Comment: In a Newsroom article, ‘Hayek’s Bastards,’ 18 months ago, I examined the origins and modus operandi of neo-liberal ideologies, including some so extreme that it seemed unlikely they could take hold in New Zealand.
There were the ideas of Curtis Yarvin in the US, for instance, who argues that government should entirely be run as a business and the nation state replaced by a ‘sovcorp’ or ‘sovereign corporate republic,’ with a sovereign CE.
This has come to pass in the US, with Donald Trump as a deal-making CE who surrounds himself with the trappings of sovereignty, including gilt-laden ballrooms, obsequious courtiers, and disastrous foreign wars.
In New Zealand, our version is more modest, with a Prime Minister less able to insist on the gilt-laden trappings. Nevertheless, Christopher Luxon clearly sees himself as running a government as a business, with citizens as customers and himself as a CE.
In business, however, the best customer is a wealthy one, while one without money is worthless, commercially speaking. A good CE will cultivate wealthy customers, and give them special privileges, but only for those who can pay.
One can see how a PM who sees themselves as a CE, and whose former business offers different standards of service to customers according to their ability to pay – First Class, Business Class, Premium Economy and Economy (ignoring those who can’t afford to fly) – might think that this logic is still relevant.
This is a basic category mistake, however. Unlike businesses, governments pass laws that apply to everyone, and in a democracy, these are supposed to serve the interests of as many citizens as possible, not just the wealthy and powerful. In a democracy, too, every citizen is supposed to have an equal say in how the country is run.
If a PM who sees himself as a CE of a corporation starts offering special privileges to wealthy ‘customers’ – for instance, the right to draft laws that serve their own interests, and have them enacted by Parliament (eg. in the recent climate law lobbying scandal, one can see how quickly that might lead to a collapse of faith in democracy.
This no doubt explains the elaborate efforts made to hide the special law-making privileges offered to Fonterra and Z Energy in that case – the use of private emails and hand-delivered documents to the Prime Minister’s office, the failure to disclose these under the OIA, the failure to see how wrong this is. It is a clear example of how quickly democratic principles and practices can be corrupted.
It also makes sense of the role of a former staff member of the New Zealand Initiative – a think tank funded by corporations – as the Chief Policy Advisor in the Prime Minister’s Office responsible for these efforts.
The other side of this coin is even less attractive – the dismissal of ‘customers’ who are not wealthy. If you are running a country as a CE of a business, then ‘customers’ who lack the ability to pay aren’t worthy of serious attention – the disabled, the homeless, those on welfare, children living in poverty – even if your own policies are responsible for their predicament.
If the wealthy and successful have greater value than others, then a Prime Minister or a cabinet minister might well think that since they’re wealthy and successful, they themselves are entitled to privileges that they then deny to others – a state-funded accommodation allowance, for instance, or a wide variety of other state-funded perks and benefits.
The key point is that this isn’t just a defect in personal morality. Its all of a piece with a philosophy that sees life as a pursuit of personal advantage, in which those who succeed are entitled to their privileges, while others might deserve nothing, not even a place to live or enough food to eat – including children whose parents are struggling.
The coalition government calls it ‘tough love.’ I call it cruel, and a quick way to destroy a healthy society.
When Peter Thiel, a US billionaire, New Zealand citizen and libertarian thinker (also quoted in the ‘Hayek’s Bastards’ article), says that ‘I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,’ I agree.
The idea of unfettered freedoms for wealthy elites is incompatible with human rights in a democratic society. Its also mistaken, and non-adaptive.
Humans are social animals. From birth onwards, we rely on the care of others. Groups that work together to learn how to survive in a changing world achieve far more than individuals ever could on their own, for health, happiness and prosperity – hence language, culture and social organisation. It’s our basic adaptive advantage as Homo Sapiens.
Individuals who care only for themselves, blind to the impact of their desires on others, harm or destroy the relations that bind families and communities together. They’re described as narcissists or sociopaths for this reason, inimical to the health and happiness of others.
Its not surprising, then, that neo-liberalism’s attempt to turn self-interest into a philosophy for conducting human affairs has proved to be a non-adaptive disaster. It attempts to unwind those collective efforts that have led to human success and survival.
As many others have shown, this denial of the fundamental need to care for others has led to an extreme concentration of wealth, alongside poverty and misery for many, social pathologies and the unravelling of the earth systems that support human life on the planet.
It also helps to explain the rise of leaders who are arrogant and self-important at best, and narcissistic dictators at worst. No one in their right minds would support such a philosophy, if they could see clearly how it works, and for whom.
That’s why those few who do benefit – at least in the short term – spend such huge amounts of money to control the levers of power, whether by donations and favours to politicians, or by purchasing and controlling media and ‘think tanks’ to silence critics, spreading confusion and casting doubt on the alternatives.
The alternatives do exist, however, and the sooner we explore them in New Zealand, the better.
First, we need leaders who understand that they are there to deliver health, prosperity and happiness to as many citizens as possible, not just the wealthy and privileged.
Second, those leaders need to put this philosophy into action, strengthening and upholding democratic principles and practices as a matter of urgency.
To achieve this, proper restraints must be put on lobbying, corporate donations and disproportionate access to governance, in the interests of all New Zealanders, not just the wealthy and powerful.
Citizens’ assemblies and select committees should be deployed to foster full participation in democratic decision-making, and restore faith in democracy.
Politicians must also consider whether the privileges and benefits they allocate to themselves are fair and proportionate to those enjoyed by other New Zealanders.
Third, those leaders need to strengthen civil society in New Zealand in every way possible, in families, local government, hapū, charitable organisations and societies, rather than trying to centralise power and decision-making in Wellington.
That centralising tendency in itself is a sign of arrogance, among politicians of all political stripes. They think they know better than those they’re supposed to represent, and that often leads to their worst failures.
Fourth, they should look at initiatives elsewhere in the world that strengthen and restore genuine democracy, care for people and land, and tax in ways that are fair and benefit as many citizens as possible, rather than offering private advantage to the wealthy and privileged.
This is in many ways a conservative agenda, one that understands what is worth fighting for and upholding in human affairs – honour, decency and justice, for instance. There is nothing ‘woke’ about it.
Such an agenda would resonate with a very wide range of New Zealanders, as long as it is genuine, and backed by competence in delivery. I hope we see a credible version of it on offer at the next election.
