Now this is funny…

[Hat tip Marginal Revolution]

We are the 99%

[Hat tip Curt Holmes]

Inequality, according to the OECD [updated]

SPEAKING FROM PARIS, PROBABLY between bites of foie gras, the OECD has sniffily suggested that the rich-poor gap widened in the period between the mid-eighties and the mid-nineties, and have stayed that way ever since.

People’s incomes became less equal. That should be no surprise.

It should be no surprise because as folk get wealthier, the gap between higher incomes and lower incomes do become larger. Transplant Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and J.K Rowling to New Zealand, and overnight you raise the “income gap.”  That’s just the nature of arithmetic, I’m afraid. As the income “spread” gets wider, so-called “inequality” increases.

But the news should also be no surprise to New Zealanders in any case, because from the mid-seventies to the mid-eighties Sir Robert Arsehole Muldoon treated everyone equally.

That is to say, he treated everyone like shit.

And so-called “richer” folk got treated more like shit than most, paying capital gains taxes, taxes on higher incomes at around 66%, and “ad hoc” taxes everything from caravans, to lawnmowers to backyard boats—paying and paying just to keep bankrolling Muldoon’s accelerating borrowings, by which means he pretended he was keeping the country above water.

So when Muldoon was removed and the process was begun of removing the shackles he placed on the country, it’s no wonder “income inequality” increased. Because people were finally allowed to get rich. Or at least, not so poor.

That was a good thing. Folk on lower incomes found it somewhat easier to move up to earn higher incomes; folk with good ideas found it easier to get out and make money from them; and folk with capital to invest found it easier to invest and earn money from their investments. It’s called “mobility,” a concept that describes the dynamic situation in which the folk who make up the various income “classes” are constantly churning, constantly changing, constantly being refilled—and the freer the place is, the more easy it is to take advantage of this and move yourself up the pay scales.

It’s one reason so many of this country’s richest folk got there not by breeding but but hard work, why so many are self-made men and women—with the very richest beginning his days as a panel-beater, and now able to buy and sell some of the world’s largest companies.

It’s called mobility, and it’s one-hundred times more important that an enforced equality.

SO THAT WAS WHAT happened from 1985 to 1996, the period the OECD deplores. People got freer, and were allowed to get richer. The OECD’s report writers obviously hate that sort of thing.

The bad thing was what happened afterwards.  What happened afterwards was nothing, for most of the late nineties—which was bad enough since there were still many shackles that remained—and then as the new century dawned new ones were put in place.  And those shackles have stopped the mobility.

By putting even moderate earners on an effective marginal tax rate of 95%, Working for Families has made it harder to increase your take-home income.  By regulating businesses into the ground, governments made it harder and harder to start and run a business.  By telling employers they had to pay youngsters more than they were worth, they made it harder for those youngsters to get their first foothold on the economic ladder.  And by educating youngsters that not offending people is more important than being able to read and write, schools made it harder for youngsters from poorly-educated homes to make themselves employable at all.

Things got worse, not better. This was the decade in which things stood still again. People were made neither more “equal” nor less. It was just made harder to do either.

BUT HERE’S A SIMPLE fact to contemplate, and some of you might have to sit down to take it in: people are not equal.

There, I said it. People are not equal, and their “outcomes” will not be the same. People who run faster will win more gold medals. People who think more acutely will write better software. And people who look hotter will get more sex.

That’s not “injustice.” That’s just reality. And nothing any politician or report writer can do can change that. As Ayn Rand used to say,

If there were such a thing as a passion for equality (not equality de jure, but de facto), it would be obvious to its exponents that there are only two ways to achieve it: either by raising all men to the mountaintop—or by razing the mountains.

Naturally, the exponents of forced equality always end up advocating the latter. In Pol Pot’s Cambodia that translated as emptying the cities of people and killing everyone with the spark of intelligence in their eyes. In today’s political environment, it translates simply as “soak the rich.” And voices are already out there this morning calling for “the rich” to be variously soaked, stolen from and boiled in oil. (Isn’t it amazing how simple envy can make folk lose their marbles.)

