Share |

Society today is a mixed economy, just as it has been for the last few centuries. Over time it has lingered between differing levels of state coercion by arbitrary force and free and unfettered private action. The need for regulation has been used for justifying both legitimate (i.e. courts) and illegitimate (i.e. welfare) state intervention. The problem of course is that 'unconditional' servitude establishes no moral standards of conduct or any economic standards for performance. It did not matter that democracy provided representative government, it only mattered that governments 'tried' to achieve it. It did not matter if welfare resolved the poverty problem, it only mattered that governments tried to resolve them. People thought this was morally decent, and decency trumps practical considerations like the right to choose how to utilise one's property, or the right to withdrawal your support from programs which do not satisfy your standards. When taxation becomes involuntary expropriation, public service becomes slavery. The 'conditional statement' (or performance incentive) needs to be returned to public administration. This was actually the basis upon which the feudal lords paid the monarchy. i.e. The landed class or nobles paid the monarchy taxes in order to protect them from invading armies. Today, there is no performance criteria. Now we have 'unconditional' slavery.

We have never had capitalism. Its not that its not practical. It did not exist centuries ago because of the poverty. The only education they needed then was about rights. i.e. They only needed to know that each individuals life was a value, and yet people still don't recognise that today. They are instead burdened with unearned guilt as children, unexplained moral imperatives, unreasonable school rules, unreasonable taxation burdens, misdirected hatred by employers/employees, or other vested interests. No one questioned the ethical principles underpinning their moral code.

Today we have public education, however it is hardly an education if it only teaches us to be well-trained slaves, and effectively entrenches slavery. If you wonder why you have greater political rights or freedom (i.e. The right to freedom of movement), it is because you have less economic freedom. The fact that economic prosperity has delivered you greater wealth, has not so much unshackled you, but bonded you to the state. Business groups will not support economic freedom today, just as the wealthy liberal or worker will not freedom, because they have too many 'economic interests' to lose, and no effective voice in parliament. Of course a great many people delude themselves into thinking they have a voice or a vote. The reality is that they have nothing that is substantive.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Judicial activism - intervention needed into parliamentary failure

Share |

About a year about I established Judicial Analytics to examine opportunities for private citizens to explore opportunities to seek legal remedies for unethical coercion, expropriation or extortion by governments, or agencies empowered by government. It is my view from my studies of the law that there is significant capacity within the law to take such action, which would limit the powers of government, however these matters need to be taken to the High Court, or the Administrative Review Council.

Statutory law is increasingly displacing Common Law, which is far superior in as much at it is based on sound principles, and those principles are based on logic and held in context. The opposite is true of statutory law. Its arbitrary, it often bears no relationship to other law, and it seldom retains any contextual clarity because there is no over-arching principle. This is why such law is controversial.

Clearly when parliaments were established there was the expectation that parliaments would be reasonable. The problem of course is that the 'founding fathers' did not expect the passing of a bill based purely on numbers to secure a parliamentary majority.

There is very little difference between the criminal act of extortion and the coercion being considered by the Rudd government to expropriate wealth from Australian miners. It really makes very little difference whether Australian voters support or are abhorrent of the process by which the act in executed. The parliament is acting inappropriately and the High Court ought to be acting with due regard for process, in the 'spirit of the Constitution'.

We have already seen in other countries like India where the failure of the parliament to enact rational or proper has resulted in the High Court taking its own initiative. Some people have this dogmatic idea that the role of parliament is to make the law, and the courts merely interpret it. But this is not correct. In the process of interpreting the law, the High Court has the power to create law. In fact, all courts have the power to 'create law' in this sense. Really the process is one of extending the law to a new & specific context, or in some cases, correcting an erroneous interpretation previously made. The Constitution has been pretty uncontroversial in the previous century. My guess is that this will change in coming decades.

------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon
Resource Rent Tax
Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

We should value our mining industry

Share |

The Australian mining industry is currently being attacked by the Federal government, which is trying to extort higher levels of taxes from the industry, to cynically boost its electoral-buying capacity over the Liberals. It has always been characteristic of Labor to go where 'no man has been before', so Rudd is not fresh faced in this respect. Some criticisms made of the mining industry need to be refuted:

1. Mining companies earn excessive profits. Actually the reality is that profits from mining are very volatile. i.e. They go up 200-400% and then come down. Those profits are used by the industry to finance further mining capacity. If Rudd taxes that capacity to finance more mining, the capacity will be developed overseas. There are a plethora of projects overseas, and if the tax impost does not drive the investment offshore, the arbitrariness of the impost will. i.e. Higher cost of capital because of the higher sovereign risk investing in Australia.

