New Zealand First -- No More
Libertarianism & David Seymour Roll The Government Agenda Along As Winston Keeps Quiet. Luxon joins the Train Enthusiastically.
Yesterday, Trump pardoned the founder of Silk Road - a criminal website designed to anonymously trade illicit drugs, weapons and services.
The individual had been jailed for life in 2015 after an FBI sting.
But libertarian interest groups had lobbied Donald Trump, saying it was “government overreach” to imprison the man, and so, as one of his first acts as second term President, Trump pardoned the individual unconditionally.
Libertarianism is of course the ideology that ACT touts - as does Stuff columnist Damien Grant, and the entire Atlas Network.
Peter Thiel too - whose plans to build an 1800 sqm luxury lodge overlooking Wanaka Lakes, was rejected by NZ’s Environment Court. Queenstown District Local Council was also slammed in the process.
I’m going to guess that Thiel is probably not used to hearing “no” in these matters.
But New Zealand’s Environment Court and other parts of the NZ judiciary, including the now de-toothed Waitangi Tribunal, have a proud history of strength, and the protection of NZ’s once core interests - our environment, our communities, our people, our lands, and commitments.
But libertarianism rejects that role.
After all, it’s essentially a group that claims government and the ‘state’ shouldn’t intervene in “personal liberty”, “property rights”, “prosperity” and “freedom”.1
These stated ideals provide an excuse for them to lobby governments to loosen or change laws that don’t serve libertarianism e.g by weakening environmental or worker protections by calling them “red and green tape”.
But policy ideas premised on e.g. cutting red tape have also led to disasters like UK’s Greenfell Towers incident.
Ironically, these same libertarians will commonly implement and enforce laws that benefit their donors/backers e.g push to lower or eliminate taxes for the wealthy and corporate class, or implement policies to favour certain industries and groups
Example - in New Zealand, we’ve seen some of them push hard to benefit landlords and the ECE sector businesses despite the latter policies putting children at “risk” (1News’s December 2024 article on that topic appears to have been wiped from its website)
We can summarise it this way - it’s uber wealthy people running their demands, and in New Zealand, we have the same type of ‘loyal workers’ in government as the US, who are willing to help these uber wealthy - in my personal opinion.
The fact that libertarians were able to get Trump to release their model criminal so early on speaks to their immense power and reach - because of course - it’s a big-money system, isn’t it?
Some people on the left begrudge and attack capitalism, but parts such as healthy and free competition, innovation, risks and rewards, and the like, are not negative aspects in and of themselves.
It’s when the system becomes convoluted, our society’s values and ways of being one-eyed, and resources overweighted towards the few who would game it for their own means - and effectively have infinite resources to do so - that we have the issues we are now seeing.
Of note, the issues were always there - we were all told of them before. But it somehow takes the farcical nature of current politics for many of us to finally take note. That in and of itself, is not a bad thing.
These wealthiest game the system through techniques such: as creating large numbers of special purpose organisations to push political purposes - these include junk tanks, lobbyists, corrupt researchers, they fund disinformation campaigns e.g. on climate denial, run and manipulate media, channel large sums of money through dark money webs, and subsequently, even buy entire government politicians to do their will.
Dr Neal Curtis, who wrote: “The corporate class takes over America” for Newsroom yesterday had this in an unedited piece:
Libertarianism wouldn’t be a huge problem if it was consistent to its stated aims, but in my opinion, it is a danger because it’s used as pretext by some of the wealthiest to do what they will.
As Curtis notes, Peter Thiel, the libertarian, once said freedom and democracy are not compatible.
And if libertarians like David Seymour are all about freedom — well, you do the translation.
This government has 23 more months, give or take, of direct control - and judging by the speed and way it’s done things, it will get it done.
If it’s successful to its aims, by the time it’s finished, no government “red tape” or Māori Treaty, or pesky judiciary, should hold folks such as Peter Thiel back.
That’s the idea and culmination of multiple legislative changes, including the Regulatory Standards Bill, Treaty Principles Bill, Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (see below), Crime (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill etc.
The changes they are making are intentional, and will be effective for libertarianism.
EXTRAS
Overseas Investment Act Changes:
This Ministerial Directive from Seymour directs government to, among other things, accept without verification “statutory declarations” from applicants that want to acquire sensitive NZ assets and carry out “less verification” on the majority of supposed low risk applications.
It also aims to “fast-track” applications on our sensitive lands, companies, and assets.
Interestingly Winston Peters, who pushed back against wealthy foreign buyers buying up our property in Coalition talks, quickly reversed gear in 2024, telling Bloomberg he was open to it under certain circumstances i.e. if the big money came.
And judging by the OIA changes, selling NZ assets and sensitive land is no longer a primary concern to NZ First or Winston Peters.
Have no doubt. The big money is here.
Video
Michael Leunig Cartoon
These are core ideals embedded within the “dangerous” Regulatory Standards Bill - covered by Melanie Nelson and Jane Kelsey
Libertarianism essentially means freedom for the rich. If everyone can do whatever they want with minimal limits and obligations to consider the good of the collective, this ties personal freedoms to personal resources. Rich people can afford to do whatever they want — so they are more free.
It’s a bit like the inequality inherent to fines, but as an entire economic system. For a poor person, a fine is a deterrent. For a rich person, it’s a fee for breaking the law. Libertarianism seeks to present rights as unilaterally granted, rather than a constant negotiation of give and take that moderates society. It’s about what you’re entitled to, not what is good for the whole. Hence the extreme emphasis on property rights.
Rights are for the rich, when you’re a libertarian. Oh sure, the poor HAVE rights — after all, it’s about equal rights!!
But those rights turn out to be MUCH less equal if you don’t have the resources to enforce and utilise them.
Your commentaries are superb. They need widespread reading . It’s time New Zealand woke up.in fact it’s overdue.