Us vs Them - Trotter, Marxism and what he REALLY thinks.

Not PC and Lindsay Mitchell both comment excellently on Chris Trotter's column (on Mitchell's blog), which paints an explicitly Marxist view of the debate on free speech and democracy. It is one that puts in stark reality what the view of those on the left is based on - one that should be a lesson to you all.

For Trotter it is "us" and "them". "Us" means the masses, the working classes, or as he would say those who are "obliged to earn a living by hiring ourselves out to the fortunate fifth". A view you'd find taught in Moscow 30 years ago. Those earning salaries could NEVER set up a business of their own could they? No. Indeed, those earning salaries are somehow inferior, at a disadvantage, though you might wonder if people didn't set up a business and didn't get a job, how Trotter would expect them to survive, except by the charity of others - or force (one he quite understands).

More telling is his view of "them". The "fortunate fifth". The despicable envy ridden venom for those who own more than others. You see if you save some of your salary, and set up a business, or make some investments, instead of drinking it, or spending it on consumption you are "fortunate". In the world of the Marxist success isn't something that everyone can aspire to if they work hard, apply their minds and try to get ahead - it is luck. It is clearly "luck" that such people are sought after by companies, not the fact that in most cases, hard work and intelligence get rewarded by those who value them. No, in Trotter's world it is binary.

"Them" own most things, it was luck they got it, and that is unfair isn't it? "Us", well we work for "them" increasing their wealth and they pay us a little to keep us going. See where this is heading? It is heading for the view that at the least, the state must exist to take from "them" to compensate "us" for the fact that "luck" bestowed property upon "them". At its worst it grants justification for the rivers of blood in revolution brought about by Marxists throughout the 20th century. After all, if you are taught that this is the way the world works, you might be angry and see the inequality in incomes and property as being unfair - not a simple reflection of the wide range of human abilities, intelligence, decisions made that were right and wrong, that those at either end of the "them" and "us" spectrum (rather than it being binary) may shift roles in our lives. More than one millionaire has ended up destitute or salaried, and vice versa.

For Marxists, the rich that have fallen are to be laughed at. The poor that have succeeded either better be engaging in significant amounts of charity and transfers, or are liars, cheats and have only succeeded through exploitation.

It is a fundamental bigotry against success - a bigotry that should be counter to human nature - imagine a civilisation that despises success. You don't have to imagine - go to North Korea, Cuba, look at China 1949-1979, Cambodia 1975-1979, "Myanmar", Albania 1945-1991, Romania 1947-1990, and on and on. It is a bigotry that at best stagnates and suppresses, with a little blood spilt from day to day (Cuba), at worst it murders en masse (China, Cambodia).

So this is how Trotter sees the debate - a debate about democracy. He sees democracy as only being legitimate when it grants the masses the right to say what he deems they would say if only they knew their best interests. These are leftwing views. He derides other views as those of the "owning classes". You wonder if he even thinks the "owning classes" should be allowed to participate. He knows if he said "no" he'd be walking right into the countries I listed above. After all, many communist states used the word "democratic" in their titles because they genuinely said they were "people's democracies" - "us" being represented by the communist party, in which case why represent "them" as they exploit, lie and cheat, so you only need one party to encompass the interests of "us". Trotter's view may perfectly align with the one party state.

However he isn't QUITE there yet. You see he also knows Labour swings from right to left, the 1980s being the period he despises most. He likes having the Greens and Maori Party keeping Labour honest with a leftwing perspective, and remember the Alliance which he credits as bringing Labour home. He also doesn't think you need you do away with liberal democracy to keep the left in power, you just need to regulate the expression of views of "them" by passing laws to ensure nobody can spend more money than "us" on that expression. Trotter's steady state democracy sees Labour permanently in power (pretty much), with the Greens and Maori Party keeping them there and honest. National permanently in opposition (by and large) and he'd just wish ACT would disappear, because that is "them" par excellence. He sees NZ First as representing a conservative version of "us", the one Rob Muldoon cultivated and which is long gone in National. Besides, Winston and Peter Dunne have been keeping "us" in power, so let's not get too upset (and both are one man ponies who are likely to retire in one or two elections).

