Government, Inc

"the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem"  

An Economist's Protest (1975), Milton Friedman

Dissatisfied with the government? Disappointed with the opposition parties? Distraught that we don't have any viable solutions to our current political systems? Since we support deregulated governments on the rationale that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector, it's only sensible that the government takes the same form, right? Why not turn the government itself into a business?

The Firm

For one, we tender out the role of government to the highest bidder. An organiation with that kind of money must be good at making and spending it. The knowledge and skills associated with business have already worked well in New Zealand under Rogernomics, take for example the 1989 local restructuring, which saw much more streamlined and efficient services, with vastly improved accountability and fiscal responsibility. If we can get central government to this level, we'd be winning.

Secondly, why not float the government on the stock exchange? The value of the government would fluctuate as investors have more or less confidence in the performance of the organization, and the investment would pay for huge amounts of infrastructure and services. Shareholders would be able to appoint leaders they felt confident were working to a high enough standard, on the basis they had a plan and outlook for their investors. The vision involved with a business is something the government severely lacks, election promises are frequently broken without repercussion, whereas business stockholders change the leadership when expectations are not met. Politicians are not voted out for doing a bad job, new politicians are voted in because they have more exciting promises. The new government would be required to have a plan to give investors confidence in the viability of the organization. Returns must be made, promises must be kept.

Thirdly, look at who's already in government! Politics is a hobby for businesspeople, while this sounds like it's off to a good start, there is less accountability in government as opposed to business. The rich become powerful, and hold on to their positions until voters tire of them, rather than out of dissatisfaction of broken promises. Politics is something businesspeople love to get into; the current New Zealand Prime Minister was a businessman, the deputy leader of ACT is a businessman, the National party is largely supported by businessmen. The offer to turn government into a company is an offer rich people will buy into with big money.

The Reality

Obviously this is all a ridiculous idea, but it highlights the inefficiencies of government. I personally think the government would be wrong to become a business itself, as it clearly has its own place as a unique kind of organization. However, the large monolithic and inefficient government is not a sustainable way to run the country. Competition is something the government cannot sustain, so it must learn other ways of being efficient, thinking of the government as a type of monopoly, and taking advantage of the benefits of a monopoly while minimizing the negatives. The downsides to a monopoly are the same as government; high prices, low efficiency, low innovation and misallocation of resources. 

A government has no competition that forces it to innovate, to streamline and become more efficient, or to make its services more affordable. This is where resources aren't allocated to their efficient optimum and the great deal of power they yield is abused, not out of corruption, but out of being incapable to manage such a large array of sectors. The answer is not bigger government to match the size of its services, which leaves the same inefficiencies; but to reduce the number of services to match the capability of government.

Sticking to its day job is the most efficient way for government to go. What can be competed for, ideally should be, leaving government intervention and inefficiency can vastly improve the services. Education and healthcare can benefit from becoming more competitive. While I do not advocate total free market control of such services, a market style of competition can benefit them greatly, such as school vouchers and a mixed market healthcare system. Scaling back the size of government would mean leaving government to take care of its core services and fulfill its mission, such as law and order, defense, provision for the poor. Far-leftists advocate government control of many services in the name of ensuring the welfare of the poor, when really their systems give welfare to both rich and poor, which wastes valuable resources and becomes inefficient. Providing adequate healthcare for the poor leaves room for the free market to provide more comfortable healthcare for those willing to pay for it, educating an adequate national curriculum leaves room for the free market to provide alternative curriculums with different approaches. 

While government cannot itself be a business, it has a lot to learn from it. The currently unrivaled level of efficiency and accountability needs to be seen in government to ensure we have a more sustainable and effective system. A monolithic monopolistic government has a great deal of drawbacks which need to be minimized, the answer being a smaller government that proves true to its mission, rather than becoming bigger and intervening in sectors which are hampered by its presence.

Dr Sharples vs Dr Brash: Māori Radicalism

"We might have our differences, but we are one people with a common destiny in our rich variety of culture, race and tradition." 

