Sunday, February 22, 2015

Seymour positions Act

From ACT leader David Seymour's party conference speech yesterday:



Our tribe is the standard-bearer for classical liberalism in NZ, representing a general orientation towards a defence of private property, freedom of contract and limited government.
This is by no means an extreme or pure libertarian position. Classical liberalism takes a larger and more realistic view of government.
In short, we all know that government must respond to problems of pollution, the creation of infrastructure, of monopoly power, and raise funds through taxation. But we seek a more even application of government sanctions: we challenge government monopoly
in education and health, and the exemption of unions from anti-
trust legislation...

The National Party and John Key have been extremely successful by any reasonable political metric.
For our part, we need to be frank about our failure in recent elections.
We should be able to attract those National voters who want a more energetic, more principled government, who want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, more choice in education and healthcare services.
It is we that need to do better, and I am determined that we will. I believe our failure stems from the lack of a clearly defined and widely agreed definition of our party’s mission.
We are, among other things, the party of business. Here is how we add value: New Zealanders who want a larger role for business and community and a smaller role for government currently have the
worst of all words.
We are a disorganised minority. We will never be the majority in New Zealand but when we are organised we are a highly effective tribe.
Our mission is to represent our fellow New Zealanders who want a larger role for business and community, and a smaller role for government. To be the voice for an organised minority, firmly pressing New Zealand toward a more liberal future.
This is smart. For too long Act members squabbled either directly or  indirectly over what Act stood for. There was always the well-known conflict between conservatives and social liberals. And worse, between the libertarians and classical liberals. I am over it.

But for those disappointed hard-core libertarians, here's something to satisfy your sentiments as well.

From Jacob Hornberger of the Freedom Foundation:

Many years ago, when I discovered libertarianism, one of the first essays I read was entitled “Drowning in a Sea of Buts” by Leonard E. Read. Read pointed out that everyone favors freedom except for this and except for that. By the time one adds up all the buts, society has drowned in a sea of buts.

I can sit comfortably in either camp, and yet understand the inability of some people to work together. But I can no longer be bothered getting emotionally het up about people who take a different perpsective to mine. Unless, of course, they are socialists.


4 comments:

Brendan McNeill said...

"This is by no means an extreme or pure libertarian position. Classical liberalism takes a larger and more realistic view of government."

This is a welcome move from Seymour. Clearly staking out their political ground and defining their tribe is something ACT has failed to do for years.

Good to see them back on track.

It won't please everyone, but the beauty of democracy (yes I know about its failures) is that it is market driven. If you are not happy with what's on offer, start your own party.

Mark Hubbard said...

Afraid for at least a decade I can't stand pragmatism and the 'game' of politics.

Conservatives, which Seymour most definitely is, are not classical liberals: they believe in the small state economically, but the big moral state in your face and life, often in personal issues that are bigger, for me, than the economic state (though all are linked).

I understand David Farrar spoke 'for' euthanasia at the ACT conference; Seymour, however, remains, as ever, silent, and the issue was sidelined. ACT is a (social) conservative party.

I am now a single issue voter. I see no more important right than ownership of my body, thus euthanasia, because that has to be the foundation of all rights for a classical liberal party: the individual. I will vote for any party, including Green Party, that promises euthanasia legislation for their three year term. I will totally prostitute my vote for that single issue (and related issues such as legalisation of cannabis proper, and especially medicinal cannabis).

That won't be any party with Seymour pulling the strings.

More power to your arm, though, Lindsay.

Anonymous said...

I'm a single issue non-voter. If you want to bring the beast to its knees you need to sort out its money supply.

I think Mark needs to press ahead with the left as they seem much more inclined to his cause. That seems superficially strange and I'm not sure the left's reasons are those of the Libs but maybe its the only way to further the matter in the current climate.

3:16

Anonymous said...

But I can no longer be bothered getting emotionally het up about people who take a different perpsective to mine. Unless, of course, they are socialists.

Ok. So far so good. But then Seymour says:

In short, we all know that government must respond to problems of pollution, the creation of infrastructure, of monopoly power, and raise funds through taxation

In short: ACT is socialist.