Two of NZ's Finest

Drowning in a Puddle

In New Zealand--as is the case in most Western countries--we are "blessed" to have the services of opinionistas whose learning and perspectives reflects  all the depth and perspicacity common to secularist cultures.   Being secularists, these folk can have recourse only to the ethics of pragmatism when it comes to wrestling with the great issues of the day.  "What works, baby.  That's all that matters."

One of these chaps is self-styled economist, Gareth Morgan.  He is a public provocateur, a member of the nouveau-riche, who has come to believe that his solutions to a wide swathe of social and economic problems actually matter.  In his world view the only thing which carries the day is results.  Economic efficiency is both his moral foundation and beacon.

Recently, this worthy proposed his simple and direct solution to a genuine problem.  New Zealand has raised four generations on social welfare.  This has given a pervasive sense of entitlement to virtually everyone in the country.  The government (that is, other people) owe me something.  In New Zealand this ethic runs deeper than the Mariana Trench and broader than the mighty Pacific .
  But rebellion against biblical social ethics carries a price: in the end successive generations arise whose hand is insatiably outstretched, demanding that others will provide to enable their respective cohort to live in the manner to which we have long become accustomed and to which we believe we are entitled.

New Zealand has one of the most "generous" state pensions in the world.  It is increasingly becoming a drain on the public purse.  Gareth Morgan has looked long and hard upon this problem and proposes a drastic measure to roll back this particular "entitlement".

The challenge facing our younger generations is how to stop my generation plundering the government accounts to an extent never seen before. We hold the votes - who ya gonna call?  One solution might be for a younger generation party to seize the balance of power and then introduce a maximum voting age.  It's not as silly as you might think. . . .

This is a long bow - why should experience outweigh self-interest when it comes to voting? We know older people are more resistant to change, which in itself makes them a drag on the ability of a nation to adapt to changed circumstances and prioritise long-term issues over short-term convenience.  My generation has proved this. For years we've been using the government to feather our own nest. Just think NZ Super, the health system, and tax-free wealth creation via a property bubble.

Now back to a maximum voting age. Senility is decidedly less common among younger voters than among the baby boomers and it is only going to get worse.  When does an old person become unfit to vote? Age by itself is a crude and deficient delineator, but we use it to lock the young out of influencing their future. Why not look at it as a way to lock the elderly out? Just a thought.  [NZ Herald]

And a thoroughly superficial pragmatic solution he offers too.  It has another pert pragmatist chirping.  Blogger David Farrar, a self-styled economic liberal writes, under the heading "Two Good Gareth Morgan Columns":

Not a bad idea.  The real worry is as the elderly numbers grow, then they will demand more and more spending on them, at the expense of areas such as education.  [Kiwiblog]

Note that neither pundit addresses the ethical question of why other people should be forced to subsidise or pay money (via the taxation system) to other citizens.  That is taken as a given--beyond doubt or question.  All that matters is the economic efficiency of the arrangement.  Here are two secular pragmatists approaching a very serious problem with all the perspicacity and profundity of fruitflies.

OK.  We will play along.  Since both protagonists are worried about the huge fiscal drag of providing for senior citizens out of the public purse, we will offer another solution.  At the dread age of entitlement--65--why not just confiscate all owned property (whether in trust or not) and deliver the nouveau-penniless to internment camps?  That will correct the fiscal drag and right the foundering ship.  Just a thought.

The point is that for both Morgan and Farrar there can be no ethical objection to our solution.  It would be a decidedly pragmatic solution.  It would be far, far more efficient and cost-effective than the present state of enforced largesse.  Naturally, Gareth's nouveau millions would disappear into the public pot.  But, then again, he has lived off the public purse all his life (as we all have), benefiting from the money of others.  His use-by date has well and truly come.  Economic rationalism must rule.  Total scorched earth property seizures and internment camps make sense.

In concluding, we would draw our readers to two ironies.  The first is that such futility passes for serious debate in this supercilious paradise.  The second is that Gareth Morgan stylises himself (these days) as a philanthropist.