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.