Restating our opponent's perspective

Social media has been abuzz about an interview of Jordan Peterson by Channel 4 News in the UK. This kind of thing would usually frustrate me but the interviewer so often misrepresented and mischaracterised Peterson it made the whole think farcical and therefore amusing. Perhaps the funniest comment was by John C. Wright,

Please count the number of times in this video the female interviewer says the words “so what you are saying is” and then count the number of times the male interviewee agrees and says, “Yes you have understood me exactly.”

By my count, the first number is infinite, and the second is zero.

Though I agree with some things that Peterson says and disagree with others, it seems that Cathy Newman was not even interested in understanding his position, whether that be because of ignorance or intentional distortion. There are things to be learned from this episode such as claims of subsequent threats against Newman were generally false and therefore we need to be suspicious of many claims by the media. Or that requesting your allies to refrain from bad behaviour will be used by your enemies as justification that such behaviour is occurring. But there was a comment made in the Atlantic which is worth highlighting. Conor Friedersdorf writes about an interview technique that he sees used increasingly frequently: where the interviewer restates the interviewee's response in his own words,

Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd.

After going through several examples Friedersdorf comes to this conclusion,

Newman repeatedly poses as if she is holding a controversialist accountable, when in fact, for the duration of the interview, it is she that is “stirring things up” and “whipping people into a state of anger.” 

Exactly. The divisive person paints his opponent as divisive. This is the problem many have with the left. It is not just that we disagree with their position, it is the dishonesty combined with the fact that they are being divisive at the same time claiming that their opponents are the divisive ones. It is rank hypocrisy.

Creating dissension for the sake of it is a tactic of the evil one. It is to be avoided. Paul pleads with Euodia and Syntyche to get along (Phi 4:2). Elsewhere he says to warn a divisive person twice before having nothing further to do with them (Tit 3:10).

Now I have left leaning friends that are very honest, and I grant that many people on the left and right genuinely believe things that happen to be false. Further, this tactic is wrong when those on the right (or purported to be so) use it. But the use of this technique is evidence that the media (predominantly the left learning) are biased against righteousness: they use tools of the Devil. I am not saying here that the left are against truth because they are often wrong (though I think they are), I am saying that they are the most guilty of deliberately mischaracterising their opponents to justify their own narrative.

Friedersdorf concludes that he  wrote his article as,

an argument that the effects of the approach used in this interview are pernicious.

Exactly. We restate our opponent's perspective so that they may clarify whether or not we understand them. Not so that we can put lies in their mouths, lies that they do not even believe.

One may argue, what of rhetoric? Is not rhetoric the same kind of method we use in debates to win arguments?

In short, no. The point of rhetoric done well is to appeal to emotion in making an argument. But the man of God is only to use rhetoric in pursuit of the truth. Showing the consequences of an opponent's argument is not the same as saying he holds to premises that he most certainly does not.

Were Nazi's left wing?

Nazi and fascist are just insults implying that your politics are evil. It is predominantly used by the left against the right. This is not a modern phenomenon, it was done by the communists decades ago.

The problem is that insults often carry meaning. When a man calls another stupid, or a fool, it is an insult that his opponent lacks intelligence. If man calls another a hater it means his opponent lacks love, or kindness. Now there is plenty of inconsistency such that idiots call others idiots, and that "hater" is predominantly used by those sold out to vitriol. Even so, "stupid" and "hate" carry their meaning. But Nazi implies that you have a bad ideology that will lead to murder and genocide. This is concerning because if ideology leads to genocide, which it can, then it matters what that ideology is.

I have read that the Nazi's were not socialist, that there was nothing left-wing about Nazism at all, that fascism is right-wing and right-wing ideologues use this term self referentially.

False rhetoric benefits from lack of clarity and misuse of terms. But if fascism was left-wing and we convince right leaning people to abandon right leaning ideas because they are fascist, then they may adopt ideas that are more fascist than those which they already hold. It seems counter productive to hate a position while increasingly adopting it.

There seems to be several concepts that are traditionally left and right though various groups have adopted them over time. Eugenics was taken up by the left decades ago but has since been rejected by them in the main. To broadly categorise, concepts could be divided into left and right economics, left and right social policy, and nationalism versus globalism. Whereas economics and social policy has more definitively divided along the left and the right, nationalism and globalism are  not clearly divided along those lines.

Fascists were clearly nationalists compared with the communists of yore. But being expansionist does not seem to be particularly a nationalist or globalist position as can be seen by the Soviets and the Nazis.

The categorisation of a party can be seen by both their policies and (especially) their behaviour. In as much as what they enforce, or attempt to enforce, their policies are reliable. In as much as their policies are not enforced, or the party acts contrary to such policy, the positions are a sham (or propaganda).

Below are the 25 policies of the Nazi Party from 1920 until the end of World War 2. I will categorise the positions and the reader can see how fascism (at least the Nazi variant) is best described.

***

The Party Program of the National Socialist German Workers' Party summarised in 25 points.

1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.

Nationalist. Expansionist.

2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

Not clearly left or right.

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.

Economic left. Possibly expansionist.

4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.

Nationalist. Specifically anti-Semitic.

5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.

Nationalist.

6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.

Nationalist.

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

Social left. Nationalist.

8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.

Nationalist.

9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

Not clearly left or right. Depends what is meant by this statement.

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

Social left.

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

Economic left.

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Not clearly left or right.

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

Economic left.

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

Economic left.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

Social left.

16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

Economic left.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

Economic left excepting taxes.

Abolition of land tax economic right.

18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

Possibly social left

19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

Possibly nationalist.

20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

Social left.

21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

Social left.

22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

Nationalist.

23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

Social left.

24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.

Social right. Anti-Semitic.

25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

Social left.

***

So of 25 statements, with some overlap, we have

• Not clearly left or right: 2
• Economic left: 6
• Social left: 8
• Economic right: 1
• Social right: 1
• Nationalist: 8
• Expansionist: 2
• Anti-Semitic: 2

Unless one considers nationalism specifically a right-wing phenomenon, the policies of the Nazi party cannot be considered right-wing, let alone extreme right-wing.