AND OTHER VOICES WILL be out there soon, if they’re not out there already, talking perfumed nonsense about how they aren’t for the Procrustean Bed of enforcing equality of outcome—they, these enlightened folk, are interested only on equality of opportunity, by which they mean further violation of individual’s freedom to pursue the many opportunities that reality offers them.

Because reality has no short supply of opportunities, just as long as one is left free to follow them.  Opportunities are everywhere.

  "An opportunity is merely an occasion on which successful action is possible. It is a situation that an individual can take advantage of to his gain.
What needs to be realized about opportunities is, first of all, that there is no scarcity of them; they arise again and again. The second thing that needs to be understood is that what is important in connection with them and deserves to be fought for, as a matter both of justice and universal self-interest, is not that vicious absurdity “the equality of opportunity” but the freedom of opportunity.

Opportunities are everywhere.  It's not the abundance of opportunities that is a problem, but the paucity of vision that is unable to see them.

So it’s not some bogus “equality of opportunity” that folk should think about and promote, it’s freedom of opportunity, by which we mean the ability to exploit the opportunities afforded by reality, without being stopped by government.

That’s what mobility is really all about.

Let’s raise everyone to the mountains.

UPDATE: How much inequality is there in New Zealand anyway?

Quote of the Day: On the “Spending Cap”

John Banks’s Spending cap proposal is pseudo-conservative window
dressing.
Limiting increases in government spending to population growth
and inflation, unless the Finance Minister goes to Parliament. Isn't
that what a finance minister does whenever they present a budget?
                         - Stephen Berry, posting in SOLO’s “Banksification of ACT” thread

Bankers’ secret bailout [update 2]

Remember TARP—the so-called “troubled assets” “relief” programme that cost US taxpayers US $700 billion? The programme that every bank "had to have", but few are now prepared to defend?

Remember those bailouts?

Guess what?

While that money was being shovelled out the front door, a whole new tranche of bailout billions was being ever-so-quietly shovelled out the back.

Did I say billions? What an I talking about.

The amount given away under the veil of secrecy was US$7.77 trillion!

That’s right, US$7.7 trillion. Secretly created by the Fed out of thin air, loaned to the banks at zero interest … and then “borrowed back” at a higher rate in order to help banks who’d stopped bothering even trying to help themselves.

US$7.7 trillion! Just given away.

Sort of puts the failed TARP programme into perspective, huh?

At times like this, you need Jon Stewart.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

[Hat tip David Henderson]

UPDATE 1:  We’ve talked about this before, but in case you’d forgotten about where some of this money went, it went to bailing out two of Australia’s big four banks, on whom our own local banks either lean or are fully-owned subsidiaries of:

… National Australia Bank [ASX: NAB] had to borrow USD$4.5 billion from the US Federal Reserve during 2008 and 2009.
And Westpac Banking Corp [ASX: WBC] needed USD$1.09 billion in January of 2008 and 2009…
Westpac and NAB needed the loans because they were on the verge of going belly up…
For the past two years you’ve had to put up with a constant drone of commentary from the mainstream telling you that Australia’s banks are different… this bombshell from the Federal Reserve proves otherwise. And it proves we at Money Morning Australia have been right to call the Aussie banks for what they are.

UPDATE 2:  The Fed has lashed out at the 'errors' in Bloomberg’s reporting of the secret bailout.  The Fed says Bloomberg falsely reported that $7 trillion was created out of thin air and used to secretly bail out banks.

