have Maori ancestry (I think) so I’m not entitled to a second option according to Metiria. According to her, it’s just fine that 85% or so of New Zealanders can just put up and shut up if they don’t like representation, but Maori shouldn’t. Furthermore, what are the “structural inequalities” that mean that Maori get two electoral options but everyone else gets one? What sort of Orwellian doublespeak is Metiria going on about? It is unequal and unfair if one group (Maori) get a second option nobody else gets, but can only exercise it every five years?
.
What unadulterated racist nonsense. Democracy means one person one vote. To suggest that Maori deserve extra is elevating them and denigrating others, and to suggest they need it for democracy is suggesting Maori when they vote on the general roll don’t really count.
.
This demonstrates the Green Party view of democracy is not all votes counting equally. The Maori seats should go – debates about democracy when just over half of Maori are represented by Maori seats, with MPs who claim to speak for Maori, when Maori views are represented across several parties (and the Green Party is a poor performer in the Maori seat). Don Brash is right - the Maori Party after all, is over-represented in this Parliament because of the Maori seats.
.
It is not racist to call for separate representation to be abolished, it is the opposite. Don’t let any Orwellian post-modernist cultural relativist socialist convince you otherwise.

.

Libertarianz called for the Maori seats to go since 1996, ACT since 1999 and National since 2004.

Human Rights Act shows up its failings again

So there is an issue about a bar prohibiting people under 20 from entering it because it might breach the Human Rights Act. So the arguments about the drinking age become arguments about passing laws, rather than about people regulating their own behaviour. Such nonsense! Bars should be able to ban people of any age they like, indeed they should be able to stop anyone entering on any grounds - after all, bars are private property. If you don't want anyone entering your home you have the right to stop them, right?
.
I am opposed to the Human Rights Act applying to private activities. If a person wants to discriminate on the grounds of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability, hair colour, musical tastes, politics or body odour it is nobody else's business. After all, it is a private contract between two adults. If I am an employer I should be able to choose the employee I want, similarly if if I am a landlord or a shopkeeper.
.
What? You're racist or sexist? No.

.

Just someone who believes in private property rights and that you can't force people to engage with others, regardless of how stupid their reasons to discriminate. You see we all discriminate all of the time in different areas of life - you judge people according to their clothes, their bodies, their hair and many other factors. You do so because you instinctively associate with those who you are more comfortable with - and all sorts of incidents in life leave you stereotyping people according to many factors, and often you are wrong.

.

However, does this mean people should be able to "get away with" being racist or sexist with everyone who is offended having no come back? No.

.

Freedom works both ways. If there was a shop that was owned by a racist shopkeeper, would you shop there? Would you tell your friends about the racism? Would you (if you sold good to the shop) not trade with the shop at all? Freedom to contract and freedom of speech are powerful tools. Someone who acts racist or sexist may deter some customers, and some of those customers may be prepared to publish the embarrassing fact of the bigotry. Consumer boycotts can be powerful.

.

Back to the drinking age. There is no need to do anything about this. Leave it at 18 (some countries have no drinking age and don't appear to be worse off than NZ in alcohol related conditions) and let the market decide what people want.

New York University appeases Muslim bullies

With support from the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), a New York University (NYU) approved Objectivist student group publicised that it was going to show the notorious Danish cartoons (don't need to say what they are) in a panel discussion called "Unveiling the Danish Cartoons" on Wednesday 29 March. According to ARI:
.
"A day before the panel discussion was to take place, NYU gave the student event organizers a non-negotiable ultimatum: if you display the cartoons we will close the event to non-NYU guests. This was in spite of the fact that NYU's own rules leave this decision to the student sponsoring organization."
.
Furthermore:
.
"And even though the students opted for not showing the cartoons, NYU barred entry to at least two journalists and more than 30 registered guests. Even after learning that Muslim students had sabotaged the event by acquiring and destroying two hundred tickets to leave as many seats empty, NYU officials still refused to allow non-NYU guests to enter."
.
ARI is furious, understandably so. It has said:
.
"Why did NYU trample the rights of the Objectivist student group?Because it chose appeasement; it chose, out of fear, to avoid the consequences of taking a principled stand to protect everystudent's freedom of speech on campus. And so next time, the mobs will know that to get whatever they want, they need only screamand threaten more stridently."
.
Indeed - NYU would rather capitulate to threats and not upset those who call for violence, than to defend those who are implacably opposed to it. How dare it call itself a university - such an attitude puts it back with the book burners of the dark ages!
.
Read the full ARI press release and letter to the editor of the NY times here.