Trotter also believes that, for all of his advocacy of "us" - most of "us" are really quite simple folk, bless them, salt of the earth I am sure. "Us" are easily swayed by lots of advertising, billboards, television, leaflets which advocate the election of "them", which criticises those who defend "us". In 2005 that's what happened. "Them" conspired, with a tiny religious sect (you can smell the evil), to produce billboards, leaflets and advertising that wasn't regulated or restricted enough. "Us" almost lost the election. Now "us" can't let "them" seduce the simple "us" to vote against their best interests can we? So we need a level playing field of advertising.

So the word "equality" is bandied about. Not actual equality mind you, he'd never expect Libertarianz and Labour to have the same amount of publicity - "don't be ridiculous", but enough to keep Labour and National on the same level. He says "them" want to "restrict ready access to effective mass communication technologies to people like THEMselves".

Funny how the argument to do the precise opposite is turned on its head - Marxists do that. However, his view is that such technologies aren't owned by the owners. He wants access to newspapers (which he actually has if he didn't notice it), broadcasting, forgets the internet is very much a free for all, forgets that anyone can publish leaflets, booklets and the like if they want - but hold on, what if you have MORE money. Ahhh, that's unfair. So he wants to restrict it. You see if you have the means and will to spend more money on political advertising than others, then you are one of "them" - which means you got the money from "luck" - and when you engage in politics you're ONLY going to express one political perspective.

You see, Trotter thinks "them" only want one thing - to use the state to defend the "them" and "us" system he has structured society and the economy into. So if you believe in "them" and "us" there are only two points of view. Therefore those with money want to use the state to advance themselves (ignoring that most advanced themselves in spite of the state!). We can't have the state advancing "them" can we? It's unfair. So that is why we need the EFB from his perspective.

Marxists want the EFB so "them" (people with money, who by definition got it by luck or exploitation) can't convince "us" (people without money, who are seduced by the advertising of "them" and don't know what's best for them, and who can't aspire to be one of "them", because "them" don't want it), to put "them" in power, defeating "us" (many of whom live and act like "them" but let's not mention that) in power. If "them" got in power they would use the state to make "them" richer and more powerful, and exploit "us" more and take away more of the "fair share" for "us". While "us" are in power, we'll take from "them" and look after "us". If we let "them" do as they wish, they would always be in power because most of "us" would be seduced by the advertising of "them".

It is a stark view of democracy that says most people are too stupid to know what is good for them and wont vote for their best interests, unless the views expressed at elections are in equal quantities - only then is it clear that they should vote for "us".

Arguments about freedom are meaningless in this world view. He sees those advocating freedom as "them" wanting freedom to not give "us" our share, and to exploit "us". Freedom for "us" is enough if you can protest and not get arrested, but that's it.

Of course, I wonder what category a man who has considerable access to all broadcast media and major print media would put himself in. He will claim to be one of "us", but how many of "us" have his power to influence? Or is it ok to be one of "them" in this situation. You know, a bit like how those high up the communist party would act and live like one of "them", but say if they didn't then the rest of "them" would get "us".

and in Australia, how come without such a law, it looks like "us" might beat "them"? Ah, but "them" have been in power for so long - they let "us" win for a term to remind us it's still democracy don't they?

Funny to be in the brain of a Marxist isn't it?

Australia - where shalt thou head now?

I'm glad I am unable to vote in the Australian federal elections. The choices are grim for one who believes in less government.

For starters, there is compulsory voting which does mean that those who are inert, end up taking whatever is easiest for them without being truly interested. That's the first thing that should change.

I could go on about the complications of a federal system, the preferential voting system and the like, but what this election is about is really a two party contest. The parallels between NZ and Australia are considerable. Labor vs the Liberals is not unlike Labour vs National. However, they are far from identical.