This is a little more complicated in that item #17 was subsequently explained as allowing private ownership with the provision of expropriation if necessary, and also preventing speculation by Jews. This would increase the number of anti-Semitic points and make the sole economic right point unlikely. Further, item #24 is likely to be predominantly anti-Semitic and the subsequent opposition of the Nazis to churches who spoke against them makes the sole social right item also unlikely.

Trump and white evangelical voters

I don't envy the choices that US citizens had during their recent presidential elections. Were I eligible I would not have wanted to vote for either of the main candidates, and even the Libertarian candidate does not seem that libertarian. In the lead up to the election and the aftermath there has been much analysis but I have not found it convincing. A  recent piece in the Atlantic by Merritt doesn't do much better.

One of the few things he gets correct is the appeal not to leave evangelicalism because of disillusionment over the election. There comes a time to leave groups but he is correct that this is not the time to be walking away from evangelicalism—not least because the US is smaller than the rest of the world.

But I want to challenge several of the assumptions here because the issue is a little more complicated than: lots of evangelicals voted for Trump.

81 percent of white evangelicals voted for the Trump ticket—a higher percentage than voted for George W. Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney.

A major premise of the article is that white evangelicals support Trump and in higher numbers than other Republican candidates of earlier elections. But did they? And what else explains their voting behaviour?

Using Merritt's source (which is exit polling data and will have a margin of error) we see that the numbers of white evangelicals for Republican and Democrat are

Percent white evangelicals voting for Republicans and Democrats
2004 R78% D21%
2008 R74% D24%
2012 R78% D21%
2016 R81% D16%

It is uncertain whether there is anything in such a small percentage change. It may well be within the margin of error. What it clearly does tell us is that historically evangelical whites have voted Republican and continued to do so this election consistent with historic trends.

But percentages do not tell us how many people voted, they tell us proportionally how people voted. If everyone voted the percentages would be helpful but not if the turnout is significantly different.

This election an estimated 133 million votes were cast* (55% of eligible voters), 129 million for Trump or Clinton. In 2012 129 million votes (55%). In 2008 131 million votes (58%). In 2004 122 million votes (57%).

Votes (millions)
2004 Bush 62 Kerry 59
2008 Obama 69 McCain 60
2012 Obama 66 Romney 61
2016 Trump 63 Clinton 66

But combining these tables is quite hard. We need to know how many white evangelicals actually voted. Pew tells us that the electorate is composed of 26% white evangelicals which is essentially unchanged since 2008. Do they mean by electorate voters or potential voters? If the later (which is what electorate usually means) that isn't definitive because potential voters are not actual voters and it could be that white evangelicals disproportionately vote (or don't vote) or didn't vote as much in a specific election. Either way, what we actually need to know is how many white evangelicals voted for Trump (or Clinton) and what that number is as a percentage of eligible white evangelical voters (each election), and has that changed over the last couple of decades.

Therefore we do not have definitive data to say that white evangelicals voted for Trump more enthusiastically than Republican candidates of yesteryear, nor can we say that the voting behaviour this year was significantly different based on reasonable inferences from data we do have. We see the same old same old, just as black females voted Democrat like they have done for the last several decades.

Which brings us to the second issue that Merritt fails to mention: Trump's rival. Merritt quotes several evangelicals who were unhappy with Trump as a candidate, to which I concur. (Ironically, that he can name so many examples kind of works against his argument). A large number of my conservative friends and colleagues disapproved of Trump. I have never heard more negative comments spoken by conservative Christians about a politician running on a conservative ticket. But one can't discuss Trump in isolation. He was running against Clinton. And a large number of conservatives have concerns about her also. They find her as dishonest as Trump if not more so. Interestingly—contra my comment about Trump above—only one of my liberal Christian friends denounced her. Now one need not necessarily vote for Trump for fear of a Clinton presidency, but it is an understandable position. Who did Merritt vote for? He did not say, though obviously not Trump. But Merritt's argument works both ways. If Christians want to wash their hands of evangelicalism because some voted Trump, cannot other Christians want to wash their hands of those who would vote for Clinton?

---

*Accurate numbers are hard to come by, this is a low estimate.

Evidence and policy

I wanted to link to this column for the money quote.

Well, he’s a bishop, and churchmen don’t get listened to except when they say something insane.

I thought of using it as a stand alone quote but context helps somewhat here. The media ignore the church when she states the truth if the truth is offensive to their politically correct ears. But the nutcases....

West goes on to say,

People in more traditional relationships are more likely to vote Conservative – married women are far more likely to vote Tory or Republican than unmarried ones, so it makes sense for conservative parties to encourage conservative lifestyles. Financially punishing stay at home mums is a strange move for a Conservative government,

to which my immediate response was that conservative governments are not particularly conservative. West subsequently notes this,

The reason for this is probably that the British Conservative leadership are not really culturally conservative;

The article is quite good, my partial disagreement is with this comment,

Yet the whole point of evidence-based policy is that evidence is morally neutral; whether it’s offensive is irrelevant.

I am not certain it is morally neutral. Nevertheless, the problem here is that policy is not derived from evidence based research. Evidence can contribute to policy stating whether something works how it is intended, or not. But this is the is/ought problem. Ineffectual policy may be pointless, but effectual policy remains a moral decision. If seatbelts do not save lives it would be silly to legislate for them; yet if they do save lives this is not reason to mandate them. Personal liberty and responsibility may be overriding factors. I am not certain West would disagree with me here. I mention it as I constantly see evidence of benefit conflated with policy.

Politicians are still failing to make the grade.

British survey of 1018 adults (pdf).

Question from Ipsos MORI Trust Poll in February

I am going to read out some different types of people. For each, please tell me if you would generally trust them to tell the truth or not.