2. Mining investment supports downstream investment in railways, loading facilities, shipping, port services, towns, engineering, catering contractors, etc. More investment here results in lower costs as any new projects benefit from older investment.

3. Investors benefit from the volatility. If you like investing, the mining industry provides a fast track to success. There is however corresponding risks to consider, so those higher returns are well-justified; particularly since Rudd takes no steps to provide ASIC with the resources to rein in some of the mining cowboys ripping off shareholders.

4. Miners helping the country. Mining has minimal impact on the countryside in Australia. We are a low-rainfall country and the benefits of mining dwarf the impact on the environment. Miners are responsible for their impact. Besides that they create jobs, attract a lot of investment, develop infrastructure, support public administration. Might we do better to respect the investors and executives who create the wealth. Are they self-serving....certainly. Without the self-respect and self-serving qualities of entrepreneurship, we could be living in far less appealing economic circumstances. We no longer ride on the sheep's back, its miners. Don't abuse the privilege, otherwise you might just see the succession of WA from the Australian Federation.

5. We have it too good. The reality is we take our mining industry for granted. If we did not have the mining industry, our economy would mirror NZ. We would have a weaker currency, and there would be an exodus of educated Australians to foreign countries, and we would become a nation of farmers and retirees like NZ. Our national incomes are 30% higher than NZ. I suspect that 15% is singularly the result of the mining industry. Its that important.

6. Mining companies are using foreign labour. True enough the mining industry is having to import skilled migrants because there is a shortage in Australia. Most of these people will stay in Australia. I have lived in Asia. Most are jumping at the opportunity to have a better standard of living. What people 'who don't travel' don't realise is that travel changes people. These 'migrants' are often taken advantage of in their home country, so they would prefer to stay here, plus the lifestyle reasons for staying. Their children are growing up here. The relatives back home just want their money. If we don't have babies, and you have centralised government, you will depend on population growth to keep productivity and economic activity growing.

So when I hear that "royalties from mining companies have decreased disproportionately to profits over the last decade from about 16% to 11%", I recognise that metal prices at that point were 300% less than now. i.e. Copper is now $US3.10/lb, it was then $0.80/lb, and miners struggled for 10-15 years. They were helped by a low $0.50 AUD, just as now they are injured by a $0.90 dollar cross-rate.

The argument that we all own the ground they 'pillage' has some credence, but the mining industry already pays a great deal of taxes. This is opportunism for Rudd to get elected. It is the same strategy as Rudd artificially restricting land releases for housing so that property prices rise for the betterment of some at the expense of others. This government is not 'pro-poor' it is self-serving at the expense of anyone and everyone.

Yes, of course multinational mining companies don't like imposts, particularly when its really extortion. These companies are investing billions in the expectation that the government policy or tax rates will be at certain levels....then Rudd applies a huge tax impost. Come on! They can't pass on the cost because its not applied to their competitors. Does Australia really want their government to have more spending money given their historic performance?

In the late 1800s and early 1900s Australia was said to 'live on the sheep's back'. Now we live on the 'miner's back', or investors back, who supports them. The relationship between miner and investor is complimentary, the relationship between government and mining is becoming intolerably parasitical. Government's power needs to be curtailed. This financial crisis was made possible because Howard and Rudd facilitated a huge expansion in global debt. They are complicit with the US government in causing the financial malaise. The mining industry should not pay for it. Even taxpayers ought not to pay for it. It should be repudiated because sovereign debt is extortion by the majority over the minority. Politics has to change!

---------------------------------------------

Author
Andrew Sheldon
Resource Rent Tax
Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Why are we drifting towards fascism

Share |

This argument might be disputed by some, but let me present some compelling indicators:

1. The role of the state in the national economy

2. The expansion of statutory law - which displaces common law

3. The decline of intellectual thought

The first and third issues are indeed hard to demonstrate. In fact I actually think the education system today is better in ways than it was when I was young, and I think the quality of parenting is also much improved. I also think that the internet has made a great difference to people's education. Information is so much more readily available.

It is issue number 2 which stands out as particularly a problem. Government is the peak moral authority in any country. It basically sets the standards by which those subordinated by those laws behave. If the laws are vague, arbitrary, inconsistency, unworkable, poorly or inefficiently enforced, then that is a problem for the whole of society. This is the current state of affairs. So what has changed?

