OPINION
The Doctor
G. Edward Griffin is a living legend. His magnum opus: A Creature from Jekyll Island, should be required reading for everyone. But central banking is a topic for another day. Today, I want to outline Mr Griffin’s lucid framework for analysing contemporary politics.
Many of you will have noticed that the traditional left-right paradigm has not provided much insight into politics, politicians and their objectives since the late 20th century. Here in New Zealand Labour and National closely resemble each other. No matter which wing we pick, the bird continues its inevitable journey toward…what? We are not sure. UN Agenda 2030? Perhaps. We need a framework to analyse what is really going on here.
According to Mr Griffin, instead of left and right, we should make a distinction between collectivism and individualism. Collectivism is the idea that the individual should be sacrificed for the good of the group. “The greater good for the greater number” is its moral calculus. Included in collectivism are all the ideologies we love to hate such as communism and socialism. But it also includes fascism and utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a collectivist system of ethics that is widely taught in the contemporary West (but without the label) and it was used to justify all those horrible Covid restrictions and mandates. You’ll note that fascism is also collectivist. It is normally portrayed as the extreme right-wing and the enemy of communism. We are asked to choose between milder versions of the communist left and the fascist right but both are collectivist. So either way, we end up with collectivism.
In New Zealand, I would argue that the iwi system is collectivist in ideology. The individual Maori man (male or female) is expected to give up his individual betterment for the good of the iwi or hapu or other such group.
The alternative to all this collectivism is individualism. Individualism says that the good of the individual outweighs the good of the group. And many erudite philosophers such as Adam Smith have argued that if men make decisions in their own individual interests then those decisions taken together improve society. Individualism emphasises individual rights that should not be overruled by the supposed needs of the group.
Hence we now have a convenient framework for analysing policy. Those policies that increase individual decision-making, autonomy and rights at the expense of the collective (whether that be the state, the central bank, the iwi, the NGO or the independent agency) are to be pursued. Those policies that weaken the individual and strengthen collectivist institutions should be resisted.
Mr Griffin does not go into why individualism is preferable to collectivism. His American pragmatism and individualist tradition make it self-evident for many of his readers. But the American founding fathers discussed it a great deal. Collectivism is prone to corruption and has no firewalls. You see, no matter how well-intentioned a collectivist institution is, ultimately one man (male or female) has to make a decision, and that decision binds the whole group. Thus by corrupting one man (or by him placing his personal interests above that of the group), an enemy can affect the whole group.
Also, none of us are perfect. And many bad decisions are made every day. If an individual makes a bad decision it will affect him, his family and a limited set of people around him. But if a collectivist decision maker makes a bad decision then that affects the whole group. The more centralised decision-making becomes, the worse this problem becomes. This issue is quite often expressed as the “who decides” criticism of collectivist policies. If you have to ask “who decides” then it is probably a bad policy.
Of course, there is a lot more to this than can be covered in one short article. I encourage the reader to read Mr Griffin’s books. A World Without Cancer is a favourite of mine. Published in the 1970s but still as relevant as ever.