	Trust to tell the truth	Do not trust to tell the truth	Don't know
	%	%	%
Doctors	89	9	2
Teachers	86	11	3
Scientists	83	11	7
Judges	82	13	5
Television news readers	69	24	7
Clergymen/ priests	66	27	7
Police	65	28	7
Man in the street	64	26	10
Civil servants	53	38	9
Pollsters	50	34	16
Trade union officials	41	47	13
Business leaders	34	57	9
Estate agents	24	70	6
Bankers	21	75	4
Journalists	21	72	7
Politicians	20	74	6

American civic liberties quiz

I took the [American] Civic Literacy Exam. 33 questions on a range of issues concerning history, politics and economics.

Most of the questions were reasonable, though a couple may have been disputed based on theory versus fact. Definitions are reasonable, as are historical facts; but observations in line with theory may be disputable. For example,

International trade and specialization most often lead to which of the following?

• an increase in a nation’s productivity
• a decrease in a nation’s economic growth in the long term
• an increase in a nation’s import tariffs
• a decrease in a nation’s standard of living

While I agree with the answer, and it could be argued that observations have confirmed this, economists of other schools may dispute it.

The average result was 49%, with US college educators (university lecturers) averaging 55%. I managed 88% (29/33) despite its heavy US focus. This seems a little concerning for US education.

My incorrect answers were:

• What part of the [US] government has the power to declare war?
• What was the main issue in the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in 1858?
• Which of the following fiscal policy combinations has the federal government most often followed to stimulate economic activity when the economy is in a severe recession?
• If taxes equal government spending, then:

I am not convinced that my answer to the taxes question was incorrect. The question is

If taxes equal government spending, then:

1. government debt is zero
2. printing money no longer causes inflation
3. government is not helping anybody
4. tax per person equals government spending per person on average
5. tax loopholes and special-interest spending are absent

I answered 1, zero debt. I was assuming that the government had no debt prior to this. And #1 seems reasonable unless the government has a significant other incomes (such as mines). 2 is incorrect. 3 might happen to be true, but not because of the question. 4 is supposedly correct. 5 is incorrect.

Option 4 doesn't seem to be correct; again if the government has other incomes, but also taxes from companies means that government spending per person may differ from tax per person. I still think (assuming no debt prior) that answer 1 is better, though I am happy to be corrected.

Will the UK end fractional reserve banking?

This law would go a long way towards preventing the problem of economic bubbles appearing and bursting.

“Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con): I beg to move,

“That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit banks and building societies lending on the basis of demand deposits without the permission of the account holder; and for connected purposes.

I don't hold out much hope it will pass in the United Kingdom, nor do I think the politicians of New Zealand likely to pass such a wise law. Nevertheless, the end of fractional reserve banking would stop the non-productive class extracting wealth from the productive class while they simultaneously retard economic growth.

Clayton makes an eminently sensible observation in his speech

Since the credit crunch hit us, an endless succession of economists, most of whom did not see it coming, have popped up on our TV screens to explain its causes with great authority. Most have tended to see the lack of credit as the problem, rather than as a symptom. Perhaps we should instead begin to listen to those economists who saw the credit glut that preceded the crash as the problem. The Cobden Centre, the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Huerta de Soto all grasped that the overproduction of bogus candy-floss credit before the crunch gave rise to it. It is time to take seriously their ideas on honest money and sound banking.

The Keynesian-monetarist economists might recoil in horror at the idea, because their orthodoxy holds that without these legal privileges for banks, there would be insufficient credit. They say that the oil that keeps the engine of capitalism working would dry up and the machine would grind to a halt, but that is not so. Under my Bill, credit would still exist but it would be credit backed by savings. In other words, it would be credit that could fuel an expansion in economic capacity that was commensurate with savings or deferred consumption. It would be, to use the cliché of our day, sustainable.

The politicians continue to listen to economists who did not see this coming, yet suggest a solution that costs obscene amounts of money, and the failure of the solution is already being seen. It would seem wiser to pay attention to those who predicted the collapse, especially when they are all singing a similar tune.

Does opinion on abortion discriminate libertarians

Abortion is a topic that polarises people. And while there is significant variation I suspect that there is an association between conservatives and opposition to abortion on one hand and liberalism and permissibility of abortion on the other.

The state needs to make a decision about whether abortion should be addressed in law. It can make it an issue and actively oppose it, or it can decline to rule on it and thus abortion becomes theoretically permissible to a pregnant woman with access to a consenting abortionist. Refusal to legislate does not intrinsically imply that abortion is considered morally neutral; it may be considered by legislators as either amoral, or immoral but legally inconsequential.

The state could take an active position for abortion by funding it, increasing access, or by coercing and forcing pregnant women to abort against their will. I am not going to discuss these latter possibilities here other than mention that most people on any side of the debate should consider positions statist.

So the question is: since forbidding abortion requires the hand of the state to actively ban it, and/ or police it; and permitting abortion is possible with no action from the state; is opposition to allowing abortion statist? And is allowing each woman to choose her preferred pregnancy option libertarian?

No.

One could argue that those who favour women choosing are less libertarian as it coincides with their underlying preference (as per my recent post). But that is not the main problem with this issue.

The problem with this argument is that it is framed this way by people who think abortion is acceptable—morally neutral behaviour. However opposition to abortion (regardless of whether the position is correct) is based not on the desire to control what other people do with their own person and property, nor the desire to for the government to have that control. Opposition is based on the view that there is another person involved; a person that the mother does not have the right of life over. The libertarian position allows people to do what the wish with their own property (and varyingly their own person) so long that such activity does not directly negatively affect another. It is a principle of negative rights.

If the fetus is not a person, then the pro-abortion position is consistent with libertarianism. But even it that is the case, the anti-abortion position is hardly statist if the anti-abortionists do not know this. This is because their stance is not based on controlling individuals but protecting them, and protecting them from the ultimate infringement of rights—unjustifiable death. Their position is not at odds with libertarianism it is consistent with it. And if the anti-abortionists are correct about the personhood of the fetus then their libertarian fight against abortion may be one of the most important.

Until the status of the fetus is agreed to by both sides of the debate, opposition to abortion cannot be considered anti-libertarian.

