Joe Spencer
The topic of co-governance and one person one vote has been in the headlines. A lot of folks seem worried that their future votes will no longer be as potent as their votes once were. Democracy, as they knew it, is beginning to dissolve.
There most definitely appears to be a divergence from the typical understanding of how democratic statism functions. We always believed we were equal in the eyes of the state, though this was never really true, as governments have always had a sweet spot for special interests that can align themselves to leverage more power or influence.
Perhaps this is an appropriate moment for New Zealand society to change the conversation. To expand it beyond the 3×5 card of allowed opinion, to drag it outside the finely controlled confines of acceptable political discourse and beat it about with a stick for a while.
It’s probably fair to assume that, in general, we don’t want others to have more power over us than we have over them. Sure, there will always be a few weirdos who like to be submissive serfs but on average we like to be considered at least equally in power and as much as possible, to feel in control of our destiny. We appreciate our God-given free will, even though often it scares us a little.
But statism was never designed to be such an ideology. Its functions are expertly crafted to mould us into a society of unequal classes. No matter the branding, in a nation state there is always a class of people who make decrees and policy: the king, presidents or the parliament. Under them is a class of enforcers. The enforcement class come in different shapes and sizes, but ultimately they bring the police, the policy enforcement officers to execute their final demands, to keep things in society regular, or as we usually call it “regulation”.
And then at the bottom, is where we sit. You and I. The Governed.
Unlike other forms of statism, democratic statism conveniently blurs the lines between the three classes. The governed are led to believe they ARE the government, they are most often given a voting share in the corporation, and for that privilege, a “fair share” of what they produce is demanded in return, or else.
The enforcers are recruited from within the Governed, usually with the promise of special privileges and often higher social regard. On rare occasions, however, the governed can rise to the top tier, and usually after kissing the rings of a number of special interests, can take a seat in the parliament.
This may sound like a rather cynical view of democracy. And I guess it is. At its core though, just like all other forms of tyranny, a tyranny of the majority remains unethical, and perhaps evil. It is however only a matter of time before the voting majority catches on to the fact that the elegance of the governing and enforcement classes is not actually aligned to the governed, but instead to the special interests that aided in propelling the politicians into their positions of power in the first place. This only becomes more apparent by the day. The elite are becoming more and more brazen.
Perhaps now is a good point to step out of that 3×5 card of allowed opinion. Let’s now ask ourselves, do we actually want to live in a society of such classes? Does that align with our personal ethics? Do we really believe in our hearts that using force to control our neighbours is moral? Do we want threats to be used to keep things ‘regular’ in society? And are the promises of the state really worth the inevitable costs that centralised monopolies always bring?
We’ve accepted these things as normal, but do we really believe they are right? I posit that no, these are not acceptable costs, and the methods are not right.
Acting as an individual I would never use threats to control others. I would definitely never seek to keep things “regular”; diversity of competing ideas and the execution of these ideas into reality is important in developing a vibrant and prosperous society. And please don’t even get me started on monopolies.
So if these methods are wrong, and we agree that as individuals we would never behave as the state does, why then does it even matter if the ratio of power is slanted? Surely if we wouldn’t ourselves pick up the tools being applied by the enforcers, we shouldn’t then make an attempt at leveraging this form of power? Acting in line with our beliefs would have us relinquish that power, that vote, altogether wouldn’t it?
New Zealand society historically has been generous, clever and hard-working. Yes, these are traits that are fading in the shadow of an ever-growing socialist state, they have been for many decades now, but I believe a remnant exists.
I propose a return to the old ways. Let’s adopt an attitude of radical localism. Reject centralisation in all forms. Stop asking for permission. Though easier said than done, when the enforcers make threats, do not comply willingly, make them work for it. Stop engaging with governments and councils. Deal ONLY with individuals and private businesses. If you see a problem, team up with other individuals to fix it. Don’t send a letter to your council or ‘representative’; that will only encourage them! Better yet build a business solution around it as that way we all win.
Create strong relationships with your neighbours. You can more often rely on them and they on you, but the police may take hours to come to your aid and at what cost?
Go out and join a church, a club or a knitting circle. We need these networks of support more than we need a nanny state. And when conflicts arise, as they always will, be humble, seek to de-escalate and focus on finding common ground.
Taking back the power from the governing class only starts when we reject the ideology of statism and actively take back our independence, our self-sovereignty.
Forget radical socialism, let’s make radical localism the norm in NZ again!