New Zealand’s local government rating system is a legacy of the land tax movement of the 1890s, which was inspired by the American writer and activist, Henry George. It is based on the idea that landowners should pay taxes for local improvements that boost land values. If taxes are levied in accordance with land values, it is argued that this results in a fair system for landowners.
To a certain extent then it is probably fair that property owners, who are currently benefiting from a surge in prices, should pay increased rates for municipal services. However, significant increases in rates are unfair on low to middle-income pensioners who are no longer engaged in buying and selling property. Indeed, land value style taxation has long been criticised for being unfair on the elderly with low incomes and relatively valuable homes.
Although some of the rates increase is the fault of city councils, for spending too much money on non-essential services, there have also been unavoidable costs like higher fuel prices and new responsibilities imposed on local government by the state, especially in relation to the RMA.
If the present rating system is to be maintained, there needs to be more rates relief for pensioners. Money for rates relief should come from a capital gains tax levied on property.
Although many politicians have written off a capital gains tax as political suicide, I wonder if they have taken into account that the pool of property owning voters is rapidly declining. An increasing number of younger voters may well be very receptive to a capital gains tax if it is supported by the reserve bank and its benefits are properly explained to voters.
Although capital gains taxes are used in most developed countries I don’t believe New Zealand should adopt a broad capital gains tax that covers all types of capital gains. Such a tax would be a significant disincentive to invest in the country’s stagnating share market.
New Zealand’s relatively equitable rating system could be greatly improved by the addition of a capital gains tax, which would take some of the local Government funding burden off pensioners. This would spread the cost of municipal funding over all tax paying age groups and reduce the current windfall enjoyed by prosperous baby-boomers.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Monday, August 14, 2006
Centrist or Conservative?
Originally, this blog was titled ‘New Zealand Centrist’. I chose that title because I wanted to distinguish my blog from those written by economic libertarians and centre-left liberals. At the time, I was also focusing mainly on economic and environmental issues. In this context, I took issue with mainstream left and right wing pundits that fail to acknowledge limits to such things as population levels, resource consumption and government bureaucracy.
As I have started to focus more on issues like culture, immigration and foreign policy though, the ‘centrist label’ has become a liability. Mainstream dialogue on issues like immigration is almost totally dominated by liberal views of one form or another. Hence, someone who describes him or herself as ‘being in the centre’ is effectively defining themselves as a liberal. As someone who is critical of the core values of liberalism, it would therefore be misleading for me to describe myself as ‘centrist’.
Perhaps the key features of modern liberalism are a failure to acknowledge limits, an aversion to discrimination and a denial of tradition. In moderation, these may be good qualities, but taken too far they can do considerable damage.
In is interesting that few so called ‘right-wing’ bloggers identify themselves as ‘conservatives’. Looking around New Zealand sites, I can’t find any serious bloggers that describe themselves as conservative. Most describe themselves as ‘libertarians’ or ‘defenders of liberty’- clearly such bloggers are still trapped inside a liberal world-view.
Political commentators who define themselves as ‘traditional conservatives’, ‘paleo-conservatives’ or ‘evolutionary conservatives’, are effectively outside mainstream political opinion, even though, in their own minds, they may think of themselves as moderates. However, with liberalism now completing dominating mainstream debate, those who are critical of liberal values needs to have the courage to adopt unpopular, old-fashioned labels like ‘populist’ and ‘conservative’.
In the new blog title I have chose the words ‘alternative’ and ‘conservative’ to differentiate myself from right-wing liberals (aka, ‘libertarians’ and ‘neo-conservatives’) and because my thinking has elements of several non-liberal streams of political thought: ‘traditional conservatism’, ‘evolutionary conservatism’ and elements of progressive populism.
As I have started to focus more on issues like culture, immigration and foreign policy though, the ‘centrist label’ has become a liability. Mainstream dialogue on issues like immigration is almost totally dominated by liberal views of one form or another. Hence, someone who describes him or herself as ‘being in the centre’ is effectively defining themselves as a liberal. As someone who is critical of the core values of liberalism, it would therefore be misleading for me to describe myself as ‘centrist’.
Perhaps the key features of modern liberalism are a failure to acknowledge limits, an aversion to discrimination and a denial of tradition. In moderation, these may be good qualities, but taken too far they can do considerable damage.