Libertarian lefties?

The right-left political divide has been extended to other axes. Some place right and left views into moral and economic categories and plot them orthogonally. Others compare economic views versus degree of state oversight. Some have several axes for several positions. What has surprised me is how frequently I see traditionally left wing groups plotted as relatively libertarian and traditionally right wing groups plotted as quite statist on two-dimensional political scales (see here for an example). Surprising because conservatives (right wing) tend to argue more for limited government than liberals; and socialism seems intimately wedded to the state.

It appears that the problem relates to who is authoring and interpreting the questions as applied to various positions. Left leaning authors give greater credence to left views of liberty, and vice versa, presumably?

The reason for this seems to be that groups give themselves libertarian credence for positions that they intrinsically favour. If you think something is acceptable behaviour you view legal opposition to this behaviour as statist; but if you think something is unacceptable behaviour then you view legal opposition to such to be reasonable.

Of course this does not address the focus of libertarianism which seeks small government in general and allows for behaviours you disapprove of so long as they do not directly affect you.

Consider drug use. The libertarian position is quite liberal in allowing people to use intoxicating drugs and opposes legal prohibition. Some on the (far) left think such drug use is morally acceptable behaviour (as do some on the right no doubt). But to argue against illicit drug laws when you favour drug use is hardly libertarian. But to argue against illicit drug laws even though you think drug use is morally wrong is very libertarian.

So the questions addressing statism and libertarianism depend significantly on what you otherwise think is moral or appropriate behaviour. How much are you prepared to allow people you disagree with do without government involvement or intervention?

I think a good question to ask in teasing out the libertarian-statist axis is: How much money do you allow the citizens to keep? Do you permit people to use their own money foolishly? Even though you can think of many ways you would spend their money for their and others' benefit if it were up to you.

---

I am not commenting here on the wisdom of having or not having illicit drug laws, nor the centrality of drug laws to the libertarian position; I use the example illustratively.

Inducing premature labour in cows

A press release from the Green Party of New Zealand condemns the practice of inducing calving so herds can calve together and to maximise milking times. TVNZ News reports

Dairy farmers deliberately birth thousands of calves prematurely each year in a practice known as "inducing". The vet gives the cows two injections, so their calves will be born 8-12 weeks premature. It's done to get all cows in a herd to calve at the same time, and produce milk earlier. It means many calves are born dead, but some are born still alive and have to be euthanised.

...The issue has become an ethical dilemma for New Zealand's $6 billion dairy industry, with approximately 200,000 cows induced in New Zealand each year. Farmers say it's a valuable management tool, but are divided on its use.

The Green Party calls for banning of the practice

Dairy farmers in New Zealand routinely inject cows in order that calves are born – dead or alive – months early. This practice is used so that milking can start earlier.

“This inhumane and cruel practice could put our international dairying reputation at risk,” said Ms Kedgley.

...“Under the Veterinary Code, vets have a specific duty to protect animals and alleviate their suffering.

“By dispensing drugs that allow induction to take place for economic rather than animal welfare reasons, vets are deliberately inflicting suffering on healthy animals.

“This surely is a breach of their code.”

Here is a description of the technique; why and how it is done. It is used maintain seasonal patterns for future calving.

Interestingly the Green Party supports induced abortion in pregnant women, and as part of their women's health policy promote increased access to abortion. Women's Policy point 6.26 states the Green Party will

Review abortion services to ensure equity of access for women throughout New Zealand.

Elsewhere on the website Kedgley speaks approvingly of the battle to legalise abortion.

I recognise that a large number of secularly minded people approve of abortion. But approving human abortion for the convenience of the mother while at the same time opposed aborting and euthanasing (newborn) calves for the convenience of the farmer is not just morally confused, it is morally corrupt. Of course opposition to such practice reveals Green ideology.

Proposed tax changes

I have been asked about my thoughts on the proposed tax changes in New Zealand. Currently New Zealand has a progressive income tax structure and a sales tax. Individual income tax is

Income	Rate
Less $14,000	12.5%
$14,001–$48,000	21%
$48,001–$70,000	33%
More $70,000	38%

There is a 1.7% insurance rate that is taken at the same time. Companies are taxed at 30%. Sales tax (Goods and Services Tax) is 12.5%.

The system is actually more complicated than that with student loans being processed by the tax department, other special tax codes for some jobs, year to year income equalisation schemes for fluctuating income such as farmers may experience, charity donation rebates, child care rebates, family support,.... Sales tax is exempt from financial transactions, residential housing, mining precious metals, charities, and some other situations.

The proposal is to keep the tax take the same but alter the structure. Essentially the top tax rate would disappear and sales tax would increase to 15%, though there are other changes concerning property.

So what do I think? My ideas concerning tax are shaped partly by pragmatics, how does the system work in practice and what are the effects of different laws, but also on my perceptions of what is intrinsically fair. The latter takes priority. Some of these ideas are

• High tax leads to avoidance behaviour, both legal and illegal.
• High tax inhibits economic growth.
• Complex laws leave loopholes which are preferentially exploited by those who can afford accountants and lawyers.
• Exemptions for certain companies mean they pay less than others who are taxed more, yet they may still use the infrastructure tax pays for.
• People who earn more money pay more income tax anyway because tax is a percentage rate.
• Progressive tax favours both spouses working over one spouse earning all the income.
• Government should spend less and concern itself less in human affairs.

In light of these ideas I think the proposals are a step in the right direction. It is a move toward a flat rate for income tax. Further, by having the maximum individual rate close to the company rate decreases the incentive to use creative accounting to minimise tax. Sales tax affects all people similarly. Sales tax can be said to be a tax on consumption (partly true), rather than income tax which is more of a tax on production. This may encourage people to save rather than spend their discretionary money, a good thing.

Ideally there would be no tax. If there has to be tax I think the government should slowly divest itself of many of its expenditures and concentrate on core responsibilities, though that is another post. In terms of tax, the maximum rate should be the same as the company rate and be decreased until there is a single rate for all people in all occupations and all companies. An exemption on the first $20,000 income for all would limit the effect of tax on those with low incomes. A rate of about 20% for income tax and sales tax would be a starting point with a plan to decrease both to 10% (or less) over time as economic growth increases tax take and government decreases expenditures.