Well yes justice continues to be inefficient and expensive, but it is also intruding into new areas of our lives. This would not be a bad thing if it was rational law. i.e. Common law is the closest we have come to a rational framework, but it has been displaced by arbitrary statutory law. Why do I say its arbitrary? It is because it is negotiated in back offices, not logically integrated into a set of principles, which would be an ideological platform. The problem is the main political parties have such 'principles', its just that they will readily abandon them with any change in the political wind.

There is a dire need for political reform. The great problem as I see is that 'big business' who are in the best position to do something about this, are more interested in short range decision-making. They lack all respect for politics and really negotiate 'economic outcomes' divorced from political values. They are basically morally bankrupt. This is a problem because the concessions they will make will save them some grace tomorrow. But they will have conceded a 'significant principle' to the government. e.g. The right to know where they stand. A right to property. A right to freedom from coercion. These political rights have been surrendered; they need to be reclaimed. Government is run by incompetents. Australia should not be giving them more money. Look how they wasted it during the financial crisis. Consider who caused the financial crisis. It was not the banks actually; it was facilitated by US government policy through the Federal Reserve.

This week there was a gathering of well-organised public citizens. They are liberals concerned about such issues as global warming, peace on earth, animal rights, welfare issues, nuclear disarmament. The problem is that as business people 'make money', they surrender the realm of ideas to liberal idiots like this group - the UN Association of NZ. The UN used traditionally was supposed to defend rights. Basically the organisation is now run by liberals who are destroying it. Their agenda is no longer political rights. Today people in the Congo are being raped, pillaged and killed by armed guerrillas whilst the UN force remains on the sidelines and under-resourced. Instead the UN is more interested in sabotaging the intellectual framework upon which rights are based. Why? Because they never had an intellectual framework. Being an advocate of peace does not advance a value system. This is the nature of their moral bankruptcy. They want peace in Afghanistan (and elsewhere), but their feelings will not achieve it. They do not have the self esteem to mark a political argument, but they sway people with appeals to guilt and misplaced empathy through public conferences, seminars and protests like this one in NZ. They are built on a ground-swell of support by idiots who have no idea.

Peace is not a value. A prison is peaceful, though you wouldn't want to live in one. You can have peace in a free country because each person respects each others rights, or you can have peace because there is an autocrat forcing compliance. This is the direction in which politics has been moving since the 1700s. It leads us into economic crises or war, which forces a generation of capitulation, then it happens again. In those periods of 'soul searching' nothing is learnt because the introspection does not reach a level where the 'disease' of collectivism is repudiated. i.e. We all remember in 1993 - the Cold War was won. Today we are fighting a new 'Cold War' - a new expression of collectivism. It manifests as various forms of liberalism such as animal rights, global warming and welfarism. Its flawed philosophical premises remain unchallenged because business sees no practical interest in theorising values unless they make money. They think they are going to win people over by getting rich. It won't happen, even if you give them half the money you 'earn', they will win the 'moral sanction' to take anything which is not theirs for some 'common good'. Their welfare entitlement will undermine any good your efforts can achieve. It will undermine science, which is why you get such dubious research suggesting global warming and animal rights. Yes, primates have feelings, yes they are self-aware, but its not a basis for rights.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Our political paradigm - the basics

Share |

Traditionally politics has been defined by entirely flawed conceptions such as 'left wing' or 'right wing'. Although you might have some notion of what there terms mean, I would suggest to you that they are entirely unhelpful, and that they are not going to help your intellectual development. Philosophy is perhaps the most under-appreciated subject. Most of us have a pretty bad perception of it....as I did over 20 years ago when I was introduced to it. The reason why people are so skeptical about philosophy is because they had read poor philosophy. A great many of them are conflicted, poorly structured, uncritical thinkers who don't define their terms, or they use arbitrary terms like 'left' and 'right' which sabotage their thinking. Its critical to know the basics of this subject.

A better conceptual framework to use is the following because it is actually consonant with the facts of your existence. Basically there are two ways to live:

1. With respect for facts - objectivity

2. With respect for society - necessarily subjective because any values are shared and do not relate to any personal context.

There are several different levels of philosophy - this is just an introduction. Metaphysics studies the nature of existence. Epistemology - the nature and means of acquiring knowledge, do we have instincts, can we derive values from facts; ethics - what values should we live by, and politics - what organisational structures best allow us to achieve our ethical ideals.