The Fed is correct: $7 trillion was counterfeited and handed out to the friends of Federal Reserve. The real number is not $7 trillion, it was a mammoth sixteen trillion dollars that was counterfeited and handed out to the friends of Federal Reserve. SOURCE: page 144 of this document: www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf

How to talk like a wanker [updated]

Want to talk like a wanker? Then here’s a list of phrases that will help define you, the most hated buzzwords of 2011, (along with the percentage of people who said they hated it):

1. think outside the box (16%)
2. circle back (15%)
3. synergy (14%)
4. it is what it is (13%)
5. touch base (13%)
6. at the end of the day (13%)
7. let’s take this offline (12%)
8. low-hanging fruit (11%)
9. value-added (11%)
10. proactive (10%)
11. paradigm shift (9%)
12. best practice (9%)
13. going forward (8%)
14. take it to the next level (7%)
15. 30,000-foot view (or any other multi-thousand foot view) (7%)
16. win-win (7%)
17. on the same page (7%)
18. leverage (6%)
19. a lot on my plate (6%)
20. robust (6%)
21. work smarter (5%)
22. impactful (4%)
23. rockstar (4%)
24. holistic (4%)
25. no-brainer (4%)
26. net-net (3%)
27. do whatever it takes (3%)
28. plus-up (2%)
29. flawless execution (1%)

My own top five most-hated have to include “best practice,” “wow factor,” “quality” used to smuggle in conformity, “impact” used as a verb, and “thinking outside the box” used like it means something.

All of these are like nails on a blackboard for me.

And anyone who calls for that last is, by definition, not even capable of it.

[Hat tip Geek Press]

UPDATE:  More sewage:

• “step change” … uughh!

“

Charter schools, what are they? [update 3]

A 2007 Cato Institute podcast interview with Herb Walberg, author of book School Choice: The Findings, summarises the American Charter Schools system.

Here’s two take-home quotes from the discussion:

“competition is good for customers … to the degree to which there is choice … they put pressure on public schools to perform better.”

Hence the teacher unions coming out quickly to protect their patch.

However, it’s not all rosy in the garden. There is

“… a crowd-out effect especially in big cities, where …charter schools tend to be eating up [existing private] schools.”

And

“…in addition to that, parents who … realise their kids are not learning in the public system [remove them] … and so put less pressure on school authorities to improve.”

UPDATE 1:  Libz Applaud Charter School Development

Libertarianz leader Dr Richard McGrath said this morning he was pleasantly surprised by the deal struck between ACT and the National Party which would allow for the introduction of charter schools in New Zealand.
     “This is a significant move away from the tired and out-dated system of state schools, which are little better than juvenile prisons churning out tens of thousands of functionally illiterate youths each year.”
    “My party is particularly impressed by the adherence to principle represented in this radical reform.”
    “National have stuck true [for once] to their core values of individual freedom and choice, personal responsibility, competitive enterprise and limited government. Likewise, ACT’s founding principles state that individuals are the rightful owners of their lives and therefore have inherent rights and responsibilities; also, that the proper purpose of government is to protect such rights and not assume these responsibilities.”
    “While the two Davids flounder about in the wake of the worst election result for Labour in living memory, the two Johns have come up with a breakthrough in education that my party hails as a bold move in the right direction - toward greater ownership of education by students and their parents rather than by teachers’ unions.”
    “Let’s hope John Banks can continue to abide by ACT’s liberal values. The Libertarianz Party will cheer him when he does, and pull him up when he veers away from the path of freedom.”

UPDATE 2:  More comment on Charter Schools from Eric Crampton, Charter Schools:

• First, a note of caution in all the American studies - charter schools operate under regulatory constraints and vehement opposition from American teachers unions, both of which may affect observed results.
• Upshot: charter schools do better, and because they're outside of collective bargaining and because they face the risk of shutting down if parents don't choose to send their kids there.
• Other evidence?
  • In another randomized trial, Caroline Hoxby finds substantial gains for students winning entry to charter schools in New York.
  • New Orleans moved heavily towards charter schools after Katrina; outcomes improved.
• And it's great fun to watch all those who rallied for MMP now whining about post-election coalition deals. You guys should have ticked the box for FPP.

UPDATE 3: Dave Guerin at the Ed Blog has a good roundup,  with links to more blog commentary, of the arguments for and against charter schools.