Such a system would be simple, less likely to be abused by both companies and the tax department, and be generally fair with consideration for the poorer members of society. It would led to economic growth and would mean higher employment. With more take home pay the demand for pay rises may decrease in some occupations.

Right wing, left wing

The terms right and left applied to politics can be difficult to interpret. Right tends to mean conservatism and left progressivism, but concerning what? Political or social or economic?

People on one wing with regard to social issues may be more likely to be on the same side economically, but there is no reason why someone cannot reside in the other camp. 2 dimensional proposals place economic and state control on orthogonal axes: a totalitarian to libertarian range and a managed-market to free-market range. Of course the dimensions can be expanded resulting in several horizontal axes covering different topics, each with a left and right position.

Dictionary definitions of the terms from The Free Dictionary

• left wing: those who support varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare
• right wing: those who support political or social or economic conservatism; those who believe that things are better left unchanged

The first suggests the reason for change but the latter is deficient for why things are best unchanged. What is perceived as beneficial about a system that change is not desired?

The less than reliable (and left wing!) wikipedia describe the left wing seeking to

reform or abolish existing social hierarchies and promote a more equal distribution of wealth and privilege

which is a moderately reasonable definition, though right wing may oppose what they consider unjust privilege or favouritism. The right wing article does not provide a helpful definition and suffers from including corporatism and fascism within the grouping.

I thought the definition provided by Jonah Goldberg in "Obama’s Playbook, in Paperback: Liberal Fascism and its critics" was useful

Left-wing

• statist
• collectivist
• egalitarian (within a defined group, be it based on class, race, or nationality)
• enamored of the Romantic spiritualization of the political
• hostile to tradition,
• hostile to religious orthodoxy
• hostile to natural rights,
• hostile to Lockean individualism

Right-wing (particularly within the Anglo-American tradition)

• pro-market
• favoring limited government
• respectful of religion and tradition
• protective of the individual and his rights

I will leave it to the leftists to comment on whether they fit into this definition, but I favour all 4 right wing positions, though what I accept as rights are limited and negative rights.

Labels can be useful, but if they hinder, it is better just to debate the pros and cons of a specific issue.

Christian libertarianism

I read with interest Young Mr Brown's post Is libertarianism compatible with Christianity? and Mike T's posts on Problems facing a "Christian Libertarianism" part 1 and part 2.

I have increasingly developing libertarian tendencies, perhaps in part because of the increasing role the state in the West wishes to assume, though I am possibly better described as a minarchist.

The opposition of Christians to libertarianism may be due to several things, including the idea that governments should be socialist, or at least promote social justice (whatever that is). Young Mr Brown highlights another reason that is worth exploring. Firstly his definition of libertarianism

The philosophy that holds that the ultimate political value is the freedom of the individual, and that the most effective way to uphold that freedom is to limit the scope of the state to those activities which directly defend that freedom.

And the complaint

A lot of libertarians speak about "self-ownership" being the basic principle of libertarianism, though I find that philosophically problematic, and don't accept it.

To which I concur. Mike T identifies the same issue

For libertarianism, the highest good is liberty and human autonomy. For Christianity, the highest good is summarized in the first commandment which is to love Lord with all of one's strength, above all things, and render obedience to the same.

And goes on in his 2 posts to discuss the problems this raises.

While I think that libertarianism is compatible with Christianity, the reason Christians hold to it differs quite fundamentally from many who hold to freedom and autonomy.

Firstly, I think Christianity does value liberty, at least in thought, but also in action. Freedom to think and hence act in ways that God approves is foundational. To force a man to act against his conscience is damnable. God calls us to obey him buts gives us the freedom to do this. So our freedom is not the freedom of a libertine, but that of a bondservant; one who enters into a relationship freely, but is constrained within such relationship.

Secondly, the Christian recognises that man is fallen. We are broken and we rebel against the good. Without God we choose our own way. But even belonging to God we battle the sinful desires of the flesh. So a free person will not naturally choose good paths. Fathers, community elders, and national governors are required to punish errant people, especially when they infringe on their fellow man—the libertarian position.

So the Christian values liberty in order that man can serve God, and the Christian knows that men will choose evil, at least in this current age. Neither of these positions may necessarily be held by an unbeliever.

Returning to autonomy and self-ownership we note that the Christian denies self-ownership. We do not own ourselves. God is our creator and he has claim on us

The heavens are yours; the earth also is yours;/
the world and all that is in it, you have founded them. (Psalm 89)

This claim means that we are answerable to God for our behaviour. Despite denying self-ownership, the Christian does hold to autonomy, or at least a variant of such. Autonomy  is defined as the right to self-government whereas the Christian subscribes to the responsibility of self-government. It is not defending the right of men to do what they want, but the realisation that we are answerable to God for the responsibilities we are given, one of which is the governance we choose to have over our minds and bodies. This is not to say that we bear 100% of the blame for all our choices, but ultimately each man is answerable to God for how he acts. Nor does it mean that we are only responsible for ourselves, we bear some blame if we encourage others in rebellion against God; and we may have added responsibilities as a father, an employer, or as a politician.

If the greatest commandments are loving God, then loving man, then freedom to do so is important. And these acts are voluntary, they mean nothing if done under compulsion. Thus liberty to do so seems consistent with Christianity.

But just as the responsibility of self-government points toward liberty, the fallen nature of man points away from excessive state control.

There can be little doubt that while good leaders have done good for their people, evil leaders have done much damage. Open wickedness may be obviously wrong, but excessive control is frequently harmful. Further, if we allow for a large state when we approve of our leaders, the same state can do proportionally more damage when bad men come into power.