With respect to ethics, there are fundamentally two choices we confront - living for self or living for other. Most people have a false or flawed conception of ethics because they have an implicit or subjective sense of values. i.e. A value is simply something you want. This leads one into a flawed ethical value judgement on politics. It teaches people that any selfish act is bad, and any selfless act is good. i.e. It causes people to disparage people for being 'too selfish' or to rationalise that they were acting in others interests when they are really acting in their own interests.

It leads seemingly credible thinkers like Dr Phil to say things like a suicidal person is selfish for not thinking about the impact of his actions on his family. You really don't want to be telling a guy thinking about killing himself that he will hurt others feelings. Its like telling a guy he hasn't suffered enough. Guilt is never good therapy. But Christians love it.

Anyway, back to politics.

Since ethics is about living for self (selfishness) or others (altruism), you must be wondering whether there is a middle ground. There certainly is - its the state of most people's consciousness. A state of moral ambivalence and inner conflict which undermines their thought process and value system. It leads society to repression, anxiety and diminishes self-esteem. Don't expect a psychologist to tell you as much, as most are too flawed by university humanities departments. There are so many problems with education - on the one side public education with its collectivist values, on the other hand private school education with its religious education. These psychological conditions are well-embedded in society, so they are considered normal. You only see a psychotherapist if it impacts on your work or you maliciously shoot someone, and most people are in denial or they have adverse opinions of psychologists so they need to be given a subsidy to go.

Which brings me back to politics - there are two schools - capitalism and statism, and of course we are caught in the middle with a school called 'mixed economy'. This is not capitalism because there is a great deal of government intervention in the economy. The nature of the intervention comprises:

1. Arbitrary law - statutory law is overtaking common law, so you are increasingly subject to the arbitrary whim of Comrade Rudd. This ought to be repealed by a High Court challenge - so if anyone wants to fund me, I would happily try. This is an open invitation to the mining industry. 'Twiggy' gets a personal invitation. If government gets really crazy then arbitrary law turns into totalitarianism, but any arbitrary law is bad. Don't think it won't happy. You wouldn't be surprised if you listen to my father talk politics. He reckons we need more socialism. vomit.

2. Tax-funded welfare - since WWII we have witnessed a huge increase in welfare spending. Even companies get welfare these days. Increasingly government is the centre of business activity. More importantly the tax system is inefficient, its funds are misappropriated, poorly spent, and in fact they achieve the exact opposite of what they want to achieve. The government doesn't care because they function as a middleman. Just like your stockbroker. They don't care if you loss, so long as you keep trading. They hope you win despite their take, so they can get more from you. The difference between a stockbroker and Rudd is that your voluntarily entered into an agreement with your broker, and you have legal recourse. In the case of Rudd, only Twiggy can afford a High Court challenge.

In order to change the political system would require a huge change in politics. Its already underway. In India, there is already examples of the judiciary imposing itself into political areas seen as "statutory failure". We will see the same trend in Western nations. Its a precursor to a change in our political system. Its called 'judicial activism', and the outcome is likely to be consensus based democracy, where governments are obliged to act in accordance with principles as opposed to going off on a 'Beckham bender' like Rudd. Who saw this coming. I have always said socialism is not dead....Rudd has just changed its flag to yellow.

Anyway, so we have capitalism which is a system of government based on free trade, the trade of value for value, not to be confused with looting, fraud or stealing, which is actually at root where Rudd is coming from, i.e. expropriating other people's money and hoping you will be happy with you cut. Of course you will be until Rudd or his successor gets into your share after the next election. There is a philosophy underpinning capitalism; it is not simply a market system. There are of course many forms of statism of course - so many in fact that none of them work, so a new one is always under development. i.e. the next one will be based on animal rights and global warming. Never mind the flawed science behind both concepts.

1. Fascism - an alignment of the state with corporate interests

2. Feudalism - an alignment of the state with landowners.

3. Socialism - an alignment of the state with workers.

4. Monarchism - an alignment of state with the king/queen

5. Theocracy - an alignment of state with the church.

6. Ruddism - an alignment with whoever will keep you in power, and at the same time undermining any minority interest group in order to do it. i.e. Greens, church, workers, house buyers. Not a new strategy in the modern era when voters are 'swinging'.