NZ Labour is further to the left, rejecting tax cuts until very recently, and clearly not as male dominated as Aussie Labor. Aussie Labor is reasonably conservative, after all Kevin Rudd does not approve of gay marriage and he's a practicing Christian. The Liberal Party isn't very at all! Howard's conservative as well. While Australia happily accepts open markets and there is little debate about the reforms of the 80s and 90s, it certainly doesn't have freedom or even liberal market attitudes expressed much politically. While NZ Labour is dominated by feminist, unionist, gay and Maori sections, Aussie Labor is a union based party with not a lot of room for the rest.

So what's up for grabs? In the Senate, 40 out of 76 seats are up for election. The Liberal/National coalition current holds a one seat majority there. Indications are that neither Labor nor the Coalition will hold a majority here, with the hotchpotch of loony minor parties holding the balance of power. In Australia this means the Greens, the Democrats (who stand for virtually nothing) and the conservative Christian Family First Party. Hmmm. nothing to cheer about there. Minor parties in Australia are all about growing the state!

In the House of Representatives all seats are up for grabs. There are 150 seats (contrast that to NZ's rather bloated 120+ Parliament notwithstanding Australia having a Senate and states). Labor needs to win 16 seats to govern in its own right.

So it is a two horse race. John Howard, PM since 1995, with the Liberal/National coalition (National being effectively the slightly more conservative rural version of Liberal), and Kevin Rudd the new more charismatic face of the Labor Party.

The issues? Well it has been the true advance auction of stolen goods, with a couple of exceptions. The Liberal promise of extensive (and welcome) tax cuts has been nearly matched by Labor (except at the top rate). Howard is also promising more labour market flexibility and streamlining of processes, while Labor is rejecting most of them. Beyond that though, both parties are promising to spend money. Some of these include:

- Liberal promise to rebate private school fees;

- Liberal promise of tax breaks for first time home buyers, childcare and supporting "carers";

- Labor promising money for 65,000 apprenticeships;

- Labor promised high speed broadband for all schools;

- Labor promised all students in their final four years at school to get access to their own computer;

- Liberal promise 50 new emergency medical centres which Labor said was its policy;

- Liberal promise of a 15% cut in CO2 emissions by 2020, Labor said 20%

- Liberal promise to spend a great deal on roads.

In other words, tweedledum, tweedledee. The real battle is one of style. John Howard looks old and from the past, the rather smart Mandarin speaking Kevin Rudd seems, like the BBC has quipped - like a younger John Howard.

So, by and large, I don't care. The worst thing that can happen under Labor is that, like in NZ, being out of power for a long time means that the harder left is more motivated to change, to tinker and grow the state. However, frankly, John Howard and the Liberal Party hardly deserve to win either. They don't deserve to be "Liberal", play ruthless political opportunism and continue to be willing to spend and waste Australians' money on pork barrel politics. Neither Liberal nor Labor want to shrink the state. Even the tax cuts are at best slowing down the growth.

Truth be told, if Howard wins it will be historic - he will beat Menzies as the longest serving Australian PM. It will also decimate Labor, which until Kevin Rudd was despondent. However, if he loses he will be doing so while Australia has a growing economy, low unemployment and a general sense of contentment. He'll lose because he's seen as yesterday's man, and Rudd as a fresh change. In fact that's all that will happen. If Labor wins, it wont be because of policy, it will be personal. It will give the unions a little back, spend a bit more, cut taxes a bit less - but pretty much not a lot will change. If it's lucky, the Liberals might grow a backbone and be against state waste and growth in bureaucracy.

The latest poll puts Labor ahead 52/48 on a two party preferred basis. The trend looks like a Labor victory, but it is up to marginal seats (and Howard's is one of those now). If Labor does win, it wont be by much, and it may not control the Senate. However, assuming the economy ticks over - Rudd may be in for the long haul, assuming his government doesn't screw it all up!