Families Commission: A good start

TVNZ News: “The Families Commission will remain but the number of commissioners will drop from four down to one…

That’s a good start.

But it’s still one too many.

The bursting of the global housing bubble is only halfway through [updated]

New Zealand homes are overvalued by 25 per cent and the country is one of nine under threat of a housing bubble burst, says the Economist magazine in a report titled “House of Horrors.”

The bursting of the global housing bubble is only halfway through, says the Economist, and next in line to hear the pop will be New Zealand, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Britain, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden.

It described the nine countries as being at the same stage as the United States towards the peak of its housing bubble. And we know how that ended up.

Here’s the Economist’s summary sheet:

Which highlights two things:

• Renters are getting a much better deal than landlords; and
• The Economist’s figures on incomes to home-prices for NZ  is very different to those found by Demographia in their annual reports…

Perhaps the Black Caps were watching Chris Martin videos?

Perhaps the Black Caps were watching Chris Martin batting videos?

That can surely be the only explanation for what happened in their second innings against Australia?

[Hat tip Tim Blair]

History of war in pictures: 1000 years of conflict in five minutes

It’s not entirely accurate , but this graphic presentation of the wars and battles of the last thousand years—with explosions (not always) showing the number of casualties—is sobering viewing.

Since the birth of history, men have been finding reasons to kill other men en masse and to gain values by conquest.

They never have.  They have succeeded only in destroying values, and lives.

“If men want to oppose war,” argued Ayn Rand, “it is statism that they must oppose. So long as they hold the tribal notion that the individual is sacrificial fodder for the collective, that some men have the right to rule others by force, and that some (any) alleged ‘good’ can justify it -- there can be no peace within a nation and no peace among nations.”

Herewith, Exhibit A:

Herald: “a new liberal party seems the only viable solution”

The Herald editorial writers weigh in the future for ACT and its members under John Banks, concluding “a new liberal party seems the only viable solution”:

Act's lone MP, John Banks, has been making all the right noises about the party's negotiations for a confidence and supply deal with National. There would be gains for Act in the areas of "choice, responsibility and private enterprise", he said after a second round of talks with John Key. The wording was designed to emphasise Mr Banks' affinity with Act's founding principles, and to draw attention away from his previous existence as a Cabinet minister in two National governments. He was, in effect, trying to persuade Act's dwindling number of supporters that he was one of them. It would be understandable if few were convinced…
    His true colours were revealed when Dr Brash backed the decriminalisation of the personal use of cannabis. This advocacy tallied with Act's promotion of individual freedom and personal responsibility. It was to be expected from a party that embraced classic liberalism. Yet Dr Brash's initiative was rejected out of hand by Mr Banks, confirming that he was very much a social conservative.

A social conservative who only joined the party to get National across the line. Now that it has …

 Act exists in name only…. 
     The party's brand has been badly tarnished by a succession of scandals.. Now its only MP does not fit the Act mould. There appears every reason for the supporters of its principles to call it quits and establish a new liberal party. They could do so in the knowledge that there will always be a niche constituency for their core philosophy…
    It has been suggested that Mr Banks, for his part, would fit far more snugly with the Conservative Party… If Mr Banks were to leave Act and join the Conservative Party, it would, in many ways, serve the interests of both parties…
    [In any case, as Stephen] Whittington has intimated, Act appears beyond repair. A new liberal party seems the only viable solution.

I agree. And I’m prepared to be part of it.

Why?

Because the ideas and principles that powered both Libertarianz and the ACT Party* are too important to die—as they will do under Banks. Members of both parties, me included, now need to accept that we’ve done a poor job in our respective parties of promoting those principles.

But this is the low point. We can learn from what went wrong with both parties, and from their ashes commit to doing a better job this time.

Who’s with me?

* * * *

* That powered both parties? Well, yes. The ACT Party’s principles were written by Ian Fraser, who left the ACT Party before its first election to found Libertarianz (where he expanded on them). Those principles are as important now as when he first wrote them:

• that individuals are the rightful owners of their own lives and therefore have inherent rights and responsibilities; and
• that the proper purpose of government is to protect such rights and not to assume such responsibilities.