Nelson Mandela, ANC victory speech, Johannesburg, 2 May 1994

Dr Don Brash (leader of ACT Party, PhD in Economics) and  Dr Pita Sharples (leader of Māori Party, PhD in Anthropolgy)  went head-to-head in a tevleised debate on Māori Television's 'Native Affairs' show, sparked by the advertisement the ACT Party published in the New Zealand Herald newspaper. The advertisement is headlined "Fed Up With Pandering to Maori Radicals?"

I watched the debate live on TV, with respect already for both Dr Sharples and Dr Brash, and having expectations for Dr Brash having met the man and supporting his policies up to that point. The impression most objective thinkers were under was that Dr Brash was campaigning on 'one law for all' as his maxim whereby all New Zealanders were given perfectly equal treatment before the law, eliminating affirmative action and discrimination towards any group; and Dr Sharples representing a party concerned with Māori rights and perspectives, but with a holistically positive goal in the future. Dr Sharples reiterated the idea of a better future for EVERYONE. Who won the debate is a an answer I will not give as it depends on each person, I support 'one law for all' and also a better future for everyone, not some. In my opinion, having one law for all is THE KEY to creating a better future for all.

Pragmatism, Not Populism

As a usual supporter of ACT and Dr Brash, the policies that he offers are of freer markets with less barriers to entry. Dr Brash is probably the most qualified and respected economist in the country. We trust his judgment in economic policy. So why is he focusing so heavily on race relations and not the economy? 

We understand the ACT position on equal rights and equal opportunity, which gives everyone equal access to the economic benefits available in this country, Dr Brash for some reason ignored the economic advantages of his perspective and just argued against Dr Sharples' view and quarreled over quotidian points like the Wanganui/Whanganui debate. Is this really the kind of issue we need to focus on? Is the rate of economic development and the level of poverty in the country not more important?

Dr Brash's theory has colossal economic benefit, but this was strangely absent. Equal access to the benefits of a free market economy and increased accountability of government spending is the way to go, where spending by the government is for every New Zealander that needs a hand. A united approach where we all have the opportunity to strive for our own success makes us all capable of becoming what we want, realizing our own potential. Having discriminatory policies obviously creates another barrier to this kind of opportunity, and in the case of affirmative action, gives a group of people opportunities and benefits they may not want or need at the cost of those who would appreciate them.

The ACT party has gained it's reputation for being promoters of small government and strong economic policy; these are the policies that have kept ACT in Parliament and built up its support base. The idea is that ACT's economic policies should solve social issues.

And the winner is...
Dr Sharples was good to rebut Dr Brash with the saying that the Māori are concerned with a united way forward that gives a future to all New Zealanders. Dr Sharples did not explain exactly how this would happen in his perspective, and unfortunately my understanding of Māori Party policy is that it would involve affirmative action policies and some socialist economic management. All New Zealanders should be able to agree with the idea of a better New Zealand for all of us to share, Dr Brash did not elaborate enough on how this better New Zealand comes from equal laws that give equal opportunity to gain the fruits from this country. Dr Brash still made many good points, those of us that believe in one law for all stand by this principle, however Dr Sharples may not have been convinced what kind of benefits could be made through the policy.

What next?

The target audience for these policies are people who value personal and economic freedom, equal opportunity, and want to see a better and stronger economy for New Zealand. Labeling most Māori politicians as 'radicals' may not advance the cause, but the real vote-winner for Dr Brash and the way forward is to concentrate on economic policy, reminding people of the benefits of a strong economy and equal access to making gains from it.

The way forward should be a united one, having a colorblind and non-discriminatory legislative policy (one law for all) ensures the equal treatment of people, leaving individuals personally responsible for their own gains and losses compared to others. While Māori seats and other legal issues are a small formality, the key is to pave a way forward that is to create the new economic policies to benefit New Zealanders in a way that advantages everyone.

The Buzz From Kronic

"under drug prohibition, deaths from overdose, from adulterations, from adulterated substances have gone up." Milton Friedman, America's Drug Forum interview (1991)

Now as much as I hate to use a brand name to encompass a category of something, Kronic is the most prominent of legal recreational drugs in New Zealand. It is the market leader in synthetic cannabinoids, where the drug is consumed in much the same way as cannabis, and its effects are designed to emulate cannabis too. A media storm and public outcry have emerged over the products (just Kronic to the uninformed) in the last few weeks.