However, for a libertarian - it is next to irrelevant.

Well I'm not judgmental....

but really, do the Police have nothing better to do than arrest this woman? Surely the hotel should simply have been let to assert its property rights if it was so offended, although it is a backpacker's

^

With such a name ****************** one can imagine that her family are mortified that their princess is such a hedonist, and an exhibitionist one at that. I wonder whocollege produced such an angel? Assuming she wasn't a foreign backpacker, clearly tis time for her to have her OE in England where her name will open doors, as long as her accent is sufficiently refined to not betray her antipodean heritage - and such hedonistic antics are par for the course, although more discreetly undertaken, albeit sometimes in unsavoury places with the suitably titled name of dogging.

^

I wont laugh at her bail condition of being banned from Latimer Square, but you do have to wonder how some of those involved in this case aren't simply jealous they weren't invited to join in (discreetly of course). Bob Jones in his book of around 30 years ago talked of a case whereby a judge and Crown prosecutor called naked photography of a young (legal age) lady obscene - and quite rightly remarked that many (male) judges and virtually all (male) lawyers would jump with both boots at the chance to be involved with such a thing, as long as others, especially wives/partners never found out. A female judge of course has looked after this case and should be suitably lenient. I mean we can't have public gangbangs on verandahs in Christchurch, it wouldn't suit those from FenDALton now would it?

^

UPDATE: Bloody 'ell, this post is so incredibly popular, so many of you dirty buggers out there wanting news about a public teenage gangbang in Christchurch. Of course she should be left alone, as should the men involved - up to her if she wants to be a horny hedonist. However, if you're all looking for something prurient then go to (NSFW, R18) here. Sheesh.

Or indeed, that this may be her career...

Tribalism of supporting the EFB

Jordan Carter's vituperative response to Garth George (who yes is largely someone I don't agree with) speaks volumes about the lack of thought when supporting your political tribe - after all, those you respect and like politically can't get it wrong. Can they?

^

Jordan said "The people who are trying to subvert New Zealand's democracy are the various right-wing extremists out there who are portraying perfectly reasonable changes to clean up the financing of elections as some kind of totalitarian suppression of free speech".

^

That includes Not PC and myself you see, both members of Libertarianz - a party that manages to campaign and stand candidates without huge amounts of money, and arguably may even benefit perversely from the EFB - why? Because if the Nats and ACT find it harder to campaign, it probably reduces SOME of the competition for votes from those who believe in less government. So we're not motivated by any self interest politically, it is a point of principle - the EFB is an abomination if you believe that peaceful people have the right to free speech.

^

Jordan thinks election financing needs cleaning up - but then one who stood by Labour as it used taxpayer's money to finance the pledge card, and couldn't actually blink when Labour insisted it was NOT about helping Labour get elected - has an association with the truth that is perhaps only similar to that of ardent supporters of Marxist Leninist governments. If Labour said 1 + 1 = 3, then you may wonder if he simply would believe it. If National had used government money to pay for pledge cards, you can be certain without doubt you'd never hear the end of it from the likes of him. He would, of course be right in that case too - but it is political tribalism.

^

He goes on "For them, freedom is the right to buy elections. Democracy is rule by the moneyed. Fairness is screwing the scrum for your own team. A level playing field is tilted at 89° with National and the forces of the right at the uphill end. Justice is making sure that there is no chance of a fair fight at the next general election."

^

Arrant nonsense. Buying elections is about bribery, and as has been said on more than one occasion, an election is itself an advance auction of stolen goods. Labour is very supportive of using taxpayer's money through policy to prop up businesses, and groups of individuals knowing they are more likely to vote for them. Working for Families could have been about trying to reduce poverty - but that wasn't the target, as beneficiaries pretty much sleepwalk their votes to Labour anyway. The target was swing voting families that would also be interested in a tax cut - but a tax cut was offered by National (giving people back their own money). Labour preferred to tie them in longer term by saying Labour has given you something - for being a working family, so isn't that nice? What's giving Tauranga money to fully pay for its second Harbour Bridge instead of it being a perfectly viable toll road if it ISN'T about buying the election - or rather buying the support of NZ First after the election - with taxpayers' money. Who authorised that? Doesn't matter - it's Labour (oh and National would do it too if it had to).

