A community
It’s not often that I have the opportunity to quote arch-conservative Herald columnist Garth George approvingly, so I relish the chance today. His column today draws largely from a statement made by a group of Christian leaders which sets out the challenges before voters in the election campaign:
“Underpinning each person’s vision for society will be a number of assumptions about what it means to be human … that can be characterised by two broad emphases. The first tends to regard each person primarily as an autonomous individual, each with his or her own needs, aspirations and interests.
“This view places a strong emphasis on such things as realising individual potential, pursuing individual goals and preserving individual freedom. It often refers to such things as self-esteem and self-interest. Noticeably lacking from this perspective are references to other people and the common good.
“As a result, the view of society that tends to emerge is that of a conglomeration of individuals, each exercising their individual rights, and whose obligation towards others is largely derived from overlapping areas of self-interest. The consumer mindset tends to reinforce this utilitarian perspective.
“The second is derived from the conviction that our humanity is constituted most profoundly by our relationships. Neglect those relationships and both personal well-being and society suffer as a result. These relationships include both family and neighbour. We are persons in community.”
The churchmen say it is necessary to take a broad view of “who our neighbour is”.
“This view will include the most vulnerable in our society, including the unborn; those who are most different from us, including refugees and migrants; and the stigmatised, including welfare and sickness beneficiaries.
“One of the marks of a mature society is the extent to which it cares for and upholds the dignity and worth of its most vulnerable members and refrains from indulging in politics of exclusion, which most often take the form of scapegoating certain groups for society’s ills.”
It should be clear that the tax-slashing forces of National and Act concur with the first, individualist view outlined above and that the progressive forces of Labour and the Greens concur with the second, relationship-based view. In fact, the Green vision of the world is all about our relationships, our interconnectedness, the idea that everything one person does has an effect on all other peoples and species. Ours is a very holistic vision of human society; National’s is a very nasty, individualistic, dog-eat-dog one. I know which New Zealand I’d prefer.
July 28th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
know what you mean fwog, never saw a dog eat a dog, the fascists down here we feed them chickens,
July 28th, 2005 at 9:26 pm
So, as a person who is likely to vote for ACT this election, and believe slashing taxes could actually be good for the country, my strong individualism makes me too selfish to think about the greater community?
That would explain why I have donated many hours helping at my boys school. It would explain why I walked dogs for the SPCA, worked on charity and fund raising drives, participated on information stands to reduce experimentation on animals, buy locally made goods and support small businesses where possible, donate to many community initiatives (such as the Rescue Helicopter Service, Books for Kids, and local Maori artists), provided business mentoring and training, ETC
The point is there are a lot of community minded people like me, some who do a bit less and many who do a lot more. But I have a sense of responsibility and desire to be part of the community. Like many people. Trying to make out ACT voters (and National) are dog-eat-dog individualists is the low moral ground that would allow me to say Greenies place human life below that of a tree, that all Beneficiaries are lazy and undeserving and Labour are in the pockets of the unions. What? You think the sweeping generalisations unfair.
How about Get Government Out of the Way, so we can strengthen our nice little communities again. Trust people to spend wisely, don’t take the money and spend it for them. Encourage charities, families, communities to support those in need, rather than supplant those services with government controlled wasteful organisations that need to provide caring services but are filled with people that do it as a chore. They are tolerated only because these middle class individualists still donate time and effort to their communities side by side with those whose passion is the environment, those whose passion is the low paid, those whose passion is the sporting groups, those whose passion are their families, and those who might rise to the occasion and appear in the community more often if it weren’t for the fact they were holding down two jobs so their kid can afford guitar lessons and nice clothes.
But that would ruin your theory, that the centre right are evil, therefore we don’t have to treat their opinion with respect. Ouch.
July 28th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
nicely said zen tiger!
July 28th, 2005 at 10:14 pm
Yeah, ok zen tiger, I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to say that right-wingers are inherently selfish. However, the right wing ideology, to an extent is; that’s not to say that right-wing voters will not have a strong sense of community as individuals. However, it is selfish in that inequality is built into the free-market system held up by the right wing. That is, the right wing will say it is up to the individual to better themselves, get ahead etc. This would hold true in an ideal world, where everyone started on an equal footing. But that just isn’t the case; those who start low have a greater distance to cover to achieve. Add to that the problem that the freemarket economy is based on a system that means interest rates are low when unemployment is high, and there begins to be an obvious problem; a certain number of people will, through no fault of their own, be unable to get jobs, because of the system, and because the freemarket chooses to keep interest low to aid economic growth. To then favour systems of taxation and welfare that favour those who are ‘earning’ their keep is inherently unjust. If the system requires that a certain proportion be unemployed, then it is up to the system to provide a reasonable standard of life for those people.