So far, the attention has been on points of sale (notably convenience stores), underage purchase (notably convenience stores), possession in schools (also underage purchase), prevalence of use (notably with school kids), restricted substances in the product (contaminated product) and health concerns from use (notably with school kids). The overview shows a clear pattern, anyone can tell this kind of attention will call for a ban on the product. The government is now set to change the law next year.

Define 'harmful'

The problem with calls to ban something is that I must always ask first, so what is actually bad about it? Laws against murder, rape and theft have obvious answers to this question; while the argument against recreational drugs has always been weak. Popular opinion usually dictates that drugs are harmful due to the health effects of the user and the behaviour of the user under the influence, where emotive stories of drink/drug drivers causing crashes and drunk/drugged people becoming violent. Many of these cases, are not due to drugs, but usually to alcohol, and often have other factors ignored where substance is involved. Nonetheless, these are negative effects that can occur, a popular example is Antonie Ronnie Dixon, who killed and injured people with weapons that included a samurai sword on methamphetamine. 

Kronic and other brands of legal drugs are not methamphetamine. They are not nearly as powerful or as harmful. The 'dread factor' associated with drugs is indiscriminate, often pairing low-level drugs with tragic and destructive events. Especially when compared to alcohol, the negative effects associated with legal drug use are very minor, and has almost none of the social problems associated with illegal drug activity (such as organized crime and tainting drugs). Though our knowledge of health effects is still developing, its chemistry and use makes the effects comparable to those of cannabis; which is not something we would consider 'healthy' but also isn't terribly poisonous. The harm factor of legal drugs is hardly worth a ban, and is already designed to be Restricted 18 years. Subjecting the product to health warnings in the same way as tobacco would be welcomed, even by the industry. 

Suddenly we have an epidemic? 

Like any media storm over nothing special, the hype and the attention seems to come out of nowhere. Legal drugs have been around for ages, Kronic brand has been on sale for years. Drugs themselves predate the human race and drug use began at the same moment the human race did. Drug use of some sort is prevalent just about everywhere, it is not new problem nor a growing problem. A media storm is a self-perpetuating weather phenomena, as media attention brings more attention, then more scrutiny, which 'uncovers' (usually exaggerates) more bad news and so on; a vicious cycle that almost appears a media crusade against the products. The uninformed public plays into this, buying the newspapers and watching the TV, conforming to the same ideas. I find it ironic that the " armchair experts who buy into media hysteria" from Ponsonby, Remuera and Wellington Central would be the worst drug addicts in the country if they understood the significance of caffeine and the patterns of their latté lifestyles.

Toke for Toke

Many intelligentsia have accepted the facts on drugs and the harm caused by their prohibition (which usually outweighs the harm caused by the substance itself) and see a place in the law for these substances. While many with libertarian traits would call for presently illegal drugs to be legalized in New Zealand, at this stage in time it would seem practical to keep Kronic and other legal drugs within the law as a viable substitute. At present, would-be users of cannabis instead use legal drugs to avoid the harm caused by the illegal option, such as penalties for possession and associating with criminal organizations to obtain the drug. The legal drug industry currently competes with the drug and gang crime syndicates, forcing Matt Bowden to take many precautions for his own safety. Every switcher from cannabis to legal alternatives is less business for criminals, less risk of being victim to criminal activity, less risk of being penalized for drug possession.

Naughtiness
One of the concerns from parents about legal drugs is the 'gateway drug' theory, whereby uses of 'lower level' drugs such as cannabis or cannabis alternatives, then proceed to harder and stronger drugs to get a better reaction; much the same way people having a night out will start with pre drinks (quiet drinks) and end up doing shots by the end of the night. Although appearing logical to 'nip it in the bud,' many users disagree with the theory. The logic may apply to illegal drugs, as they have the glamour image granted from being outlawed, it is easy to switch from cannabis to another illegal drug if they're both substances you shouldn't have anyway. In for a penny, in for a pound. The 'hit' or 'rush' sought from cannabis is not always entirely from the chemical, the 'rebel factor' (same as smoking) makes the drug desirable too, rendering the legal variants without the status. I personally know of people that are proud of their use of harder drugs, like a one-upmanship it is the illicit nature that appeals, not so much the chemical.