Further, even if leaders don't seem overtly evil, our fallen nature affects our reason. So  government that seeks to interfere in the lives of men will frequently do so in the wrong way. Policy that seems kind may lack justice. Provisions that alleviate suffering short term may exacerbate it long term. Laws that give men positive "rights" may severely restrict others' negative rights. Basically the detrimental effect of the fall on the ability to reason means that men can and do reason wrongly. And even if they reason rightly they may lack the will to do right. By restricting the role of the government to that of justice, and in that to punish wrong rather than to create good, the fallen man is limited in his ability to do evil. Given that probably far more people have died at the hands of government than have died at the hand of bandits throughout history, restricting leaders seems more essential than restricting citizens.

Disregarding the rule of law

Since 1961 until recently the law in New Zealand stated that parents could use physical discipline for the purpose of correction but it was illegal to assault a child. The law was both intrinsically reasonable, clear in its intent, and effective in court. In 2007 the law was modified at the behest of a politician who has a philosophical opposition to the use of corporal punishment.

There was significant citizen opposition to changing the law at the time.

The new law is regarded a shambles. Persons on both sides of the debate have variably stated that it allows and forbids smacking children. Some have even claimed that it forbids using non-physical discipline on a child. And legal scholars have stated that the wording is a mess.

This is not clear legislation. In creating this law, Parliament abandoned its constitutional responsibility to say with clarity just which conduct is criminal.

Here is the wording of the law.

In response to the new law there was a referendum to which the vast majority (88%) of New Zealanders (who responded) voted that: A smack as part of good parental correction should not be a criminal offence.

The current government claimed to oppose the law when it was enacted 2 years ago. They were not in power at the time. Their response to the recent referendum is to say that the current law is working and there is no need to change it. They have also suggested that they will reinforce to the police not to prosecute minor infractions of the law.

I am not certain one can say the law is working when over 200 people have been investigated by the police for smacking since the law came into place (~2 years). And it hasn't prevented 15 children from being murdered. (The population of the country is 4 million.)

Telling the populace that the police will not prosecute them even though the law states their behaviour is criminal is a request from the state for us to trust them. But a request for trust can only be made by someone that has proven themselves trustworthy. The refusal to change the law despite saying that they didn't like the original law, despite the fact that the vast majority of New Zealanders want it changed, and despite the fact they are asking the police to disregard the law; proves they are not worthy of the trust they are asking for.

However the major problem here is not about parents being able to physically discipline their children for corrective purposes, as important as that is. What is incredibly pernicious is the idea that actions should be criminalised while the investigators of such actions are told to ignore these actions. Such thinking is stunningly foolish for any person, and malevolent for a politician. It utterly disregards the rule of law. It resembles the monarchy of a vacillating king; where men are praised or condemned at his whim.

The government needs to decide what behaviour they consider criminal and make the law clear. Unclear law where people are uncertain whether or not their behaviour breaks the law, and law that criminalises people but denies it will prosecute them (most of the time), are both unacceptable.

Some may claim that the police often use their discretion in prosecuting crime. This is true. There are several reasons why this may be the case.

• A crime is identified but there is insignificant evidence against the perpetrator.
• The criminal has committed several crimes and the police want to concentrate initially on the most severe.
• Delay is being used to identify further perpetrators.
  
• Police lack staff to adequately investigate all crimes so choose to focus on what they consider the most important.

The difference in the above examples are that decisions are being made based on what is possible, or practical. It is not the choice to deliberately ignore criminal behaviour.

This kind of approach to law could eventually lead to all citizens being guilty of criminal behaviour and the state arbitrarily prosecuting individuals it finds inconvenient.

Wisdom supporting liberty

Image source

Random quote

The thing I don't like about socialists is that they are dead to shame. They see nothing wrong with begging, nothing wrong with robbing, nothing wrong with being a tax-eater rather than a productive member of society. They see nothing wrong with a man not providing for his family, nothing wrong with breaking up families, nothing wrong with exploiting the poor for political gain, nothing wrong with dishonor. Instead they spend their time consumed with mock-outrage at honest men who make an honest living.

John C. Wright

Libertarian quiz

Young Mr Brown at Marmalade Sandwich points to this quiz on libertarianism. Unfortunately it is somewhat Americo-centric. This meant I had to hedge my decision and go down the centre for several answers. And as typical for these things, does not allow for nuanced views. Questions I may answer one way for a certain reason are likely to be interpreted another way suggesting to the examiner I think differently than I do. And hypotheticals as to what I think will happen as opposed to what I think is desirable may be incorrectly conflated. Further, agreeing with concepts does not indicate their relative importance (here is a quiz that takes your priority for your opinion into account (I scored libertarian on foreign policy)).

Some examples

The market is the only meaningful means to combat the state.

Pro-market people would be expected to agree, socialists would be expected to disagree. I am pro-market, but I don't agree as it is not the only means nor the only meaningful means. There are other meaningful means, and Christians think there are bigger battles at play in national and international politics. Slavery abolition did not come about thru the market. Though freer markets may have made employed labour relatively cheaper than slave labour and helped the abolitionist cause.

And I mean, what sort of question is?

State intervention tends to enable big buisiness [sic] and capital at the expense of labor and consumers.

State intervention tends to favour special interest groups, whether they be unions, or big corporations, or friends of the politician. It is not about big business versus labourers and consumers, it is about special favours for anyone at the expense of others.

How does one answer?

The outcome of a truly free market would essentially entail the elimination of large bureaucratic corporations.

It may or may not. But one's opinion on the likely outcome may say nothing about whether he approves of that outcome.

And

I consider myself an environmentalist.

Well, yes; but not a greenie or a watermelon.

Nevertheless, it is just a silly online quiz you say. These are my results. Because of similar top scores I was faced with a tiebreaker. My top 2 scores are accurate.

You Scored as Minarchist

Minarchists are libertarians who advocate a strictly limited government and usually a more decentralized form of it. Minarchists may vary in the degree to which they think that government should be limited, although the bare bones position is essentially nothing more than police, courts and the military. Minarchists tend to think that some minimum level of government is a necessary evil, or at least an inevitability. The contemporary libertarian movement in America is dominantly minarchist, although it has had a long history of dialogue and debate between minarchist and anarchist libertarians.