If a new party can’t coalesce around those principles wHile learning the lessons of the past, there’s something wrong.

Project ACT is over, bar the shouting [updated]

Former ACT candidate Stephen Whittington has now said what was obvious as soon as the good ship ACT crossed the finish line last Saturday with only party hopper John Banks inside the boat: that Project ACT is over.

On his Facebook page Mr Whittington called Mr Banks "economically ignorant and interventionist", in response to the Epsom MP's comments opening the door to Conservative Party leader Colin Craig…
    "Banks' post-election comments [on Mr Craig] certainly clarify that there is no liberal future in the Act Party.”

And nor is there, as Whittington himself made clear enough in his election night speech to his own supporters:

The media will report that the ACT Party has hung on.  In reality, John Banks, with the resources of the ACT Party thrown behind him in Epsom, has hung on.  ACT, a liberal party now represented by an MP who has such questionable views on homosexuals and ethnic minorities, and sees it as his personal mission to suck up to National as much as possible, exists in name only…

This is hardly just Whittington’s opinion, it is the opinion of many others as well.

And it’s not just opinion: it’s a simple statement of fact. 

Sure, now it can hold its caucus meetings on the back of John Banks’s Harley the ACT caucus is going to be free of all its traditional infighting. But a party-of-one represented only by a bigot and a spendthrift (an overspending mayor, he left the Auckland council nearly one billion dollars in debt) is not a natural  repository for social and economic liberalism.

The ACT Party is now the Banks Party. Having failed to get a second MP into Parliament, the brand of ACT will be the brand of Banks.

Which leaves long-term ACT supporters having to ask themselves what they were in politics for, and what they are loyal to:

• are they loyal to liberty and the ideas of social and economic liberalism, and they voice they thought promoted them?; or
• are they simply loyal to the ACT flag, regardless of who is carrying it and what that flag flies over?

Whittington’s own answer seems to be that those loyal to liberty and the ideas of social and economic liberalism need to recognise reality and find (or make for themselves) a new home.

Which leaves feral ACT flag-flyers like Cactus Kate incensed. On her blog yesterday, she threw a tantrum. She attacked former hero Whittington (who only weeks ago she was talking up) and told former colleagues “if you don't like where ACT is headed, stay around and be constructive and work with John Banks.”

But why would you?

With the captaincy of Banks, ACT is already dead and buried. It has no unique voice, and no more fundamental reason to exist than the Peter Dunne Party.

And with Banks at the helm, ACT  is already on the the rocks as a vehicle for social and economic liberalism. So the only reason to stay around and work with Banks is to support Banks. Which means to help bury both ideas.

That might be okay for ACT tribalists like Cactus who just like waving a yellow flag. But for those who got into ACT because they value freedom and responsibility and who saw ACT as the repository for those values, then the time has come to confront reality. Time to move on.

Time to find (or build) a new vehicle.

UPDATE:  No surprises about Cactus’s tantrum. As a one-time deputy leader of ACT once observed,

Act sees [politics] as primitive combat, with a need to destroy a colleague's reputation to justify an otherwise inexplicable decision.

Or as I’ve often said about those in politics who eschew ideas:

…For them, politics isn’t  a battle of ideas, it is a battle of warring political tribes.

Time for intelligent people to put the toxicity, tantrums and tribalism aside, and focus on the bigger goal.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: On John Banks & ACT

“The likelihood of Banks transforming himself into a standard-bearer for [ACT’s] values and principles is as great as that of Ahmadinejad converting to Judaism.”
                 - Lindsay Perigo, from his post “The Mortification of ACT: Malpractice by Cactus”

A new political alliance?

Guest post by Mark Tammett

As the recent Christchurch earthquakes amply demonstrated, an emergency often brings out the best in people . In these situations individuals tend to put aside their differences and spontaneously co-operate to address the common threat to life and property – whether that be pulling co-workers out of the rubble, delivering food to strangers, or helping to shovel out liquefied muck from their neighbours' driveways. Folk exhibit a focus and determination that’s often not seen in their daily lives.