In addition, the system is built on a hierarchy - few at the top, many at the bottom - and economic growth is achieved, in part, by creating a system in which those at the bottom are pushed to be increasingly productive, in relation to the wages they receive. If everyone was going to be paid proportional to the effort they put in, then again, the right wing ideology might be onto something, but since the entire philosophy, as it is, works around the concept of increasing productivity without increasing costs, we have a problem. As it stands, many people are paid not enough to do too much work, while the people who could help with the workload cannot get jobs because interest rates would increase. It’s a cruel, unjust circle as it stands, and until it’s rectified, we have a responsibility to care for those who are victims of the system.
July 28th, 2005 at 11:04 pm
Zen,
You’re confused. You do all these nice little things like walking dogs and the PTA.
The economic policies as espoused by ACT (note consumer and taxpayers in there - not citizens) would destroy the very communities that you care for.
Buying locally made goods and supporting small businesses. - it’s just more fantasy from your confused view of the world. Goods sold by China*Mart made by slave labourers undermine locally made goods and small businesses. Full stop.
So go on and vote for ACT - put your money where your mouth is. It will be a wasted vote as ACT will fail the Parliamentary thresh-hold (unless bailed out by a desperate National). ACT does not have the grass roots support that other major and major-minor parties have. It has always been a rich man’s club. The 2002 ACt result was an aberation due to National’s collapse.
July 28th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
Musbee, I believe that the stronger the encouragement to prosper and be rewarded, the more outlooking a person will become.
When the equal footing requires taking the middle class down a few pegs to “equalise” I diverge on the “solutions” that are on offer.
The real rich and the mega rich seem to be in a position where they can minimise much of the meddlings of the government and the so called free market. (The market is not free, it remains handicapped by the current system, for which I do not put the entire blame on the government)
From where I stand, the system is skewed and needs fixing. My belief is fixing it through a more right leaning philosophy will avoid the likelihood of strong left wing elements trying to replace it rather than fix it. We’ve seen where that road leads.
We may likely find several problems we agree upon, but the method of repair and the relative importance in the scheme of things is where we begin to diverge. That doesn’t necessarily make the right winger any less a humanitarian.
In New Zealand, economically speaking, the poorest may have a further road to travel to achieve success, but it isn’t that much further. The vast majority of Kiwis have their own challenges to overcome financially, but they are not insurmountable by any means.
The bigger issue is on the social side, and things can be very unequal there. We do have a responsibility to help others on that score, and again it seems we may agree on the problem but not the method of resolution.
The smacking debate for example. Some want to characterise this as the right-wingers desire to thrash their children. I want to see REAL coal face solutions to disadvantaged children, and my belief is centring the issue around this aspect is a huge diversion from those things that make a big difference, whilst simultaneously helping to erode the confidence and respect we need to give the vast majority of parents that would give their very lives for their children, who face undue suspicion and intolerance from a few people that believe their way is the right way for all.
That good, caring parents are voicing their concern over this bill should be a signal to the Greenies that maybe you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Instead, it is reduced to the assumption we love to beat defenceless people to death, and think the current provision in the Crimes Act allows us to get off scot free when it happens.
The only reason for NOT redefining the section tighter is that the Greens seek to ban smacking and criminalise the parents they say they will never apply the law too.
Oops, have I strayed off topic, or does this count as an example?
July 29th, 2005 at 9:05 am
You still ignore the fact that the hierarchy creates an inherent inequality, and that regardless of the effort put in by beneficiaries to get jobs (you seem to be working on the assumption that the unemployed remain so by choice, which is quite incorrect for the majority of caes) there are only so many jobs to go round at each level of the social strata.
And as much as I agree that the rich and mega-rich are the ones who are in a position to fit the bill, tax cuts seem to favour them, rather than those at the bottom. All the encouragement in the world will do nothing for those at the bottom if those at the top are holding them down, for the sake of economic growth. This is the problem with the freemarket espoused by the right (I know we don’t have a true freemarket at the moment, I was working on the ideal situation you would seem to wish for)
Also, I think it’s somewhat histrionic to say that the socialist left thinks right wingers “desire to thrash their children”. That is simply not the case; to an extent, I do see a very good case for clearly defining “reasonable force” but it makes sense to bring the issue to the fore, as Bradford has done.
July 29th, 2005 at 10:21 am
fastbike, I am not confused. Act’s tax policies were costed by the RBNZ, and the growth figures resulted in a sustainable platform. To take the extreme, Ireland implemented a 12.5% tax rate on business profits, and did well out of it. Act are saying 25% as a top rate.