Paleo-libertarian

83%

Minarchist

83%

"Small L" libertarian

50%

Neo-libertarian

50%

Left-libertarian

50%

Agorist

42%

Anarcho-capitalist

42%

Geo-libertarian

8%

Libertarian socialist

8%

Conflict of interest

The Institute of Medicine has released a report on conflict of interest in medical practice.

Collaborations between physicians or medical researchers and pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology companies can benefit society—most notably by promoting the discovery and development of new medications and medical devices that improve individual and public health. However, relationships between medicine and industry may create conflicts of interest, potentially resulting in undue influence on professional judgments.

...The committee’s report stresses the importance of preventing bias and mistrust rather than trying to remedy damage after it is discovered. It focuses specifically on financial conflicts of interest involving pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology companies.

The committee recommends the implementation of policies and procedures that will reduce the risk of conflicts that can jeopardize the integrity of sci­entific investigations, the objectivity of medical education, the quality of patient care, and the public’s trust in medicine.

The New York Times notes the report has stated that doctors, medical schools and hospitals should not accept gifts from pharmaceutical companies.

doctors should stop taking much of the money, gifts and free drug samples they routinely accept from drug and device companies.

And the suggestion is to remove funding from education courses as well

Drug companies spend billions of dollars wooing doctors — more than they spend on research or consumer advertising. Much of this money is spent on giving doctors free drug samples, free food, free medical refresher courses and payments for marketing lectures. The institute’s report recommends that nearly all of these efforts end.

3 brief questions.

• If medicine was fully privatised would this be as great a concern?
• While money can be a strong conflict of interest, so is ideology. Do people note competing interests based on philosophical, theological, or political beliefs? Is this a bad thing?
• Should this be extended to democracy? Should any person receiving financial favours from the government (excluding legitimate work done at governments behest) forfeit their vote? Welfare recipients, subsidised farmers, corporations that have specific laws written for them.

A prayer and a pledge for real change

Soon after the election of Obama in the United States, Sojourners Chief Executive Officer Jim Wallis instigated a campaign to send letters to the White House requesting action on several issues. This does not apply to me as I am not a US citizen or resident. But the letter seems designed to have broad appeal to Christians. I take issue with what the letter requests and I have been meaning to offers some thoughts on this. The problem I see is that the appeal is not as broad as some may think, and when requests are too broad, the solutions proposed by various people may be vastly different.

Sojourners started in 1971. Their mission is to

articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to transform individuals, communities, the church, and the world.

The letter covers 4 areas: poverty, war, respect for life, and climate change.

Here are my brief responses to the presentation of these issues.

Overcome poverty, both here in our rich nation and globally. Your efforts to resolve the economic crisis must include those at the bottom, the poorest among us. You pledged during the campaign to mobilize the nation to cut domestic poverty in half in ten years and to implement the Millennium Development Goals to cut extreme global poverty in half.

He has a point. If money is going to be distributed it is probably better to give to those who have true struggles rather than rich men who have made poor decisions. Though perhaps consideration should be given to giving out no money at all. Letting people live with the consequences of their decisions (to an extent) is one of the better ways to prevent further poor decisions whether one is rich or poor.

The bigger issue is how we define poverty. US "poverty" and global "poverty" are hardly synonymous. I tend toward an absolute definition: no food, no clothing, no shelter; whereas political definitions are generally defined relatively which favour socialist theories. The gini index and the poverty line (the percentage of households whose income is below x% (eg. 50%) of the median income) are examples; though these are better called inequality indices, not poverty indices.

Thus a call to end poverty may result in policy determined to decrease income inequality which many people claim is counter-productive because it decreases total wealth of a country.

Find better ways than war to resolve the inevitable conflicts in the world. It is time to end the war in Iraq and emphasize diplomacy over military action in resolving problems in Iran and Afghanistan. We need better and smarter foreign policy that is more consistent with our best national values.

One does not want his leaders to be warmongers. And perhaps inadequate attempts have been made at diplomacy. But the idea that everything can be solved diplomatically is false. And avoiding war at all costs can mean inadequate opposition of despots and lead to abysmal living conditions. I make no claims in this post concerning what best be done about Afghanistan or Iraq currently, nor whether these invasions were wise decisions at the time. But the situation now exists and must be dealt with appropriately. Leaving may well be smart foreign policy. But this call seems to me to imply that war is always wrong and diplomacy always works. I am less than certain.

Promote a consistent ethic of life that addresses all threats to life and dignity. We must end genocide in Darfur, the use of torture, and the death penalty. I urge you to pursue common ground policies which can dramatically reduce abortions in America, and help bring us together on this divisive issue.

There are a multitude of issues with this request.

There is demand to leave Afghanistan and Iraq above, yet here is a demand to involve the US in Sudan. This does not necessarily mean the US places troops in Sudan, but what does the letter imply should be done if diplomacy fails. And if the US are to support United Nations troops in Sudan then why can the US not be involved sans UN. And if there is a moral argument for US forces with or without the UN in Sudan, surely there is possibly a moral argument for Afghanistan or Iraq.

Torture should be ended, though as much for perpetrators as victims. Evil men may well be deserving of pain. Shame and whipping may well be appropriate punishments; though this may possibly be defined as torture by opponents. But even if the recipient is indeed evil, the use of torture destroys the character of those performing it.

The use of "consistent" implies that all life should be preserved. This is not self apparent and may well be inconsistent. Many anti-abortionists also support the death penalty and a biblical argument can be made for capital punishment. And the call to reduce the death of innocents in the same paragraph as ending the death of the guilty seems morally confused. If a Christian is opposed to the death penalty and abortion, and he had the choice of ending one and minimising the other, it surely would be abortion that was ended.

Reverse the effects of climate change on God’s creation. We must learn a new way of living in America to end our dangerous dependence on Middle East oil. We need a spiritual commitment to stewardship and national policies that promote safe, clean, and renewable energy. You spoke of job creation and economic renewal with a new “green economy.”

