Globalising intolerance

David Farrar reported the other day that Senator Bob Brown, the leader of the Australian Green Party, has called for a “global parliament … under the grand idea of one planet, one person, one vote, one value”.
David wonders whether this notion is supported by the New Zealand Green Party, but notes that the concept “could never [happen] with so many countries presently governed by repressive regimes”.
I too would like to know whether the New Zealand Greens are supportive of such a concept.
Let us imagine for a moment that such a parliament were to be established.
Would the Greens be comfortable allowing a global parliament to ban things worldwide of which a majority did not approve?  What if this global parliament sought to outlaw homosexual behaviour worldwide.  Or even simply prevent legal recognition of same sex unions internationally?
Out of a global population of seven billion, there are about two billion Christians (of whom about one billion are Catholic), one and a half billion Muslims and a billion Hindus.  So that’s 4.5 billion belonging to religions that have historically been hostile to homosexuality.  I acknowledge that large chunks of the Western Christian population have fairly nuanced views on homosexuality now, but note that even the Anglican Church is opposed to legalising same-sex marriage in the UK.  Moreover, most of these 4.5 billion people live in countries in which there is next to no separation of church (or mosque or temple) and state.  As such, there is a very strong likelihood that a global parliament would hold a majority view against the legal recognition of same sex unions.
Would the Greens be content to see the rights of New Zealand gays infringed because of the religious views of the world’s most populous nations?  And indeed, what of the rights of women?  Equality between the sexes is more advanced in New Zealand than almost anywhere else, and a majority of the world’s women at this stage would most likely not be of the view that there should be full equality.  So would the Greens accept a global parliament abolishing our legislation preventing sexual discrimination?  Or domestic violence, for that matter, which is much more accepted in a majority of the world’s countries than it is here in New Zealand or elsewhere in “the West”.
If not, would they concede that the power of a majority of global citizens to impose their views on others via the ballot box ought to be limited?  And if they concede that, then why do they believe that a majority of New Zealanders ought to have unlimited rights to impose their views on other New Zealanders?
Why should a majority of New Zealanders be able to impose their will on other New Zealanders, but not a majority of foreigners?  Is that not essentially racist?
I don’t think the concept of a global parliament is necessarily bad, but I do think it serves as an excellent theoretical example of why the powers of all democratic institutions to interfere with individuals’ activity should be strictly limited.
Advertisements

We could do a lot worse…

When I set up this blog, I did so with the intention of promoting classical liberalism and not with the intention of endorsing any political party. Unfortunately, my primary motivation for writing, as it has turned out, is anger. As such, I usually only work up the motivation to write something when someone on the Left advocates something stupid. So while I haven’t endorsed anyone on the Right, I have frequently dis-endorsed those on the Left.

This is no doubt partly reflective of my various personality flaws, but it’s also because there are simply no classically liberal parties in Parliament. ACT, who could be, have yet to shed their socially conservative element, as was made all too clear during the debacle that followed Brash’s tentative suggestion to maybe decriminalise cannabis a little bit at some point. Maybe.

So, I shall cleave to my original purpose and refrain from giving a positive endorsement to any one party in this election. I will be voting, however.

I stand firmly behind my dis-endorsement of all parties on the Left. Labour under Phil Goff has veered wildly toward its Old Labour, unionist roots. This, combined with the fact that any Labour-led government oozing forth from this election would include a substantial Green contingent, would make it the most statist, interventionist, heavy-handed meddlesome government since Muldoon. Not since McGillicuddy Serious has anyone proposed so great a leap backward as would be visited upon us by Goff and his five-headed chimera.

While some of their policies have merit, taken as a whole, particularly as a coalition, a left-wing coalition would be economically ruinous.

While the current government have not shown the flinty, reformist zeal of Roger Douglas or Ruth Richardson, they have demonstrated a willingness to incur some political risk to advance an economically liberal agenda. This is the first government in New Zealand history I am aware of that has passed a zero budget in election year. And starved of the oxygen that the proposed partial sell off of the state-power companies has provided, it’s hard to believe that the Left’s campaign would have got the legs it has done.

