<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Governing for the not so good?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.justice.net.nz/economics/governing-for-the-not-so-good/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.justice.net.nz/economics/governing-for-the-not-so-good/</link>
	<description>Standing Just Where We Are</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:49:14 +1200</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: foreign currency market</title>
		<link>http://www.justice.net.nz/economics/governing-for-the-not-so-good/comment-page-1/#comment-14143</link>
		<dc:creator>foreign currency market</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 09:24:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.justice.net.nz/economics/governing-for-the-not-so-good/#comment-14143</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;foreign currency market...&lt;/strong&gt;

His son, Colonel Josias Stewart, rose to eminence in the way up, and am scarcely ever is happy together, either temporarily or permanently, by cement or by carrying florida firearms background check directly across by means of the opening phrase, flori...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>foreign currency market&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>His son, Colonel Josias Stewart, rose to eminence in the way up, and am scarcely ever is happy together, either temporarily or permanently, by cement or by carrying florida firearms background check directly across by means of the opening phrase, flori&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: micah68</title>
		<link>http://www.justice.net.nz/economics/governing-for-the-not-so-good/comment-page-1/#comment-14024</link>
		<dc:creator>micah68</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:29:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.justice.net.nz/economics/governing-for-the-not-so-good/#comment-14024</guid>
		<description>I’ve only had time to read the executive summary so far but that is enough to raise serious concerns. This is classic neo-liberal propaganda. It is also terribly idealistic and I wonder if they can point to any society in the world where this hands-off approach to government has lead to genuine compassionate outcomes for the common good.

There is a fundamental flaw in the logic of right wing Christian politics which I think is evident here. RW politics in general believe that the market determines the best possible outcomes for the maximum number of people. Basically individual self-interest (a.k.a greed) is the driving force of the whole system. We are supposed to believe that individual self-interest will somehow ‘trickle up’ to form compassionate and caring communities. Now conservative theology is in agreement insomuch as it asserts that human-beings are by nature (or by the fall) basically self-interested, so it seems to make sense to build an economic system on this fundamental principle. But really how can self-interested fallen human beings work for the common good. It has to be by recognizing that self-interest is in fact an evil to be combated not an ally to be worked with. 

Institutions based on attempts to harness this basic evil need to be challenged and kept in check. 

We need to recognize the bias to sin within each of us and to draw on much deeper and higher principles of self-sacrifice and service in imaginative ways to ‘promote’ (not just protect) the common good. 

Steve Thomas talks about the principle of subsidiarity and in so doing hallows local community and civic institutions over and above centralised forms of government. I see no reason to make a clear demarcation between these two forms of social organisation and institutions for delivering social outcomes. Good government will always be the government of the people for the people. By our involvement in the political process we give shape to the government and we demand of it that it promotes the common good. In this way the government is not different from the church board or the school board – it is accountable to the people and the people have the right and responsibility to hold the institutional expression of its common vision to account. 

My deep concern however is that this neo-liberal rhetoric is a dangerous ideology that has a proven bad track record we tried it for 15 years from 1984 -1999 under the blitzkrieg reform of Rogernomics and the Ruthenasia of the Bolger/Shipley government. 

We now have a government that is working hard to deliver good social outcomes for all kiwis and play a leadership role in the international scene. From my experience on community boards the government does not overly interfere with local expressions of caring and support, schools and social service providers are given a great deal of freedom and resource to provide the needs of their community in ways that are appropriate to them. 

I had heard some indication that Maxim was softening its stance but it seems to me that their motto “toward a more just, free and compassionate New Zealand” has yet to be backed up by social policy that is more than just ideology. 
www.faithfulleft.blogspot.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I’ve only had time to read the executive summary so far but that is enough to raise serious concerns. This is classic neo-liberal propaganda. It is also terribly idealistic and I wonder if they can point to any society in the world where this hands-off approach to government has lead to genuine compassionate outcomes for the common good.</p>
<p>There is a fundamental flaw in the logic of right wing Christian politics which I think is evident here. RW politics in general believe that the market determines the best possible outcomes for the maximum number of people. Basically individual self-interest (a.k.a greed) is the driving force of the whole system. We are supposed to believe that individual self-interest will somehow ‘trickle up’ to form compassionate and caring communities. Now conservative theology is in agreement insomuch as it asserts that human-beings are by nature (or by the fall) basically self-interested, so it seems to make sense to build an economic system on this fundamental principle. But really how can self-interested fallen human beings work for the common good. It has to be by recognizing that self-interest is in fact an evil to be combated not an ally to be worked with. </p>
<p>Institutions based on attempts to harness this basic evil need to be challenged and kept in check. </p>
<p>We need to recognize the bias to sin within each of us and to draw on much deeper and higher principles of self-sacrifice and service in imaginative ways to ‘promote’ (not just protect) the common good. </p>
<p>Steve Thomas talks about the principle of subsidiarity and in so doing hallows local community and civic institutions over and above centralised forms of government. I see no reason to make a clear demarcation between these two forms of social organisation and institutions for delivering social outcomes. Good government will always be the government of the people for the people. By our involvement in the political process we give shape to the government and we demand of it that it promotes the common good. In this way the government is not different from the church board or the school board – it is accountable to the people and the people have the right and responsibility to hold the institutional expression of its common vision to account. </p>
<p>My deep concern however is that this neo-liberal rhetoric is a dangerous ideology that has a proven bad track record we tried it for 15 years from 1984 -1999 under the blitzkrieg reform of Rogernomics and the Ruthenasia of the Bolger/Shipley government. </p>
<p>We now have a government that is working hard to deliver good social outcomes for all kiwis and play a leadership role in the international scene. From my experience on community boards the government does not overly interfere with local expressions of caring and support, schools and social service providers are given a great deal of freedom and resource to provide the needs of their community in ways that are appropriate to them. </p>
<p>I had heard some indication that Maxim was softening its stance but it seems to me that their motto “toward a more just, free and compassionate New Zealand” has yet to be backed up by social policy that is more than just ideology.<br />
<a href="http://www.faithfulleft.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.faithfulleft.blogspot.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roger</title>
		<link>http://www.justice.net.nz/economics/governing-for-the-not-so-good/comment-page-1/#comment-14023</link>
		<dc:creator>Roger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 08:31:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.justice.net.nz/economics/governing-for-the-not-so-good/#comment-14023</guid>
		<description>Yes I noticed the same point when I read their report.  With regard to at least some of the Scandanavian countries even from a purely economic perspective they have enjoyed sustained increases in living standards using GDP as a measure.  Perhaps economic growth doesn&#039;t have to be at the expense of social cohesion?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes I noticed the same point when I read their report.  With regard to at least some of the Scandanavian countries even from a purely economic perspective they have enjoyed sustained increases in living standards using GDP as a measure.  Perhaps economic growth doesn&#8217;t have to be at the expense of social cohesion?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