I have previously indicated that I deny anthropomorphic global warming. I think minimising CO₂ is both pointless in terms of the climate, and harmful in terms of the poor. It may be prudent to end dependency on Middle East oil, though a switch to Alaskan and offshore oil is perfectly acceptable. Private ownership of land will lead to better stewardship of the environment. While the government can introduce policy to maximise job creation and economic renewal, there are huge differences of opinion about what these policies are.

In conclusion I think there are several issues in this letter that are incorrect from a Christian perspective. Where there are issues of agreement (poverty bad, abortion bad, job creation good) the approach of various Christians to these ends differ dramatically. And a letter to a Democratic president, if effectual, is likely to lead to a socialist solution. From my point of view, while government action potentially could lead to improvements in such issues, the policies that will get enacted are likely to be counter-productive.

Health care adherence and responsibility

A recent study published in PLoS Medicine confirms what has previously been thought by those working in African health field. Adherence to antiretroviral (Anti-HIV) medication in Africa is high (> 90%) and higher than the West. After several hundred interviews the reasons were documented. Summarising the responses,

[Medication] adherence through a number of deliberate strategies aimed at prioritizing adherence: borrowing and “begging” transport funds, making “impossible choices” to allocate resources in favor of treatment, and “doing without.” Prioritization of adherence is accomplished through resources and help made available by treatment partners, other family members and friends, and health care providers. Helpers expect adherence and make their expectations known, creating a responsibility on the part of patients to adhere. Patients adhere to promote good will on the part of helpers, thereby ensuring help will be available when future needs arise.

I am not certain how robust this study was, nor whether other factors (age, religion, sex, income, etc.) were adequately addressed, but it is interesting that the high adherence was due to perceived responsibility of action.

Relationships confer responsibility in addition to providing resources. Recipients of help must recognize what they receive and reciprocate. To ignore these responsibilities is to risk resentment on the part of helpers.

It is their sense of duty within the domain of immediate family, supporters and community. There is no disconnect created by involving the government as an intermediary. When others help directly there is a sense of reciprocality. Not necessarily that one has to do the exactly the same as others, rather that one should do his duty in response to others.

I believe that when antiretrovirals have been scarce or expensive, the choice to medicate one patient funded by other patients who were not receiving treatment meant that the survivor would likely care for the non-survivors' kin. So an expectation is on the treated person to comply so that he will indeed survive.

Interestingly another article in the same edition compared health outcomes in children for user pays medicine and free health care. There was no difference in rate of illness. The authors wrote,

This lack of any effect of being randomised to free health care on health outcomes is unexpected, since there has always been an assumption that increased access as a result of free health care improves health.

Though the free care group used significantly more services!

People are capable of caring for themselves (if they have the resources). They are able to be responsible for their care and respond to reasonable community expectations.

Government intervention is mostly unnecessary—at least in illness; however it is likely the attribute of self care and responsibility extends beyond health behaviour.

(Not to mention the government cash savings by leaving the funding private. And, as usual, private investment is more efficient: in this case same outcome for probable lower cost—I am using attendance as a proxy for cost.)

Portfolios for Africa

The New Zealand government has ministries in the following areas

1. Accident Compensation
2. Agriculture
3. Archives New Zealand*
4. Arts, Culture and Heritage
5. Biosecurity*
6. Broadcasting
7. Building and Construction*
8. Civil Defence*
9. Climate Change Issues
10. Commerce*
11. Communications and Information Technology
12. Community and Voluntary Sector
13. Conservation*
14. Consumer Affairs*
15. Corrections*
16. Courts*
17. Customs*
18. Defence*
19. Disability Issues
20. Disarmament and Arms Control
21. Economic Development
22. Education*
23. Education Review Office
24. Energy and Resources
25. Environment
26. Ethnic Affairs
27. Finance*
28. Fisheries
29. Food Safety*
30. Foreign Affairs*
31. Forestry
32. Health*
33. Housing
34. Immigration*
35. Infrastructure*
36. Internal Affairs*
37. Justice*
38. Labour*
39. Land Information*
40. Law Commission
41. Local Government*
42. Maori Affairs
43. National Library
44. Pacific Island Affairs
45. Police*
46. Racing
47. Regulatory Reform*
48. Research, Science and Technology
49. Revenue*
50. Rugby World Cup
51. Senior Citizens
52. Small Business
53. Social Development and Employment
54. Sport and Recreation
55. State Owned Enterprises*
56. State Services
57. Statistics*
58. Tertiary Education
59. Tourism
60. Trade*
61. Transport*
62. Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations*
63. Veterans’ Affairs
64. Women’s Affairs
65. Youth Affairs

As well as Ministers responsible for the following services

1. New Zealand Security Intelligence Service*
2. Government Communications Security Bureau*

I have placed an asterisk next to the areas that I think it reasonable for the government to assign ministry oversight. The number I have marked is large, but nearly so as the 67 there are! However I have caveats to my selections.

Several of them could be combined. Commercial disputes can be under a single umbrella; eg. Consumer Affairs, Building and Construction, Commerce. National Library and Archives. The Courts could possibly be combined with Corrections, though stay separated from Policing.

Some could be much smaller in scope. Health could be oversight of individual health funds and insurances with a review of fund managers/ insurance providers if necessary. Monitoring health workers could continue. But the provision and funding of health could be completely privatised.

Education could be privatised with government monitoring funding via a voucher system for school or home school options. Overview of education minimised to gross dereliction of duty.

Some Infrastructure and Transport may require oversight but tolling for revenue should be maximised.

Regulatory Reform is necessary to remove a lot of previous red tape!

Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is required because it is a treaty. Though finalising of restitution should be sort. I don't think a separate portfolio for Maori is probably necessary but may (or may not) be sensible while the Maori seats continue.

Overall I think the government is trying to take far too much responsibility for things that it need not and often times should not concern itself with.

Which of the above areas do you think the government should or should not concern itself with? Are there some areas it should that are not currently being covered?