^

He claims we want rule by the moneyed (sic). So why has ACT never been in government? Why does National not win election after election, it has lost three in a row now - did Labour claim the 1999 and 2002 elections were unfair? No, just the last one when it nearly lost - as much because people liked tax cuts and straight talking about the state being colour blind, than National's electoral ads (though you have to admit, the billboards spoke volumes).

^

Remember also every incumbent government has an enormous advantage by using, carefully, departmental advertising budgets to promote existing policies and market how to take advantage of them - but to Jordan that isn't campaigning. Money spent advertising Working for Families in election year couldn't be, could it now?

^

He claims that his political tribe is so good and honest and would never ever want to tilt the playing field in their favour. However, he sees those opposing the EFB being so motivated. In short, Labour is the party of angels, and National is the party of satan. Yes, there are Nats who think the exact opposite. The truth is they are both - but tend to be dominated by one motive - getting and staying in power. Jordan is part of that, and it would be sad if it didn't affect so many people. At best it is the height of political immaturity to support your own tribe without exception, and regard the others as fundamentally evil - at worst it IS evil.

^

He continues "try and claim the moral mantle of those good people who were fighting for the very democracy, the very freedoms that the legislation is designed to uphold, and which were threatened by deceitful and outrageous abuses at the 2005 General Election by National and their Brethren mates? How dare they?"

^

How laughable, almost hilarious. The "good people" who spent taxpayers' money on a pledge card, denied it, changed the law to legalise it because "they made a mistake", which JUST happened to help them get elected. Imagine if the party I belong to made such a mistake on such a scale, could we change the law because "sorry judge, we made a mistake in interpreting it". My arse we could. Jordan doesn't like National getting more donations than Labour, pure and simple envy - because people with money are evil and just want to hurt others. The sad sad bigoted world view of the avowed Marxist, so much blood spilt in the name of that envy. Or does Jordan simply think voters are stupid and get swayed by the amount of advertising, not the content of it? The "deceit and outrageous abuses" at the very least can be thrown back at Labour too - and funnily enough even the polls seem to indicate the public don't think there has been deceit and outrageous abuses - the Nats outpoll Labour consistently, or is that the stupid voters who don't vote Labour again?

^

If Jordan really supports fair elections then maybe he might support the following small list of potential changes (setting aside NOT passing the EFB):

- Prohibiting ANY government department spending money on advertising or promotion in election year, given the risk it can be seen to be advocating the incumbent government;

- Privatising TVNZ, Radio NZ and Maori TV, so that the state does not have any media outlets;

- Ending state funding for broadcasting advertising, so that the two major parties don't get state sanctioned domination of political advertising on the most influential media.

^

Of course this wouldn't give Labour any advantage, so why support it?

^

Finally he says "If the Electoral Finance BIll was truly as these people describe, everyone under the sun myself included would be ripping it to shreds. But it is not! "

^

Well it's not totalitarianism no, but the bill does NOT ensure each of us has an equal voice. It protects the incumbent government, and continues to advantage the two major parties, and suppresses the freedom of peaceful people to campaign how they wish, and with their own money. If you want an equal voice, then use your own money, and attract it from others. If you can't get people to choose to pay for your political party and point of view in campaigning, then why suppress the right of others to do so?