These situations provide an object lesson in what can be achieved by individuals identifying a common goal and putting aside their differences. The co-operation may be only limited, or even temporary, but tangible gains can thus be made.

In a way, all large and successful companies have to achieve a similar outcome. In a small business you might be lucky enough that every person you work alongside has compatible ethics and personality type. In a big corporation this is never going to happen; statistically it’s not going to happen – and certain people just aren’t going to get on. So it comes down to how senior management can channel those differences towards a common goal – in a way that allows both the goals of the company and those of disparate individuals to be achieved. Two individuals may not like each other, and outside of work want nothing at all to do with each other, but they will co-operate and function with each other effectively if they have a common goal within the business.

In a political context, we face a similar threat to our life and property that’s almost as serious as the earthquake. That threat is runaway government expenditure, and the seeming inability of the large political parties to address the train wreck that is surely coming. Our current welfare state is unsustainable, and is an historical anomaly that cannot continue for much longer. Either it goes, or our relative prosperity has to go.

A large number of individuals in New Zealand are aware of this threat, and to varying degrees want to do something about it. In voting behaviour or political affiliation they are spread across a range of parties – Libertarianz, ACT, Conservatives, and perhaps even a reasonable proportion of (very quiet) Nationals. I would estimate that individuals in this category comprise perhaps 10-15% of the voting public.

However they also disagree on a lot as well. Which means at election time, votes get dispersed and made ineffectual. They are either spread amongst the smaller parties so their vote is less than the 5% thresh-hold - or in the case of the Nationals, buried under the pragmatism of the party machine, which places priority on getting elected ahead of anything else.

The political party that aligns most with my beliefs is Libertarianz. However with their radical agenda I struggle to see getting elected in my lifetime. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am. They present consistent policy on a wide range of issues, but for most voters it’s too big a chunk to digest. Even if people agree with the gist of it, they struggle to see how we can practically go from what we have now to what Libz proposes. So they cast their vote elsewhere.

By the same token, I don’t believe toning down the message is the right solution either. The average voter may know nothing at all about explicit political philosophy, and have no inkling at all of the unsustainability of our welfare state – but they can  sense insincerity a mile off. If you don’t say what you mean and mean what you say, people will know. You cannot ‘trick’ people into freedom. If you try, voters will sense you’re hiding something, and run a mile – and that I think largely explains the current unpopularity of ACT.

So what do we do then? We want to encourage co-operation in a political context, so we can make some real and tangible gains in rolling back the state. But we can’t afford to to ‘tone-down’ or moderate our true beliefs either.

Well here’s one scenario that I can see which is realistic, and starts to roll back the stage from the 2014 election onwards:

1. We form a new political alliance. Not a new party, but a new alliance. For instance, and purely for the sake of this discussion let’s call it GERA – the Government Expenditure Reduction Alliance.
2. This new alliance is focused on achieving a limited and tangible objective: confronting the biggest ‘emergency’ of our current era by drastically reducing government expenditure. We invite a variety of parties to put aside the things we don’t agree on, and be part of this alliance for the 2014 election. It might include Libertarianz, ACT, and even the Conservatives.
3. Outside of the election campaign, each party, or even individuals within each party continues to focus on whatever issues are important to them. These may be consistent, or they may be inconsistent (depending on your viewpoint). In the case of certain Libz members it may be marijuana legalisation and abolition of the RMA; for ACT the removal of business red tape; for Conservatives the dangers of the ‘demon drink.’ Whatever – to each their own. Unlike the big parties we don’t try to pretend we agree on everything.
4. However when it comes to the election campaign, we put aside those differences, and campaign on the earthquake-sized economic disaster and the one objective we all do agree on – runaway government expenditure.
5. GERA’s specific policy for the 2014 election campaign would need to clear and consistent, and also very concrete and specific. Something the average person can clearly understand. For instance it might be a reduction in government expenditure by 10%, or 20 or 25%, via the elimination of specified government departments, all of which are listed and costed out in detail – combined with a reduction in all tax brackets by 2% (or ten) percent across the board. It’s a modest goal, but something that’s politically realistic in the short term – and attacks the government departments or services that most people can do without.
6. GERA makes it known that if they achieve MP’s, they will not compromise on any level on this policy. Not one iota. If any of the major parties needs their support to form a government, they will have to implement GERA’s policies in total. The GERA platform is modest in terms of our ultimate goal, but it’s a pill that the bigger parties will be able to swallow it if they have to.
7. I can easily imagine GERA getting 5-10% of the party vote, perhaps 10-15% - and I can easily imagine them holding the balance of power.
8. One of the major parties agrees to form a government with GERA, on the basis that GERA will not compromise on their limited bottom line. GERA’s policy is implemented, and we start the process of rolling back the state.
9. Next election GERA comes up, and we redraft another specific policy platform that continues with further changes in the right direction. We continue to roll back the state incrementally because we can command enough vote to hold the balance of the power.

Sounds easy doesn’t it? And it is.

There is at least one challenge I can see with this, however, something that requires a bit more thought. How would we deal with voting on other matters put before parliament - issues that all members wouldn’t agree on? For instance if a law proposing some form of alcohol prohibition was proposed by the major governing party - Conservatives might be in favour, but Libz would be against. Or the converse would apply if a law providing for liberalization of marijuana were before parliament. If we’re to keep the alliance together, how do we handle this?

One option I can see is that we have the following simple rule: all GERA MP’s will abstain from voting on any issue that is not part of the core GERA platform for that election. This ensures that all members of GERA, and all voters who gave their vote to GERA cannot end up assisting a law they don’t agree with. The result will be same as if the GERA MP’S weren’t there – which is what would happen anyway if GERA was never formed.

Some might protest that this approach is only tinkering. That it doesn’t achieve the radical overhaul needed. Well of course it doesn’t, but it’s at tangible first step. How do you eat an elephant? One mouthful at a time. More importantly, it sets the scene for further and more significant change in latter years. If the average voter doesn’t miss the government departments we abolish in 2014, and can see the tangible benefit of the tax cut in their pay cheque every week, they’ll be motivated to vote for more of the same next election. Along the way, they might start to learn about individual freedom, and why it’s consistent to apply that principle across the board.

It’s often said that political change can only happen once the required philosophical change has happened within people’s heads. I largely agree with this sentiment, but I would add an important qualification: this is not a linear process. Most people do not change their philosophy as a result of reading or listening to speeches, and then go out and implement that in practice. They learn from both hearing the philosophic theory and seeing the results of that theory in concrete practice. A good philosophy encourages good politics, but good politics also encourages good philosophy. People need to see with the tangible benefits of freedom in their own lives.

The scenario I’ve outlined would set up a virtuous circle - whereby people would see the concrete results of greater individual freedom, even if it was only in a limited context. This would encourage philosophic change that was sympathetic to more freedom, which encourages more political change, and so it would go on.

Mark Tammett is a Christchurch engineer and long-time liberty advocate.

Burlingham house, El Paso Texas, by Frank Lloyd Wright

Very much not a Frank Lloyd Wright house, yet it is exactly that. Well, sort of.

His only house designed using south-west USA’s indigenous adobe construction, Wright designed the house in 1941 as a modest 2400 square foot house to complement the rolling sands that

piled [the site] with sweeping sands, continually drifting in swirling lines that suggest waves of the sea.

It was finally built in 1985, 26 years after Wright’s death, as “a 4,900-square-foot sprawler .. [with] a swimming pool and underground garage” in a park-like setting that wouldn’t disgrace Pakuranga.

Not exactly what the great man had in mind.

Nonetheless, it is officially the world’s only Wright-designed adobe house.  And you can own it for just US$4.75 million.