I would suggest to you that Rudd's desire to tax mining is a cynical push to tax an industry which embodies just 3% of the workforce in order for him to captivate another 10% of voters with no interest in mining. Basically he is causing a huge shift in business for the sake of his political gain...because he wants to share a hot bath and back rub with the Chinese leader.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Credit rating agencies not to blame

Share |

The following article suggests that credit rating agencies have too much power and can unleash tremendous financial trauma upon global financial markets. The situation in Greece, Portugal and Spain is a case in point, as well as the case of the US property debacle. PLEASE! Read on...

Based on the article cited, it was the US government which gave the 3 main credit rating agencies a oligopolistic market in the credit assessment market.

More importantly, ALL of the problems created in financial markets arise because of government. Consider the following list:

1. CEOs are unaccountable because with the benefits of a good lawyer they are able to circumvent arbitrary laws because they have no underlying principle or 'spirit', such that a well-trained lawyer will find a loophole. Government regulation is an invitation to break the law - call it 'moral ambivalence' - required to keep these fascist regimes in power.

2. Governments artificially stimulate the money supply. The Fed created the right monetary conditions to spark a credit bubble, supported it with fiscal policies as well, such as tax cuts, first home grants (i.e. Australia), restrictions on land release (most Western countries). The financial crisis has the governments name on it. They have no idea how to manage an economy.

3. Lack of funding for regulation: Western governments around the world talk rhetorically about regulation, but have failed to improve the justice system, establish measures to disclose corruption, and under-funded the system.

4. Government has a duopoly: Yes, the two-party political system is a cozy duopoly, whereby the party in government appeases and is appeased by the media, banks and big biz to retain its cozy position. Consumers pay the costs; everyone else passes it through. Its all about unreasonable market power. This is not capitalism; its distortion of the principles upon which capitalism is based! Yes, that's right! Capitalism has a philosophical base. Its not just about making money. i.e. The concept of exchanging value for value; as opposed to extortion by banks, and other acts which involve courting favour with government. Markets are only as moral as the punters who participate in it. If you are morally ambivalent, don't expect the market to protect you. There is every reason to suggest you will lose your shirt because markets are not regulated. Or worse still, you will be paying for the imprudence of those who look to government for support. Why not just support a political system based on accountability and reason as the standard of value. Whose reason? Answer: Whose reality! The scientific, objective, readily observable one which keeps you awake at night!

The fact that the media is able to publish such nonsense suggests that they have a blatant conflict of interest in what they publish. Clearly they see themselves as having a cozy relationship with government. I would suggest these 'counterparties' have got together and said, "look you make us look good" and we will give you a cozy oligopoly along with News Corp, ABC, etc, just like we do the banks". It does not even need to be said, it need only be implied...just as you can train a fish to do tricks with positive reinforcement.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Tuhoe nation independence – or misuse of NZ government power

Share |

The NZ government under John Keys is ‘generously’ offering to extend self-government to the Tuhoe nation (or Maori ‘iwi’). The view among most European NZ’ers is that this deal is too generous, or that it is silly to divide the nation (i.e. separatism). The problem of course is that we don’t at this stage know the nature of the negotiations. The lack of broad-based consultation is unsurprisingly. Seldom do governments like accountabiliyy. I already have a sense of what the deal is going to mean:

1. The Tahoe iwi will have a limited form of self-government, i.e. independent land use policy within certain standards, certain revenue raising powers within limits.
2. They will have the right to participate in the broader NZ economy, and NZ’ers will have the capacity to engage in the external economy
3. Dept of Conservation (DOCs) land use restrictions will remain; there will probably be external limits to setting of fees on lands by Europeans.
4. They will have the power to raise their own taxes – probably within limits

The legitimacy of their land right claims is itself a contentious issue. I tend to think they deserve them because the British freely entered into a treaty with them. The flipside is that they conveyed no respect for land rights prior to European arrival. They were hedonistic culture, so it could be argued that Europeans merely plundered the same spoils. Regardless of the history, ‘individual rights’ are a desirable concept if properly defined. Unfortunately I have yet to encounter a politician or protagonist who does justice to the concept. Each protagonist is really nothing more than a more localised tyrant.