In is interesting that few so called ‘right-wing’ bloggers identify themselves as ‘conservatives’. Looking around New Zealand sites, I can’t find any serious bloggers that describe themselves as conservative. Most describe themselves as ‘libertarians’ or ‘defenders of liberty’- clearly such bloggers are still trapped inside a liberal world-view.
Political commentators who define themselves as ‘traditional conservatives’, ‘paleo-conservatives’ or ‘evolutionary conservatives’, are effectively outside mainstream political opinion, even though, in their own minds, they may think of themselves as moderates. However, with liberalism now completing dominating mainstream debate, those who are critical of liberal values needs to have the courage to adopt unpopular, old-fashioned labels like ‘populist’ and ‘conservative’.
In the new blog title I have chose the words ‘alternative’ and ‘conservative’ to differentiate myself from right-wing liberals (aka, ‘libertarians’ and ‘neo-conservatives’) and because my thinking has elements of several non-liberal streams of political thought: ‘traditional conservatism’, ‘evolutionary conservatism’ and elements of progressive populism.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Maori 'Warrior Gene' Controversy
There has been an interesting range of responses to Dr Rod Lea’s theory about Maori having a ‘warrior gene’ for aggressive behaviour.
TV had the most in-depth coverage with Dr Lea being interviewed by John Campbell. Surprisingly, Campbell handled the interview in a pretty unemotional, low-key way, giving Lea plenty of time to respond to his questions. This suggests that TV3 is perceptive enough to realise that there are going to be alot more stories about genetic differences between races and that a lot of politically incorrect findings are likely to emerge.
Perhaps it is beginning to dawn on some liberals that their worldview is now diverging from that of modern science.
However, The New Zealand Herald ran a comments board about the story on its website and anti-scientific hysteria was rampant. It was clear from almost all the responses that any scientific findings that conflict with mainstream liberal values must be automatically discounted. Not a single comment was posted in support of Lea or his research findings.
Neo-conservative commentator Alan Duff has been less hysterical but also makes little sense. Duff tends to blame Maori violence on welfare and illiteracy, and argues that the gene theory can be 'reputiated'. If the threory is scientifically wrong then Duff is free to ignore it. However, he then states that:
Duff seems to be suggesting that scientists should only publicise 'good news' and that 'bad news' should be brushed under the carpet. Society's job is to decide what to do with scientific findings not to deny they exist. According to Duff's logic we should also hid the facts about global warming since 'bad news ' is bad for the global economy.
Interesting, some Maori have taken the view that there may be some truth in Lea’s findings and have decided to take a positive spin on the theory. They are claiming that the gene may have helped Maori to discover New Zealand and survive in a difficult environment. Again though, you can’t pick and chose scientific facts. If a genetic disposition has a positive side it is will often have a negative side as well. This is something modern liberal society has yet to acknowledge.
TV had the most in-depth coverage with Dr Lea being interviewed by John Campbell. Surprisingly, Campbell handled the interview in a pretty unemotional, low-key way, giving Lea plenty of time to respond to his questions. This suggests that TV3 is perceptive enough to realise that there are going to be alot more stories about genetic differences between races and that a lot of politically incorrect findings are likely to emerge.
Perhaps it is beginning to dawn on some liberals that their worldview is now diverging from that of modern science.
However, The New Zealand Herald ran a comments board about the story on its website and anti-scientific hysteria was rampant. It was clear from almost all the responses that any scientific findings that conflict with mainstream liberal values must be automatically discounted. Not a single comment was posted in support of Lea or his research findings.
Neo-conservative commentator Alan Duff has been less hysterical but also makes little sense. Duff tends to blame Maori violence on welfare and illiteracy, and argues that the gene theory can be 'reputiated'. If the threory is scientifically wrong then Duff is free to ignore it. However, he then states that:
'...the last thing we need is another excuse, or another reason for Maori
dominating in the violence stakes and all the bad stats.'
Duff seems to be suggesting that scientists should only publicise 'good news' and that 'bad news' should be brushed under the carpet. Society's job is to decide what to do with scientific findings not to deny they exist. According to Duff's logic we should also hid the facts about global warming since 'bad news ' is bad for the global economy.
