Table of Contents
Robert MacCulloch
Robert MacCulloch is a native of New Zealand. He worked at the Reserve Bank of NZ, before he travelled to the UK to complete a PhD in Economics at Oxford University.
The defining brilliance of the US Declaration of Independence was its ideal of a government whose existence could be justified only if it was there to serve the people: to protect their freedoms and liberties. The awful alternative is a government that exists to force people to serve its own interests – by getting them to fight wars to enrich its political leaders – and by getting them to work hard, only for those leaders to steal what the people build. It takes prominent NZ academic, Anne Salmond, to tell us Kiwis don’t subscribe to such ideals: the foundation stone of everything that has enabled nations to break free from their oppressive pasts; to achieve greater well-being and prosperity these past three centuries. Instead, Salmond’s social, legal, anthropological, cultural, political and economic public lecture this week states, “Libertarianism, which elevates individual liberty and private rights over notions of collective responsibility, is historically and culturally specific. It traces back to strands in Greek philosophy and Christianity as well as philosophers like John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Its support among the NZ electorate is slight, as indicated by ACT’s 8.4 per cent share of the vote. Libertarianism is also radically at odds with the framings of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”
To argue liberty is not a feature of NZ culture is a patronizing misrepresentation and insult to us all: past, present and future. Who is Salmond to speak on our behalf as to what values we hold? Does she know more about them than we do? John Locke inspired the US Declaration of Independence – he was behind the line it begins with, namely, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness – that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed – that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.” It was used in Martin Luther King's speech at the Lincoln Memorial to support abolishment of segregation.
Salmond’s evidence that Kiwis don’t subscribe to liberty and private rights relies on how many votes ACT won at the last election. But all our parties support liberty, private rights and happiness. ACT (and National) simply promote different ways of achieving them, like lower taxes, although liberty is also central to what Labour, Greens, NZ First and Te Pāti Māori stand for. Does it occur to Salmond that the Greens want less pollution because they believe young generations have the right to be free from the scourge of a bad environment, allowing them to lead happy lives, liberated from this threat? Does it occur to her Labour supports higher taxes on richer households so as to provide ‘free’ education and healthcare for children in low income families, whose only ‘fault’ is that their parents are poor? Does it occur to her Labour wants to liberate these children by securing opportunities and private wealth for them? As for John Stuart Mill’s “utilitarianism” to which she refers – that good government is one providing the greatest happiness for the greatest number – it was the basis for PM Ardern and Robertson’s Labour Party ‘well-being budgets’ and policy approach.
So who is this academic, Dame Anne Salmond, to speak on behalf of the National, Labour, Green, NZ First and Te Pāti Māori parties, and five million New Zealanders, telling us what we stand for, who we are, what our culture is and what ideals we subscribe to? Are we not free – do we not possess the liberty – to hold our own views? Does she seriously think our private cultural beliefs can be ascertained from who we voted for? Some of us don’t even much like National PM Luxon, nor are fans of Seymour or Peters, but a clear majority did believe they were the best of a bad bunch at the time – the previous lot being so awful they had to go. On the Treaty, isn’t the argument, even of Te Pāti Māori and its supporters, that it was framed to protect and guarantee the private property rights of Māori? That, in exchange for such protection, Māori agreed to being governed by an authority – maybe not necessarily “sovereign” – but at least one promoting a common law and order? Isn’t that identical to John Locke’s idea that “humans, though free, equal, and independent, are obliged under the law of nature to respect each other’s rights to life, liberty, and property”. That we should “agree to form a government in order to institute an impartial power capable of arbitrating disputes and redressing injuries.” Locke held that the obligation to obey civil government under the social contract was conditional upon the protection of our natural rights, including the right to private property. Whether it was John Locke and the US Constitution, or the Treaty of Waitangi, aren’t we all talking similar ideas with similar aims in mind?
More generally, isn’t it time New Zealand produced journalists, writers, academics, teachers and such like, who have the knowledge and temerity to hold to account members of the titled “establishment” like Professor Dame Anne Salmond, who pretend to hold a monopoly on the moral and intellectual high ground?
Sources:
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/08/31/anne-salmond-whats-the-matter-with-the-treaty-principles-bill/
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-contract
This article was originally published by Down to Earth Kiwi.
