Lefter

I promised to reveal my own political bent more fully. I’ve been thinking about this for a long time. I could sum it up in one word, but that word is so often grossly misrepresented that I would be doing myself – and you – an injustice.

So I do it in several words, and you can draw your own conclusions.

I place myself on the left, but many who are firmly to the left either do not consider me to be left at all, or consider me deluded. This is due to my having no doctrinaire Marxism or even residual Marxism in my makeup at all. So they find that difficult.

Even left wingers often choose (or worse, don’t choose) to blindly follow a doctrine.

I choose not to blindly follow a doctrine.

I’ve never been a communist. I do agree with many aspects of Socialism – ie, that since the state is a social construct, it should have a regard for the wellbeing of the people inside that state.

I’ve never been right wing. In other words, I do not consider the common man to be placed there for me to exploit and make financial gains from, and to rule with laws. (And besides, I too am a common man.)

But here’s where I differ from most left-wingers: I refuse to accept (or try to refuse to accept) any impetus directed at me without examining it first.

I fundamentally believe in my own right to consider, then accept or reject, any directive that comes my way.

I know – I would be useless in an army. That’s as it should be – and as it should be for any thinking individual. No armies, no wars.

Sometimes I do decide to accede to directives, that’s true. Even to ‘leadership’ for given periods. I am a very loyal person, once I decide to assign that loyalty. I also consider that to be my right. But don’t ever expect me to follow blindly, because I don’t.

So, often I decide to follow societal or legal directives, but I always try and consider them first. How will they effect me? How will this effect others? What will happen if I don’t? If I do?

I view the world as a set of systems. Some systems, on the face of it, are ‘legal’ systems and some are not. Each has its advantages and each has its disadvantages. Each can have moral justifications in different circumstances. I believe in examining everything that comes my way and deciding for myself whether I take part or not. In other words, I refuse to accept a ‘legal’ system over an ‘illegal’ system at face value; ‘just because’ one is one, and the other is ‘other’.

In this way I do not need to suffer guilt if I decide to do something ‘illegal’. I choose, having considered the pluses and minuses and the possible impacts on myself and those around me. And I have to accept any consequences that I am, hopefully, fully aware of.

Legal systems often have the same array of advantages and disadvantages as illegal systems. For example: if I choose to run a business under the laws of the state, I am accepting certain restraints on how I can trade. Like constraints on profit, since I have to pay taxes (which I do willingly, BTW). I can’t undertake fraud, larceny and indulge in stand-over tactics on competitors if I want to exist inside this system. If I do, I am subject to punitive measures mandated by the state. But I am ‘allowed’ to wreck the business prospects of competitors using the many legal means available, depending on how astute and rapacious I am. (A fact I find disturbing.)

Or I can decide to do something illegal. Advantages are no taxes and no restraints, and possible instant gratification. Disadvantages include incarceration, and other punishments, if caught, as well as social and societal disapproval.

(Those are very broad examples.)

Basically, I believe that I have the ability and the intellect to choose what I do, having considered why I would do it. Do you have this belief?

This individually human philosophy is considered anathema by many regimes. It has been thoroughly repressed by states both left and right …

Historically there have been many examples of my philosophy working. When it works, it’s brilliant – no repression. Pure freedom. Thoughtful cooperation.

Of course, I am also a realist. I choose to live in New Zealand; essentially it’s a centre-conservative nation. I choose what I follow and what I don’t follow. I choose which structures to take part in. In some instances I choose to actively further various societal aims, on committees and in volunteer capacities, for example.

In other words, my beliefs don’t mean I drive on the wrong side of the road. That would be stupid and dangerous.

My personal political beliefs are well developed, sound and heartfelt.

I think; I choose.

I’ve found myself writing a lot more about New Zealand politics and the National Party than I perhaps intended when I started this blog.

Sorry. There are bigger issues.

New Zealand’s National Government is not exactly a difficult target – the worrying thing is that it’s pursuing a clearly right-wing agenda and most people seem either blithely ignorant of it (or at least of its long-term ramifications) or just non-caring to the point of stupidity.

Viva typical New Zealanders and their general greed, then.

Probably the National Party is best left to the well-informed office of The Standard and Kiwipolitico.

But I must confess I glance at these but I don’t spend a lot of time reading through the postings.

Why not? Well, I already know my own politics. And I don’t need to be fed Labour’s party line, or the line of the generically Marxist-influenced. In my opinion, Marx had his place — but that was long ago. We’ve moved on. A long way on.

My personal politics revolve around self determination. In other words, I like to determine my own beliefs.

At least, I like to believe that I determine my own beliefs. So I’m not about to tow a party line just because it’s the party line. I’d rather come to my own conclusions, thanks. If I disagree with what you’re saying, I’m not going to support you. And hopefully, I will tell you I disagree.

So whereas I will assist Labour to get into power if I can, as it’s clearly better than National being in power, I don’t feel Labour is the ideal party for New Zealand.

Why not? I believe something similar to what the Maori proverb that says, roughly, ‘go into the future walking backwards so you can see the past’.

I just won’t be walking backwards. But I, too, believe the past is much more significant than most New Zealanders deign to register.

Labour has, in the past, made some really dumb mistakes I never agreed with:

Rogernomics … I could never forgive that.

I think it was wrong to the point of childish stupidity for Labour to alienate the Greens and the Maori Party.

(That said, it’s equally questionable that the Greens and the Maori Party are still carrying grudges. As are some in Labour.)

I think it was really dumb to let National set the agenda in the last two elections. It was so painfully obvious – if I could see it, why couldn’t Labour’s advisors? And what were they being paid? And are they still working for the Labour Party?

And there are many other past issues.

And for now, I think it’s really extra specially dumb, actually, that Labour isn’t grooming its next generation of leaders.

Many of these issues come, in my opinion, from suicidally detrimental small-mindedness.

What do I believe in, then? People co-operating for the common good, and not always putting themselves first. New Zealand creating a place in the world as a beacon of civilisation, no matter how far flung it is geographically. (Lange laid some groundwork for this with our anti-nuclear stance.)

And New Zealand as a beacon of egalitarianism and ingenuity. And independence from international political coercion. And independence from international business coercion (granted, this often amounts to the same thing).

None of this can happen under a right-wing government.

And for my own political position … more on that later.