Interesting, some Maori have taken the view that there may be some truth in Lea’s findings and have decided to take a positive spin on the theory. They are claiming that the gene may have helped Maori to discover New Zealand and survive in a difficult environment. Again though, you can’t pick and chose scientific facts. If a genetic disposition has a positive side it is will often have a negative side as well. This is something modern liberal society has yet to acknowledge.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Go East Young Man
A cheeky career idea for Mel Gibson
At present, Mel Gibson seems to be desperately trying to mend his relations with Hollywood’s powerful Jewish community. However, rather than putting his time and effort into what may be a very difficult, if not impossible task, perhaps he should make a new start overseas.
Steve Sailer has pointed out that Mel Gibson has an interest in the Ukrainian Holocaust and perhaps he could move to Kiev or Moscow and make a film about it. It’s a lot cheaper to make a film in Eastern Europe, and you don’t need to spend money making costly mock-ups of historical buildings. With Hollywood production savvy, a controversial subject, and a receptive European audience, Mel could be onto a winner with a film about Ukraine in the 1930s.
Kiev in particular, could be a good option for film-making – apparently Kiev is the new Prague for European stag parties and Gibson could supplement his film budgets by timely purchases of Kiev real estate.
Gibson would also make great gossip material for the Exile crowd and certainly boost his internet presence.
However, a word of caution- Mel, don’t make your film/s too good. Well made European films have a habit of bankrupting their producers. For example, the German company that made Enemy at the Gates has gone belly up (how can you go bankrupt making films this good!)Fortunately though, Gibson knows how to add just enough cheese to make a film commercially successful.
At present, Mel Gibson seems to be desperately trying to mend his relations with Hollywood’s powerful Jewish community. However, rather than putting his time and effort into what may be a very difficult, if not impossible task, perhaps he should make a new start overseas.
Steve Sailer has pointed out that Mel Gibson has an interest in the Ukrainian Holocaust and perhaps he could move to Kiev or Moscow and make a film about it. It’s a lot cheaper to make a film in Eastern Europe, and you don’t need to spend money making costly mock-ups of historical buildings. With Hollywood production savvy, a controversial subject, and a receptive European audience, Mel could be onto a winner with a film about Ukraine in the 1930s.
Kiev in particular, could be a good option for film-making – apparently Kiev is the new Prague for European stag parties and Gibson could supplement his film budgets by timely purchases of Kiev real estate.
Gibson would also make great gossip material for the Exile crowd and certainly boost his internet presence.
However, a word of caution- Mel, don’t make your film/s too good. Well made European films have a habit of bankrupting their producers. For example, the German company that made Enemy at the Gates has gone belly up (how can you go bankrupt making films this good!)Fortunately though, Gibson knows how to add just enough cheese to make a film commercially successful.
Friday, August 04, 2006
BBC Bias
Recently, I've been following the international news on Germany’s DW-TV and have noticed a big difference between their reporting and that of the BBC.
In the BBC’s television coverage of the conflict in Lebanon there is an overwhelming focus on emotion over fact. There are continuous images of injured civilians and the odd Israeli tank, yet you almost never see a Hezbollah fighter. Similarly, each bulletin leaves you none the wiser over what is actually going on, and who is actually winning or losing the conflict itself (what’s happened to the British stiff upper lip these days).
Watching DW-TVs coverage is like taking a nostalgia trip back to the 1970s- and in this case, I mean that in a good way. The emphasis on victims is toned down, facts are discussed, maps are shown, and there are actually pictures of Hezbollah fighters, complete with the rockets they are using to bomb Israel.
The DW-TV coverage also tries to address the links between Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. From what I can ascertain, Hezbollah is getting some funding from Iran and acquired quite a lot of Weaponry from Syria before the Syrian withdrawal in 2000. Admittedly, the link between Hezbollah and its Arab neighbours is complex, and DW-TV struggles to address it in its brief news broadcasts and documentaries. However, it does a lot better than the BBC, whose reporters completely avoid the topic. The BBC simply takes Syria’s word for it when it says it has no connection with Hezbollah.
In the BBC coverage of the war in Lebanon it is pretty clear who is in the wrong- Israel, they are the ones in tanks gunning down civilians. If only they would just chill out and negotiate. In contrast, DW-TV acknowledges that the Israelis are in a very difficult situation. Whenever the Israelis withdrew from Lebanon or Palestine it is perceived as weakness in the Arab world and hot-heated groups like Hezbollah treat it as a signal to resume attacks.