.

However, there is a far more interesting dialogue about this on Diana Hsieh's blog entry on this. She goes into more detail, explaining that the Islamic centre describes that:

.

"These cartoons have lead to riots, protests, beatings, and even deaths on an international level"

.

Yes, only by their deranged Muslim "brothers". Drawings do nothing at all - why should anyone attack anyone else because they are offended, unless they are savages?

.

Moreover, the Islamic centre has no understanding of context - these anti-reason censors of debate claim:

.

"Remember that this same type of manifestation of hatred has lead to the murder of many innocent people. We can look as far back as the 1930's in the years prior to the Holocaust when Nazi Germany circulated hate-filled images of our Jewish brothers and sisters throughout society. Contemporary situations such as Rwanda have also caused bloody genocides. It is necessary for all of us to stand together and speak out against this, as hatred does not discriminate against any color, race, creed, or religion; all it does is hate."

.

To claim that an objectivist group is engaging in mindless hate is ludicrous, to claim the newspaper that published the cartoons was engaging in hate akin to Nazi Germany is utterly vile. In fact, it was in response to the ultra-violent anti-semitic cartoons the Arab world is not ashamed of publishing regularly. However, they wouldn't dare criticise their "brothers" in totalitarian Arab regimes, only Americans using free speech to debate the point of free speech. ARI was not engaging in hatred against Muslims, but the Islamic League doesn't even want to listen.

.

Diana wrote to NYU saying:

.

"Consider the consequences of your decision. By capitulating this time, you've forsaken the principle necessary to withstand pressure from other groups to withdraw some speaker deemed offensive. What ground can you stand upon when the Campus Republicans attempt to bar Michael Moore from speaking? Or when the Christian groups band together to bar an atheist? If those groups threaten trouble, will you demand concessions from those speakers too, like that Michael Moore can't say anything mean about President Bush or that the atheist must refrain from arguing his full case against God? Soon, no speech would be permitted, lest even innocuous comments about the sunny weather offend the depressed or mentions of a good grade on an exam offend those who chose not to study. Once speech is limited on the grounds that it might offend some people, the principle of free speech is destroyed."

.

I couldn't agree more.

Blogging lighter for a month

I'm fleeing to Switzerland for the weekend with my girlfriend to meet up with a friend, then back with a lot of work before fleeing downunder for a few weeks. Will be some blogging next week and some while downunder, but I'm sure you'll survive without my rantings.

What's wrong with Oxfam?

After all, they want to fight poverty worldwide don't they?

.

I just got accosted by an Oxfam campaigner. Not an unusual thing in the UK, as there are people out for your money at every corner, but I confronted him and said 2 days a week I pay taxes for the government – and on top of that if he wanted to eradicate poverty he should start advocating free trade, unlike Oxfam.
.
He was stunned and I walked away.
.
So I thought I’d see if my own prejudices against Oxfam are well founded. I figure it is just a bunch of leftie do-gooders out for more state intervention, placing guilt upon the most productive to help the least, and generally being anti-capitalist.
.
The Oxfam website states “Oxfam International is a confederation of 12 organizations working together with over 3,000 partners in more than 100 countries to find lasting solutions to poverty, suffering and injustice. “
.
Poverty presumably means anyone struggling to survive day by day materially, but suffering and injustice are a bit more difficult to define. Suffering is a fact of life, I can’t see Oxfam operating an ambulance to help car crash victims, or people suffering from grief. Life inevitably produces a state of suffering for most people at some point – Oxfam is hardly going to fix that. Injustice is slightly more insidious – as it implies something has been “done” to someone else, it can mean Oxfam is a crime fighter or, more likely, Oxfam is out to take from the rich to give to the poor.
.
Now it is a private organization, and as such it can do as it wishes with whatever money it raises from voluntary sources. So from a libertarian perspective, let Oxfam be free to do as it wishes. However, from an objectivist perspective is its goals moral and are the solutions it proposes moral and workable?
.
Oxfam’s beliefs and approach to its goals are contained in its strategic plan are step by step to evaluate it.
.
Oxfams believe that:

.
1. Poverty and powerlessness are avoidable and can be eliminated by human action and
political will.
.
Well poverty is typically avoidable by those who are poor – in some cases it can’t be eliminated because it is due to catastrophe. However, the best cure for poverty is economic development. This allows people to produce surpluses to tide them over bad times, or through disaster. The only economic system that has produced such surpluses is capitalism. Political will, in respect of allowing people to produce, enforcing criminal and civil laws and property rights, is essential in this – though I don’t think it is what Oxfam means.
.
2. Basic human needs and rights can be met. These include the rights to a sustainable
livelihood, and the rights and capacities to participate in societies and make positive
changes to people's lives.
.
Well that’s nice, they can be met – the question is, by whom? Who supplies a right to a sustainable livelihood and what is a sustainable livelihood? Does this mean you have a right to your business continuing to be successful, if so who guarantees that if you have insufficient customers? Does it mean your employer is required to support you, even if you are largely superfluous? Who stops people from participating in societies and the right to make positive changes to your life? In other words, this is wishy washy nonsense,
.
3. Inequalities can be significantly reduced both between rich and poor nations and within
nations.
.
Well, of course then there wouldn’t be rich and poor nations would there. Of course, this is right – look at Korea (South only), Taiwan, China, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and India – they are certainly getting wealthier, while the socialist France, Italy and Germany haven’t been going anywhere. However, it is telling that there is an emphasis on inequalities. It wouldn’t matter if the poor countries all fed, clothed and housed - what would matter is that there are rich countries where people own cars, engage in travel. No recognition that inequality can reflect the different value of what is being produced, different levels of efficiency and different skills. The assumption is that equality is fair – which is nonsense as well. I am presuming it is material inequality that is the concern, although socialists often say capitalists are only concerned with money – socialists aren’t wanting Britain to have the beaches of the Maldives.
.
4. Peace and substantial arms reduction are essential conditions for development.
.
Peace yes. Arms reduction, no. South Korea has developed very well while remaining well armed – in fact without being armed it would have been invaded by North Korea. The US is well armed and is hardly poor. The issue is what arms are used for, if used for attacking and pillaging then the problem is those actions, if used in self defence they are an asset.
.
Oxfams understand that:
5. Poverty is a state of powerlessness in which people are unable to exercise their basic
human rights or control virtually any aspect of their lives. Poverty manifests itself in the
inadequacy of material goods and lack of access to basic services and opportunities
leading to a condition of insecurity.

