It's a viewpoint. National and especially Act are big believers in the idea the the government should be involved as little as possible, and "the market" will sort it out. Of course the MPs and their donors own the companies that make up "the market", so they financially benefit as well.

However, they are not bad guys. They, for the most part, truly believe that this system of government makes for a better country.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It just seems way more about defining themselves via negatives than we saw each time the Key govt was incoming (or even the Bolger government, to really dredge up the past...) Compare this with stuff like Bill English's obsession with social investment.

However, they are not bad guys

Hmmm. I think their supporters are not bad guys. When I've discussed politics - I lived in the Epson electorate for a long time - most everyone wants what's best for New Zealand as a whole, and in cases where they do specifically want bad outcomes for certain groups it's usually because they think the groups deserve bad outcomes. For which I blame cognitive biases like the Just World hypothesis, bigotry, or a misunderstanding of finance.

But when it comes to policy-making, I think there's a level at which it's your ethical responsibility to actually assimilate all the facts and look at international best practice and long term outcomes instead of just going by what you think "feels like" the truth. And I think over the years, along with the well-meaning people you describe, we have also had a number of intellectually lazy/dishonest types who don't do that - and a few cynical people who are in politics simply to benefit their in-group.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It just seems way more about defining themselves via negatives than we saw each time the Key govt was incoming (or even the Bolger government, to really dredge up the past…) Compare this with stuff like Bill English’s obsession with social investment.

Yes, I think you're right. Key was tax cuts and the fibre internet infrasturcture, probably some more I can't remember. But this government is hard on the us and them rhetoric, promising to undo lots of stuff because they are fighting back against the other side.

But when it comes to policy-making, I think there’s a level at which it’s your ethical responsibility to actually assimilate all the facts and look at international best practice and long term outcomes instead of just going by what you think “feels like” the truth.

If you look at COVID deniers, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, flat earth believers, and so on, these people believe they have looked at all the facts and believe others are ignoring the evidence that they see. I am honestly not sure what the solution is here, but it probably starts with a better funded and structured education system. However, I have heard the worst part of being a teacher isn't the naughty kids or the politics or the curriculum but the parents. If the parents don't want their kids to learn then they vote for people who promise to ban things from being taught (e.g. NZ First), and then we end up with more parents voting to ban things from being taught. And even if they aren't banned, then there will be parents yelling at the teachers for teaching it.

I honestly don't know what the answer here is.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

you look at COVID deniers, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, flat earth believers and so on, these people believe they have looked at all the facts

I wasn't talking about these people, by and large. They are welcome to believe what they want, because it's not actually their job to make those decisions on our behalf.

Those we have elected to that full-time job are given access to a higher level of resources, expert opinions, and guidance. It's their responsibility to draw on those things properly, educate themselves fully, and to make the best decisions they can.

I don't have an issue with anyone who actually does that in good faith, however misguided. But I see far too little evidence-based policy from some quarters and far too much reliance on "the perception" and gut feelings and assumptions.

In my career, I did my job to the best of my ability, and I took my ethical responsibility to those who were affected by my decisions very seriously. That's all I ask of others.

In the case of Luxon, he has already said something about one of his policies that is factually untrue and appears to be intended to mislead, so I'm not inclined to think he is "one of the good guys" at all. YMMV, and time will tell I guess.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I wasn’t talking about these people, by and large.

Sorry, on re-reading your comment I can see you were talking about elected officials, not the people who elect them.

But I see far too little evidence-based policy from some quarters and far too much reliance on “the perception” and gut feelings and assumptions.

Unfortunately, democracy is a popularity contest. When the voters don't value evidence-based policy, they vote in representatives that also don't value it. And even if the representatives don't believe in what they are selling, if they don't do what they voters want them to do then they don't get voted in. Something about "you can't make someone believe something when their job depends on them not believing".

In the case of Luxon, he has already said something about one of his policies that is factually untrue and appears to be intended to mislead, so I’m not inclined to think he is “one of the good guys” at all. YMMV, and time will tell I guess.

When I said they aren't bad guys, what I meant is that no one goes out trying to make things worse. There are very few evil villains in the world, and many more unintentional villians. You can be sure Luxon believes that he will make the country a better place through his party's policies, and he will justify his lies with his belief it's all for the greater good (the greater good). I don't think this means he's a "good guy", but I think it comes down to the discussion the other day about whether there are truly "bad" people, or if people are just a product of their environment.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I think it does. You and I had somewhat different positions on that issue.

The greater good... the Sandford Neighbourhood Watch Alliance are a perfect example of what I would see as people deliberately choosing to lean into their APD traits.

Crusty jugglers aside, the idea that the ends justify the means has been responsible for many of the world's most horrific massacres. Arendt's observations on the banality of "evil" are relevant here.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I think it does. You and I had somewhat different positions on that issue.

I think I probably comes down to definition. A person you might see as a fundamentally "bad" person I see as a product of their environment. They didn't independently decide to do those bad things, or culture their personality that way. If their role models had been better, their opportunities, if they had been born in a different time or place; they may have been a completely different person. Does the string of events outside their control make them bad? Sure. Does it make them a "fundamentally bad person", well we're gonna have to define that what that means because at their core they weren't bad, it was their experiences and opportunities that shaped them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't think there's any such thing as "fundamentally" anything in the sense of it being inate. I think there is only "effectively", based on what actually happens. I am a huge believer in environment and experiences shaping people. Brain chemistry also plays a bigger role than people realise.

But take my example in that thread of the guy who was telling me evil is more "interesting". Who literally did decide to choose it, as it turned out. There's a certain point at which we are capable of making choices.

You're a parent. You know there's an instinctive level of looking after your kids, there's a knowledge level that feeds into your actions... but you also know there's another conscious level that actually takes hard work in the form of dozens of conscious decisions where for the most part you put their wellbeing ahead of your short-term pleasure.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think we don't disagree. At a certain point someone has become a bad person, even an evil person.

I like to hope that there are things we can do to prevent future kids from turning into bad people, rather than thinking they were always going to turn out that way.

You briefly mentioned brain chemistry, would you mind expanding on that? I'm always keen to learn.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Yes I think we do agree.

It's been a long time since I read up on it but I was thinking about things like how people respond to a car accident. For people who tend to stay calm and focused, the people who go to pieces may seem weird, but it's not their fault and it's not a conscious choice.

And then, there are environmental effects on brain chemistry too, for example measurably higher cortisol levels in the brains of children who grow up with food insecurity have a detrimental effect on cognition.