The relatively fair and accurate coverage of the war in Lebanon by DW-TV seems quite surprising given the supposedly strong anti-US sentiment in Continental Europe. I wonder if many US neoconservative pundits actually watch DW-TV?
In contrast, Great Britain is supposed to be an ally of the US and Israel, but you wouldn’t guess that from BBC television coverage of the fighting in Lebanon. Sure, Israeli policy in Palestine may be questionable, but surely Hezbollah is the main culprit in the present conflict.
The BBC is really letting itself down in its current coverage of affairs in the Middle East, and judging by its botched broadcasts on the Lebanese conflict, doesn’t really deserve its status as a premier international news provider.
In the BBC’s television coverage of the conflict in Lebanon there is an overwhelming focus on emotion over fact. There are continuous images of injured civilians and the odd Israeli tank, yet you almost never see a Hezbollah fighter. Similarly, each bulletin leaves you none the wiser over what is actually going on, and who is actually winning or losing the conflict itself (what’s happened to the British stiff upper lip these days).
Watching DW-TVs coverage is like taking a nostalgia trip back to the 1970s- and in this case, I mean that in a good way. The emphasis on victims is toned down, facts are discussed, maps are shown, and there are actually pictures of Hezbollah fighters, complete with the rockets they are using to bomb Israel.
The DW-TV coverage also tries to address the links between Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. From what I can ascertain, Hezbollah is getting some funding from Iran and acquired quite a lot of Weaponry from Syria before the Syrian withdrawal in 2000. Admittedly, the link between Hezbollah and its Arab neighbours is complex, and DW-TV struggles to address it in its brief news broadcasts and documentaries. However, it does a lot better than the BBC, whose reporters completely avoid the topic. The BBC simply takes Syria’s word for it when it says it has no connection with Hezbollah.
In the BBC coverage of the war in Lebanon it is pretty clear who is in the wrong- Israel, they are the ones in tanks gunning down civilians. If only they would just chill out and negotiate. In contrast, DW-TV acknowledges that the Israelis are in a very difficult situation. Whenever the Israelis withdrew from Lebanon or Palestine it is perceived as weakness in the Arab world and hot-heated groups like Hezbollah treat it as a signal to resume attacks.
The relatively fair and accurate coverage of the war in Lebanon by DW-TV seems quite surprising given the supposedly strong anti-US sentiment in Continental Europe. I wonder if many US neoconservative pundits actually watch DW-TV?
In contrast, Great Britain is supposed to be an ally of the US and Israel, but you wouldn’t guess that from BBC television coverage of the fighting in Lebanon. Sure, Israeli policy in Palestine may be questionable, but surely Hezbollah is the main culprit in the present conflict.
The BBC is really letting itself down in its current coverage of affairs in the Middle East, and judging by its botched broadcasts on the Lebanese conflict, doesn’t really deserve its status as a premier international news provider.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Nationalism and Its Origins
From a western perspective the attitude of the Hezbollah rebels towards their fellow Lebanese citizens appears pretty callus. However, the current conflict in Lebanon demonstrates that Arabs tend to have a different attitude towards nationalism than people from European backgrounds.
In their determination to inflict damage on Israel, the Hezbollah rebels are provoking the Israeli’s into bombing Lebanese citizens. Since the Israelis are the ones being attacked, and have superior firepower, they are, not surprisingly, inflicting heavy damage on Lebanon. So far the Lebanese casualties have far exceeded Israeli losses, so the Hezbollah rebels are willing to sacrifice a lot their countrymen and infrastructure for a propaganda victory over Israel.
To a Westerner, this seems like a cowardly and wasteful strategy but it is sensible to many Arabs because they place more importance on their religious sect and extended family than on their fellow countrymen. Steve Sailer points out that there is extensive inbreeding in many Arab countries and that the loyalty to the extended family is much stronger than loyalty to the state.
Modern nationalism has its origins in Germanic tribalism and Roman governance and has slowly evolved into its modern form over the last 1500 years. The strongest states in Europe over the last 150 years have been France, Britain and Germany – all states with strong Germanic origins.
Nationalism reached its most infamous excesses in the Third Reich of the 1930s and 1940s. The French state first emerged under the Franks, a Germanic tribe which crossed into Gaul around 4OOAD. The British state was built up by the Anglo-Saxons between 500AD and 1750 at the expense of the less unified Celts.