Unable to exercise basic human rights? Poor people can’t move or speak? They can’t sell their labour? Patronising nonsense to claim they cannot control their lives or exercise basic human rights. Poverty is a lack of opportunity now – so who owes the poor opportunities? Poverty by definition leaves someone insecure as they lack the necessities of life, but does this mean something else?
.
6. All poverty is almost always rooted in human action or inaction. It can be made worse by
natural calamities, and human violence, oppression and environmental destruction. It is
maintained by entrenched inequalities and institutional and economic mechanisms.
.
Well it is rooted in human action or inaction, such as mistakes or negligence. However, the true agenda is in the second sentence “maintained by entrenched inequalities” (whatever they are ) and “institutional and economic mechanisms” (whatever they are). If I was generous it would because people in poor countries have poor education, no property rights, limited infrastructure and often harassment by governments, paramilitaries or groups keen to keep down anything new or innovative that may challenge their power. I could also say this could mean the nonsense of international trade protectionism and subsidies, and the appalling wastefulness of the UN. Oxfam definitely IS concerned about trade protectionism, but only in one direction – it wants developed countries to open their markets, but not developing countries. This is despite the evidence that closed markets stagnate economies.
.
The Oxfam approach is that:
7. Our programs will:
a. address the structural causes of poverty and related injustice
.
Marxist terminology – but does this include enforcing private property rights? Doubt it.
..................
b. work primarily through local accountable organizations, seeking to strengthen their
empowerment
.
Not individuals, not clear if this is voluntary or government or both. Probably both.
.
c. help people directly where local capacity is insufficient or inappropriate for Oxfams'
purposes
.
Fine
.
d. assist the development of structures which directly benefit people facing the realities of
poverty and injustice and which are accountable to them.
.
What sort of structures? Independent accountable courts and enforceable property rights?
.
8. In all our actions our ultimate goal is to enable people to exercise their rights and manage
their own lives.
.
Wonderful, so let’s ensure governments only protect people from each other.
.
9. For people to be able to exercise their rights:
a. opportunities must be created so people can participate in governing all aspects of their
lives, and
.
No, rights are distinct from opportunities. People should not participate in governing all aspects of their lives, they should be in control of their lives to the extent possible. They govern their bodies, their property and how they contract those with others.
.
b. they must have the genuine capacity to organize and take advantage of those
opportunities.
.
Organise? Like unions? Why can’t people just act? How do you guarantee people have capacity to take advantage of opportunities? You educate them in everything so they can take advantage of any opportunity? Slightly far fetched.
.
10. Gender inequalities and other diversity issues will be addressed in our actions and
programs.
.
Fair enough – much has to be done about discrimination against women or other races, religions, or indeed people of different political beliefs.
.
11. In the economic arena, we will seek:
a. to enable people to meet their needs by creating opportunities within markets, while
protecting themselves against the excesses of unregulated market forces
.
What are these excesses? Why is there no mention of the excesses of unregulated government force?
.
b. to strengthen institutions intervening in the market in the interests of the poor.
.
Regardless of whether those institutions intervening actually advance their interests. Maybe intervening in the market is against their interests.
.
12. Preventing and reversing damage to the environment is essential to achieving
sustainable livelihoods.
.
OK, so let’s destroy buildings, roads, farmland and revert the environment back to how it was before people “damaged” it. Damage could mean any emissions, any earthworks, any weeding. There is no cost/benefit tradeoff here – not cases where “damaging the environment” saves lives.
.
13.. Action against violence must include:
a. coming to the aid of victims,
.
Important, ambulance at the bottom of the cliff though and Red Cross does this well already.
.
b. strengthening people's capacity to peacefully resolve conflicts, and
.
Harmless enough…and
.
c. demanding a determined response from the international community where the situation
warrants it.
.
OK, so aid victims, encourage peaceful resolution and international intervention. What about people’s right to self defence, what about government actions to do violence to people?
.
There you have it. Oxfam has some good goals, and I don’t doubt how positive it would be if more people in poor countries had clean water, housing, adequate food and peace. However, they have no right to claim others in other countries to pay for it for them. The standard of living in the West was earnt through hard work and innovation, the standard of living in the poor countries needs to be earnt the same way.
.
More importantly, Oxfam has a deluded old peace activist socialist view as to why poverty happens. It ignores the importance of property rights and independent fair judiciary to enforce criminal law, contract law and property law. You don’t get this in most countries that are performing badly. Peace is important, but it is not enough- because the importance of peace is not that there is no war, but that there is no violence being initiated. Violence can be initiated by governments against their people and individuals against one another. Any time this happens, it destroys wealth and is psychologically debilitating. Having no legal system able to respond makes it worse.
.
Oxfam would be far better if it focused on three goals:

- End to all forms of initiated force (war, terrorism, crime, government);
- Removing all barriers to free consensual trade across borders and within borders;
- Establishment of private property rights and contract law, able to be defended and enforced with an independent judicial and law enforcement system.
.
Sadly, I just think it is more concerned about making people in richer countries feel guilty. I wont give to Oxfam, because it has a socialist agenda - it is more concerned with fair trade (which is a fraud according to the Adam Smith Institute). Read also this article from the Globalisation Institute, which explains why free trade IS fair trade, and those who argue against free trade are just plain wrong. Oxfam needs to dump its ideological baggage and look at why some poor countries are doing remarkably well - it is not because of Oxfam.