Drug Dealing
After some investigation, my capitalist senses picked up on some bits of info regarding the business side of things. Matt Bowden of Lightyears Ahead Ltd admitted that there is a potential for millions of dollars to be made in some product ideas his company is researching, for just his business. The legal drug industry is worth tens of millions of dollars, highly lucrative for those involved in supply. Dr Keith Bedford of the ESR said that New Zealand's legal drug industry "lead[s] the world in willingness to try out new things and be innovative in this area" and that we have the "leading edge of recreational substances." We obviously have nurtured a successful industry with current policy, where we export millions of dollars of product overseas (although Australia has just come off the market due to prohibition). The tax take in GST would be running into the millions by now too, and if the product is taxed the same as other smoking products (tobacco), the government could be making substantially more. 

The negative economics of health treatment would probably fall under the same category as tobacco smoking. High doses of legal drugs are often the same as high doses of caffeine, having little effect on the healthcare system, but would be covered anyway by the taxes it does and could raise. It's user pays - someone that smokes cigarettes for years will pay thousands in tax, which will later fund their healthcare if they even live long enough to receive it.

Parent Reaction

"for all I know, what my son is doing now will kill him by the time he's 40 (if not sooner). It's very hard to try to teach him not to do it considering our government says it's perfectly legal."

This was a comment made on the New Zealand Herald website by a member of the public that I could not help myself quoting. 

"For all those people who don't want there children to use drugs - society is not a dumping ground for you to leave your children to be raised."

"I don't need other people to tell me what I can and cannot do that affects myself only, just because they need something to blame for how screwed up their kids are."

Neither were those, made by other readers.

Parents will always look for an issue in society to blame for their own kids' mistakes. Either they won't admit to being useless parents, or often not accepting that their 'mistakes' are often quite common experiments and experiences for their age group. Most teenagers have drank alcohol, smoked, had sex and tried drugs before 18; doesn't mean they all end up either in prison or dead. All adults were teenagers once, the same rules apply, even 2000 years ago elders complained about teen drinking! The explanation is always on some superior-sounding theory that young people have 'developing brains' and lack of maturity. True, but anyone older that yourself can always say the same thing! A 40 year old will probably be more mature than a 30 year old. Focus on knowledge, educate people to make their own choices, maturity and development comes from intelligence and experience.

If you don't know, then don't care!

My stance is always on harm minimization, not prohibition. All libertarians will tell you prohibition doesn't work; and we always cite the prohibition of alcohol in the United States only worsening the problem, then refer to the UN who have admitted the 'War On Drugs' has failed and also only worsened the problem, calling on legalization. 

The issue is not legalization or anything, it's simply keeping the status quo for what is currently legal. Why fix something that ain't broke'? The calls for action and calls for change are unjustified where there is no change to justify them. I personally have used these products, and began to almost a year ago; I can assure you this is nothing new.There is no alarming trend, no sudden increase and no emerging problem; only realization of what's been in front of our nose the whole time. 

Calls to ban the product are a knee-jerk reaction, which always comes from the ignorant, fearful and uninformed. An outright ban is only coming from people who fear the product, out of a severe lack of knowledge surrounding it, experts such as Dr Bedford support the products that is "better the devil you know than the devil you don't." Extreme action will cause extreme reaction, people openly flout drug laws as it is. Further crackdowns will make the issue worse, as drug users will have no respect for authority if authority won't let them have any kind of drug.

We have to stop wasting our time on this issue; methamphetamine, alcohol and other drugs are causing more damage. Legal drugs are not the scourge of society, and their legal status is the best thing preventing them from becoming just that. 

Related links:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4279640/Parents-worried-by-legal-weed

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10731286

highs/tabid/309/articleID/218244/Default.aspx

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10738977