^

Unless, of course, you're a Marxist who thinks that those who have more money than you have it unfairly or unjustly - in which case, you don't believe in freedom, and don't really believe in democracy, you think voters vote for whoever has the flashest ads, and those who spend the most at elections must be suspicious, and have bad motives. That's the bottom line philosophical difference:

^

- Some people believe elections are about voters making their own decision, after being bombarded with propaganda from umpteen parties. They believe voters are smart enough to know when they are getting tricked, and that a vigorous campaign means accusations from left and right against each other are out in the open. They also believe that people can choose to support and fund parties or not, and that people should neither be forced to support parties, nor suppressed from doing so. Parties may be born or die according to support. It's called freedom, and trusts that people supporting parties and voters can make their own minds up.

- Some people believe elections are dominated by big parties who have to sway a lot of rather stupid, kneejerk reacting ordinary people to give them their vote. They think the average voter is pretty dumb, largely votes according to the loudest message and biggest spin seen in propaganda, not voting on self interest or belief in policies or the integrity or likeability about candidates. They don't think voters can be trusted to sift through all that parties might say. They also believe parties are good in their own right, so essential to government that everyone should be forced to pay for political parties, and their propaganda - especially the bigger ones. They think election should be about different playing fields for different parties - they talk about fairness, but think Labour and Libertarianz must be treated differently. After all, Labour's in government - it's only fair isn't it? National can't be allowed to get more donations than Labour, that would be unfair that more people want to donate more money to National than Labour - the fools, the evil ones, they can't be allowed - it undermines democracy because, remember, voters are stupid, they don't know what's good for them. That's called the arrogance of statism.

^

Statism vs. freedom. That's it.

Who trusts the government with their details?

The headlines in virtually all of the national UK papers today were stark.

"Lost in the post - 25 million at risk after data discs go missing" said The Guardian;

"ID fraud alert to every family" said the Daily Telegraph;

"25m victims" said the Daily Mirror;

"Darlings ID Crisis as 25m names lost" said the Sun (actually "Keeley's such a hot date" was also there).

^

Nevertheless, what has happened is that an official at HMCE (Her Majesty's Customs and Excise) posted in the normal post, 2 unencrypted CDs containing the data of all parents claiming child benefits, the childrens' names, the addresses and the bank account details of them all. These CDs have gone missing. The risk is that criminal can use this data to engage in widespread identity theft and bank fraud, ordering credit cards in the names of others. Not to mention the risk to personal privacy.

^

The information had been posted to the National Audit Office which didn't actually request all that data. It simply wanted a sample of child benefit claimants and then only names, National insurance numbers and child benefit numbers - HMCE decided it was too hard to filter out the data so posted the lot. The low level official to blame is now under 24 hour watch in a hotel under a different name to avoid being pursued by criminal gangs eager to get the data.

^

The story is covered in detail on all major paper websites, but what i've read so far has been from The Times in several articles.

^

Now one way of looking at this is - well if you're going to claim child benefit then the government takes this much data in exchange. Lower taxes don't need the government to hold all those details at all. However, what this really demonstrates is the sheer incompetency of the state in managing huge amounts of private and sensitive data. It obviously raises questions as to whether it could ever cope with a National ID card scheme and ensure the confidentiality of any data.

^

For starters, the data sought was not what was supplied. It was "too burdensome" to supply the smaller amount of data, demonstrating the incentives to get this right simply aren't there. HMCE wanted to ensure it did minimum work, so sent far more than it needed to two.

^

Secondly, the mistake in posting this information, in an unencrypted format also demonstrates the lack of incentives to get this right. Imagine a bank doing this? Imagine how much business it would lose from being so incompetent? The difference is the state has a monopoly, you can't say no (although as I said you could say no to child benefits, but it's not as if you'll get tax back from doing so).

^

Finally, there is lack of honesty about this. It didn't happen yesterday, or last week. It happened months ago - the efforts to find the CDs have been fruitless, so now the banks have been advised, and the public too. It is not a Labour or Tory issue, it is an issue about government, and the simple fact that there are never the adequate incentives or accountability for when the government fails to protect its citizens. This is one very good reason why governments should do less, nor more.