We might ask why the government is so amenable to this. I would suggest the following reasons:

1. Keys wants to be perceived as the great ‘liberator’ among the NZ liberals, hoping to get votes from Labour, as well as Liberals, and Maoris. He is hoping that this gives him a majority of votes in both houses of parliament so that he can adopt the ‘real reforms’ he wants across the broader economy. Reform is not always good.
2. Keys knows that the Tahoe nation under self-government is destined to fail. Any appointed Tahoe government will likely be corrupt or unable to administer efficiently for cultural reasons. i.e. Despite the notion that these people are rich in culture, they are pretty superficial values, not deep-seated productive ones. I even note that one of the prophets for Tahoe ‘Rua Kenana Hepetipa’ was a self-appointed Christian messiah. We hardly need another one of those. The more important point is that this group are only united by their shared marginalisation by Western society. Where is the culture to unite then once they have self-government?
3. Western government has long rested upon the ability to tax a ‘productive class’. Western government is successful – not because of public administration – but in spite of it. The implication is that without Western standards of productivity, i.e. western knowledge and values, the Tahoe iwi is quickly going to descend into anarchy. Read the history of this group will highlight the historical legacy of this. Read about the Tahoe people. I personally hope they succeed because I like to see people succeed, and have no interest in people’s failure. The same cannot be said of the NZ government, who are parasites by their very nature - living off others efforts through taxation and false representation. I might raise the same concerns about the leaders of the Tahoe people – whom I don’t know. Are they really champions of liberty, or simply ‘victims’ with a good ‘boo hoo’ story.
4. The government will consider this a triumph because it was perceived as a liberator. It will guarantee Keys a decade of leadership, and probably control of both houses. I think his strategy will eventually be seen for what it is – a power play. All Keys really wants is a 2-house majority. I think people will have mixed feelings about Keys in future. He will have reformed a country, but he will have also destroyed a people, as well as all prospects of anyone getting individual rights. This is not where and how rights should be defended. If we are ever to have individual rights, they will not be defended in Iraq or the Tahoe nation. They will be defended in the streets of Wellington, Sydney or LA, or in a High Court. But people have to start caring about their lives, thinking long range, and to self-reflect on their inner state of psychological repression. This tribe is a reactionary group with a small intellectual class of lawyers. There is no Adam Smith among them. They are a group of marginalised, disenfranchised people. They are destined to drive their people blindly towards chaos. I don’t want that for them, but also not so Keys can score some points. The integration of Maori into European-dominated NZ is a fragile peace. This political strategy is destined to destroy a great deal of trust and peace, and to break the minds of an incipient nation.
5. The Keys government knows that chaos is likely, and in any case it is preserving 'effective' control over the region, which does not produce much anyway. By allowing this Tahoe iwi to fail, they are discouraging all NZ iwi’s from pursuing this path. This is a grand experiment destined to lead to cultural abuse. I would not be surprised if there is civil unrest resulting in deaths as a result of this policy. Of course Keys will ‘reluctantly’ have to send in the police to retain order, and that will be the end of it. Once again the Tahoe iwi will have been quashed. Once again government wil have not learned a lesson from history.

Something really good could come out of this process if government was not more interested in locking in its own political power. If it was genuinely interested in advancing the interests of the Tahoe people. Not at its own interests but because they thought advancement was in everyone’s interests. Despite the ‘strategic’ aspects of this policy, Keys is still in a sense thinking short-range or non-conceptually here, even if his ‘critical thinking’ advisors have already created the expectation of failure. The values sought are short range or non-conceptual. And I expect no better from the Tahoe iwi.

Here is another article on this issue. I disagree with this interpretation. This writer states:

“People have been concerned about the implications of iwi self-government .... Does it mean separatism? Does it mean two sets of rights - one for Maori and one for everybody else?”

The problem is his poorly defined concept of rights. It is not a case of different rights, since neither party is recognising rights in any meaningful way. In fact its more a case of obligations than rights. Rights are protections – not obligations. Rights convey a sense of living for oneself uninhibited by others. Fascists define 'rights' as obligations in order to confer fake benefits upon you, so they can control your life, as Western governments control all lives. If you want to understand the soul of the 'born to rule' Western liberal, attend one of their 'young liberal' meetings in their early 20s, and they will happily tell you that:

"The people need to be controlled for their own good".

Each society will live under the same set of ‘umbrella’ laws, it’s just that the iwi will have the power to shape some of its own laws. However that is the collective ‘iwi’ shaping the law as it applies to you as an individual. Does that mean better representation? Unlikely. Practical interests tend to prevail where reason is not the standard of value, and no formal system exists to recognise the interests of all stakeholders.

This policy is analogous to a father placing their son in harms way so that they learn a lesson of compliance, not good self management. The implication is that Keys is pursuing a well-tread path of 'fatherly' abuse, even if it is 'politically correct'. Politics is never as it seems.

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com