Energy efficiency obsession

I see that Energy Minister Trevor Mallard and Government Spokesperson on Energy Efficiency Jeanette Fitzsimons (didn’t know that existed) have announced the ending of the current National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy (NEECS). Unfortunately a new one is going to be developed, which will be one of the most pointless exercises engaged by bureaucrats in the next year or so.
.
Why?
.
Because the last one did bugger all. This government is obsessed with strategies, which are meant to direct bureaucrats, and they are usually destined to not be successful or be so broadly defined to look like every year is a step “along the path”. The new NEECS is to feed into a new Energy Strategy (see what I mean?).
.
Let’s start from first premises. The objective of NEECS is to “set the agenda for government programmes to promote greater energy efficiency and renewable energy”.
.
Why?
.
Is energy efficiency good? Well, yes it is. Wasting energy is unproductive. Most businesses don’t like to waste any inputs into production, so they strive to be more efficient across the board. This includes everything from turning off lights, to buying more efficient machinery, to closing down inefficient operations. In respect of energy, as long as it is priced efficiently (i.e. not subsidised or not overpriced), then energy users will decide whether it is more efficient to use it or not. For example, an emphasis on energy efficiency alone may mean extra expense in labour to monitor lights or whatever. So the government doesn’t need to promote energy efficiency. If you are stupid enough to leave all your appliances on, then you pay more for electricity – nobody subsidises you. If there isn’t enough electricity to meet demand, the price should go up to encourage you to be more efficient.
.
In short, there is not the slightest need for the government to give a damn about energy efficiency if electricity, gas, coal and petrol are priced according to supply and demand.
.
Is renewable energy good? Well, it doesn’t really matter. If it is a non-renewable resource, when it is becoming scarce the price goes up and others are found. In itself, renewable energy sounds good – but it is rather irrelevant.
.
So, in short, NEECS has little value – the appropriate answer to energy efficiency is to get out of the way, and let users pay and energy producers have freedom to seek whatever sources of energy they wish. To help that, the government ought to privatise its remaining electricity SOEs.

Working for benefits

Now as a libertarian I don’t believe in compulsory state welfare. At best it doesn’t represent caring at all, because instead of consciously considering how to assist those in need, most people simply accept that taxes are taken from them and some bureaucrats hand money over to the needy. It means the chattering classes can clink their chardonnay glasses in Wadestown or Parnell, and feel they are doing their bit for those in Cannons Creek, Otara or Murupara – without having to actually be conscious of it. They can vote Labour feeling like, somehow, this system makes them better citizens – whilst many avoid the needy like the plague. It also means that bureaucrats, many with good intentions, always have a supply of money to dish out to the needy – and have power with this, and beneficiaries think that their money is an “entitlement”. “Entitlement” is a powerful word, hard to argue against being entitled to something, like holding a certificate proving you have a right to land or some money.
.
At worst state welfare breeds an attitude of dependence of not seeking the best in yourself – an attitude best represented in beneficiaries who would rather watch TV all day than get a job, or wont get a job that “robs them” of their benefit – robbed already from the productive. State welfare is money literally for nothing, taken from force by people who had to earn it in the first place.
.
However, there are plenty who believe that even if the state welfare system is wasteful and has gone too far, that there should still be a bottom line “safety net” for those destitute and unable to work through sickness or disability or to bridge a gap between jobs. This is the line that ACT takes, that welfare should be short lived and be incentivised to encourage or require people to take employment where possible. In other words, welfare for those with no means to provide for themselves or their families. This was, I believe, the vision of New Zealand’s most popular socialist – Michael Joseph Savage.
.
Today, Helen Clark and Michael Cullen have taken that vision and vastly increased the number of those receiving welfare, with the so-called “Working for Families” package. This means that most people with children will now receive social welfare benefits simply because they bred. So let’s just think very clearly about what this system means:
.
1. People work hard, earn money and have tax taken off them, around half paying 33% or more of their income in tax.
2. The state takes a proportion of that to pay bureaucrats to run a system whereby…
3. People with children, with certain income thresholds, can get welfare benefits if they apply for them – simply because they are families.

.
Now the Greens moan about how unemployed and sickness beneficiaries aren’t getting this – because the Greens think state welfare is truly wonderful and if you need money, then fleecing those who make it is fair.
.
However, how do YOU feel about paying a lot of tax and either having it churned through bureaucrats to make you a beneficiary, or it going to middle class families with children?

Take this statement from the Government's own press release:

Most families with children, earning under $70,000 a year are likely to be eligible for family tax relief, but many families earning up to $100,000 may also be able to claim some family assistance.

.

$100,000!! Forget being a responsible young couple in your 20s saving for a mortgage, have babies and get some money from the state. Apparently Dr Cullen's tax increase for the "rich" earning over $60,000 isn't about rich people anymore - so why does middle-upper income New Zealand have to pay 39% income tax?