When you vote this weekend, I urge you to use your vote to keep the current government in power. They’re not classical liberals, but they’re a bloody sight better than the alternative.

Much too little ado about doing nothing

Last week, in regard to Obama’s planned second stimulus package, I argued that the default position of government should be to avoid interfering in the economy.

I now feel an urge to reprise the topic for a couple of reasons. In response to New Zealand’s credit downgrade last week, John Pagani (inaugural winner of the University of Auckland’s bad stat contest, recycler of a graph that won the same competition another week, and something of a low-hanging fruit when one feels the need to poke holes in leftist nonsense) has blogged that the government needs a plan for the economy. He believes that the lack of such a plan is the reason that New Zealand was downgraded. He also appears to believe that Labour’s election platform is just such a plan.

So we’re clear on this, the key weaknesses that Standard and Poor’s highlighted as reasons for the downgrade were:
– high household and farm sector debt;
– dependence on commodity prices; and
– pressures on government spending from an ageing population.

These are all problems that could be addressed by decreasing the government’s involvement in the economy. A lower tax-rate would increase disposable income giving people more money to save (and, incidentally, instantly redress the debt/disposable income ratio). A more lightly-regulated labour market combined with lower taxes and fewer bureaucratic obstacles to doing business would increase the range and diversity of businesses and go some way to reduce our reliance on commodity prices. Although, to be fair, while the ratio of arable land to labour supply remains high, I think New Zealand will always be somewhat dependent on commodity prices. Moreover, the pressure on government spending from the aging population exists because the government has committed to paying people superannuation from the age of 65, which is one thing if people only have another five years left in them at that point, but a whole lot less fine if they have another 25 years left. Government sending clear signals that it intends to back away from its commitment to funding people’s retirement would also give people a very strong incentive to divert their tax-cuts into private savings accounts.

Not surprisingly, the sort of plan that Pagani envisages involves further increasing the government’s role in the economy. As such, he doesn’t recognise the current government’s gradualist approach to reducing the role of government as being a plan. For socialists, “leading” and “planning” must always involve doing more and controlling more and, most of all, spending more.

And so it is with the Green Party.

The Greens have released their new jobs plan in which (among other things) they plan to use tax money to sponsor the development of green business in New Zealand, with a view to New Zealand seizing 1% of the global renewable energy technology market. Hilariously, they use a quote Sir Paul Callaghan, whom they describe as “one of our leading scientists”, in an attempt to lend credibility to their policy. Within days, Sir Paul appeared in the New Zealand Herald with this to say:

“The Green Party announced last week a policy of focusing significant government investment in the area of “Clean Technology”.
In their document they correctly quote me as saying that New Zealand needs to be a smart country where talent wants to live. As part of that view, I strongly believe that we have to protect and restore our environment.
Surely, then, I should support the Green Party suggestion. On the contrary, I oppose it wholeheartedly.”

Why?

“New Zealand is 0.2 per cent of the world’s economy. In other words, the world’s economy is 500 times bigger than our own. As a result, we tend not to succeed in highly obvious technologies ….
Indeed, the higher the profile of a new wave of industry the less likely it is that New Zealand will be world leaders in it, for the very reason that anything that sounds pretty important to the world will attract the attention of the big technology investors….
Our brilliance has been in the “weird stuff” that the big players don’t think to exploit.
So here is the risk. Politicians latch on to fashions, and the latest fashion is Clean Technology. Ten years ago it was Biotechnology. There is a huge danger in the application of political bias to the “smart economy”….”

So, what can government do to ensure that New Zealand businesses can take advantage of the “weird stuff”? It can, I believe, stop trying to pick winners, and simply ask itself in what environment businesses like to operate. Among other things, businesses like low taxes, low regulatory costs, affordable supply of appropriately skilled labour, good access to markets and a stable, predictable regulatory environment.

Most of this is most efficiently achieved by government doing less, not more.

And yet, the theme of political discourse in New Zealand is about how government should intervene, not if. Voters are encouraged to wonder how government can fix their problems, not to ponder how many of their problems are of government’s making, nor to build their own lives independent of largesse compulsorily acquired from others.