In modern history books England is portrayed as a multi-cultural melting pot of people from Celtic, Germanic, Latin and Scandinavian backgrounds. However, recent DNA studies indicate that the ‘English’ are predominantly of Germanic origin with roots in Friesland, in what is now Holland. The Germanic English are also quite distinct from the modern Welsh who are of Celtic origin.
Nationalism has never been as strong in Southern Europe. Although the Romans have contributed to the development of the modern state, Rome itself was a city-state. For a developed country, modern Italy is characterised by a high degree of loyalty to the extended family and prosperous Northern Italy is characterised by an unusually high number of small family firms. The Italian state was formed out of necessity in the 19th century to protect the Italian city-states from French domination.
The Western nation state has been difficult to transplant into non-western countries with only a few East Asian countries, like South Korea and Japan, and the odd oil-rich Arabian monarchy, able to establish stable first world states through western-style nation building.
In nationalistic countries loyalty to the state comes before loyalty to the extended family. Nationalistic states tend to excel in warfare as seen in the Naval prowess of the British and Americans, and the tactical competence of the German Army from 1860-1945.
Where dictators of countries without a strong tradition of nationalism, or proto-nationalism, try to develop empires though military force, they usually fail- obvious example, Saddam Hussien.
In weak states with strong families the best military strategy is to adopt guerrilla tactics and use your enemies unity and firepower against them. The more Israel bombs Lebanon, the more support Hezbollah gets from Muslims in Middle-Eastern Countries. This strategy makes perfect sense when you don’t have any loyalty to your country as a whole.
In their determination to inflict damage on Israel, the Hezbollah rebels are provoking the Israeli’s into bombing Lebanese citizens. Since the Israelis are the ones being attacked, and have superior firepower, they are, not surprisingly, inflicting heavy damage on Lebanon. So far the Lebanese casualties have far exceeded Israeli losses, so the Hezbollah rebels are willing to sacrifice a lot their countrymen and infrastructure for a propaganda victory over Israel.
To a Westerner, this seems like a cowardly and wasteful strategy but it is sensible to many Arabs because they place more importance on their religious sect and extended family than on their fellow countrymen. Steve Sailer points out that there is extensive inbreeding in many Arab countries and that the loyalty to the extended family is much stronger than loyalty to the state.
Modern nationalism has its origins in Germanic tribalism and Roman governance and has slowly evolved into its modern form over the last 1500 years. The strongest states in Europe over the last 150 years have been France, Britain and Germany – all states with strong Germanic origins.
Nationalism reached its most infamous excesses in the Third Reich of the 1930s and 1940s. The French state first emerged under the Franks, a Germanic tribe which crossed into Gaul around 4OOAD. The British state was built up by the Anglo-Saxons between 500AD and 1750 at the expense of the less unified Celts.
In modern history books England is portrayed as a multi-cultural melting pot of people from Celtic, Germanic, Latin and Scandinavian backgrounds. However, recent DNA studies indicate that the ‘English’ are predominantly of Germanic origin with roots in Friesland, in what is now Holland. The Germanic English are also quite distinct from the modern Welsh who are of Celtic origin.
Nationalism has never been as strong in Southern Europe. Although the Romans have contributed to the development of the modern state, Rome itself was a city-state. For a developed country, modern Italy is characterised by a high degree of loyalty to the extended family and prosperous Northern Italy is characterised by an unusually high number of small family firms. The Italian state was formed out of necessity in the 19th century to protect the Italian city-states from French domination.
The Western nation state has been difficult to transplant into non-western countries with only a few East Asian countries, like South Korea and Japan, and the odd oil-rich Arabian monarchy, able to establish stable first world states through western-style nation building.
In nationalistic countries loyalty to the state comes before loyalty to the extended family. Nationalistic states tend to excel in warfare as seen in the Naval prowess of the British and Americans, and the tactical competence of the German Army from 1860-1945.
Where dictators of countries without a strong tradition of nationalism, or proto-nationalism, try to develop empires though military force, they usually fail- obvious example, Saddam Hussien.
In weak states with strong families the best military strategy is to adopt guerrilla tactics and use your enemies unity and firepower against them. The more Israel bombs Lebanon, the more support Hezbollah gets from Muslims in Middle-Eastern Countries. This strategy makes perfect sense when you don’t have any loyalty to your country as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