.
One view is that everyone should share the financial burden of raising children. Why? Unless the children are collectively “owned” by everyone, why should anyone else bear responsibility for the breeding habits of others? People who have 5 children get more money than those with 1 or none. Having children is essentially a lifestyle choice, some people want none – some people can’t have them and must adopt – others want enormous families. However, having children is, by and large, a choice. Nobody makes you have unprotected coital sex, unless it is rape and that is a different matter. Making the choice to have children means taking enormous responsibility and trading off the time, energy and financial commitment of a child, vs. what else you might do with that time and money. If you are unwilling to take on that commitment, then you short change the child – and you’ve made a bad decision. It is YOUR fault – not MY fault that I haven’t given you money for your child.
.
The main criticism of cutting welfare for children is that the children suffer – yet of the two main things children need, material provision is one. The other is time and attention – which is also where the greatest rewards come from. If I am expected to give up money to help children be raised for the greater good, I want to share in their upbringing – after all, children need attention and time from adults to learn and grow fulfilled and to experience life. I’m sure parents receiving welfare from non-child bearing taxpayers would baulk at anyone expecting time with their “shared responsibility”.
.
Quite simply, there is nothing special about having children. Children cost time and money, both for parents and, with the state education system, for every net taxpayer (not everyone is a net taxpayer remember – all those on benefits and working for the non-productive state sector are not) – and the single biggest thing anyone does that increases consumption in the environment is to breed. However, the Greens want people to be subsidised to breed.
.
So why has Labour set up this bureaucratic system to hand out welfare to middle income families? In essence, it comes down to two motives. The first is income redistribution (known as theft if you engage it in) - Labour believes that those that earn and produce, particularly those without children, should have part of those earning taken from them and given to those with children. In short, people with the income of Heather Roy with five children deserve money from people with half her income and no kids, because Labour wants to subsidise them.

.
United Future and NZ First endorse this. It is pure envy – a straight out transfer from some people to others – because Labour likes them.
.
The second motive is far more insidious. Tax cuts reduce dependence on the state and reduce the size of the state. They are preferred by individualists because they mean you get back money the state isn’t using so you can spend it yourself or save it, or do as you wish – after all it was your money to begin with. If you hadn’t worked, or invested or spent, the state wouldn’t have had it. It keeps a cap on the size of the state, which is why Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Bill Birch all supported tax cuts – it keeps the state from wasting money on whatever activity was popular with politicians, but which you would never choose to fund yourself. Like rap study tours or middle class children.
.
Extending welfare to include middle class families ties them to the state – some see it as effectively a tax cut, because they get some of their money back, so it’s “ok”. Anyone promising to remove it better give them something as good or better. However, that is the thing – many of those on middle class welfare wouldn’t be better off with a tax cut, unless it was a large tax cut – the sort National would not introduce. Labour now has these people as more likely voters, because to reverse Working for Families and introduce tax cuts instead, there would be losers (low to middle income families) and winners (middle to high income single people). Labour knows very well that the losers outnumber the winners, and the winners are hated by the great Kiwi socialist clobbering machine working in TVNZ, TV3, Radio NZ, the NZ Herald etc etc. Labour has bought voters with this package – and knows that most will remain loyal. They are now dependent on bureaucrats and a Labour government for getting some of their income – something that a tax cut would never mean. That is why it is so insidiously evil.
.
No well functioning economy needs the state to take money off of people to redistribute to middle income working families. How inefficient is that? How ridiculous is it for welfare to have shifted from being the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff for those in dire need, to being a day to day source of income.
.
The appropriate response IS to replace it with tax cuts – scrap the whole Working for Families package, eliminate vast tracts of pointless bureaucracies and cut taxes, dramatically. National should stick to this, take its old tax cut plan and take it further. As much as it is hard for National to dismantle socialism Labour introduces, it is as hard for Labour to reverse tax cuts that apply to the vast majority.
.
While I thought the extent of the cuts were too low, Don Brash is right in his press statement about the Working for Families package:
.
As we have seen from Labour's TV ads, much of the extended Working for Families handout will go to higher income families who can afford to live in plush homes and own the latest electronic gadgets.

It's clear the extension was aimed at middle and higher income earners - proving it was a huge and desperate bribe to get Labour re-elected."But thousands of Kiwis miss out. People without children will subsidise those with children to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars."National's policy at the 2005 election was to offer tax cuts to working New Zealanders. These would have provided far better incentives for working people to get ahead in life from their own efforts.