It is a convenient myth to push the rich mans club angle. They want to set a rate of 15% from 0 to 38,000. That boosts everyone, even those on low and mid range salaries.
Many countries are adopting a flatter tax structure, and finding it helps with growth, reducing compliance costs and removing incentives for the very rich to minimise tax.
You make out that ACTS tax rates are too low and that they are some-how immoral and uncaring. Why is 33% set by labour suddenly proof they are the beacon of economic genius?
I’m also surprised that you are so dismissive of individuals initiatives to buy locally, to recycle, to mentor etc. You said: “Goods sold by China*Mart made by slave labourers undermine locally made goods and small businesses. Full stop.” Yes they do, and there is nothing the consumer can do about it. It is up to the government to fix isn’t it? That sounds very fatalistic and pathetic to me. Maybe you are confused. You could *choose* not to buy those cheaper goods. More people could. Perhaps the nasty government overtaxes and *forces* you to buy cheap crap made in China?
It starts with people taking personal responsibility for their actions, and working that way. Leaving it up to the government is a cop out. Especially this Govt. - rushing to form a FTA with China, irrespective of human rights issues and with the hopes that we get to sell more than we buy. It wont be free.
And I don’t do PTA. I was referring to setting up their web site, helping with their IT installation and support and helping with transport for regular class outings. I don’t think the community will be destroyed if the government takes a little less from each persons pay packet.
Maybe on a tighter budget, they wont waste as much?
July 29th, 2005 at 10:42 am
Although I would have to cheerfully admit to be of a strongly leftwing mindset, at the same time I have never had any problem acknowledging the place of the true conservative in society. Now Garth George has written his share of drivel over the years (and haven’t we all), but this thoughtful item was worthy of inclusion here. Thanks for re-posting it as I had missed it the first time round.
July 29th, 2005 at 10:48 am
And zen,
I know we have ding donged in the past…but I 100% support your thoughts about buying cheap crap. The Chinese govt is a deeply and dangerously totalitarian regime that I try not to support with any of my consumer choices whenever possible.
July 29th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Zen,
Having lived in Europe for much of the 90’s, I know all about the Celtic tiger Ireland. It’s another sign of your confusion that you trot an example of wealth transfer from the EU tax payers to the companies domiciled in Ireland to prop up your arguments for reduced tax rates. Without EU infusions the Irish miracle would not have been, regardless of the tax rates. As you well know, corp tax rates are a complete red herring due to imputation credits.
Re the garbage arriving from China*Mart, I too avoid it where-ever possible. Unfortunately this gets harder as more production is outsourced and moved offshore. Some of these local firms (e.g Macpac) had no choice but to move or else shut down. Corporate capital has no allegiance to local communities - indeed it has a legal obligation to make the max return on capital. When more money can be made by moving offshore, regardless of social, environmental and labour issues, what do you expect ? At least I am aware that local communities require more than cash and wishful thinking to thrive.
And I agree with your comments on the FTA. Unfortunately, Labour, Nats and ACT would all rush in to do a trade deal with China.
Personal and collective responsibility is required for change. We do not stand alone, rather we will fall together.
July 29th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
What countries in Europe, FastBike?
July 29th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
ZEN….Hmm. ’tis quite simple.
Cut taxes………….Cut public good services. There is a direct relationship here. We already have a situation right now where Kindergartens need to fund raise to buy toilet paper. Cut taxes any further and we will have to fund raise to keep the door open at all.
The main problem with tax is tax avoidance by corporates. Cut their tax rates back further and all that happens is that more profits flow off shore and that doesn’t do anything at all for any balance of payments deficit.
The tired old arguments about Eire. It was all fine and dandy whilst they were net beneficiaries of EU money. Now they are not. Multi-nationals come in when attracted by low tax rates and other incentive and then promptly vanish when someone else gives them a better deal.
I had to pinch myself to make sure I wasn’t back in NZ whilst in Eire to read regular newspaper announcements of another factory closure, not of existing and long standing Irish industry but of corporates of a very short standing in Eire.
July 29th, 2005 at 11:29 pm
So it seems as if there are two choices - we milk the golden cow until it’s dry and moves offshore or we leave it with a green pasture to graze in. At least, based on the comments here so far. Without those despised corporates and their tax - who would you tax?
And then you need to ask yourself a further question. If Kindergartens are struggling with insufficient funding - is it all that wise to pump NZ$300,000,000 per year (actually more, but we’ll go with the fools figures) into paying interest on student loans?
Maybe what is needed is a bit of perspective.
July 29th, 2005 at 11:49 pm
Ah, yes, dear Darth George: In his community (and those of the people he so approving quotes) there will always be a place for the foetus. Fags, however, need not apply for entry into this heaven.