Real Issues No. 274 – Che Guevara, Abortion, Tax Maxim Institute - real issues - No. 274 11 October 2007 www.maxim.org.nz

An ignorant fascination Protecting and affirming life 'A fountain of 'free' goodies'

IN THE NEWS Hope for those in India's lowest castes New survey finds life hard for small businesses

An Ignorant Fascination

The 40th anniversary of Che Guevara's death this week has exposed both the twisted mode of modern iconography and how devastating a disregard for history can be.

Che Guevara was a brutal and violent man. During his time fighting as a guerrilla and as a Commander in Cuba he was responsible for a huge number of deaths. The book and film of his early life, Motorcycle Diaries, is a story that cannot fail to inspire.

As a young man Che Guevara travels through South America on a motorcycle. He is struck by the devastation, poverty, injustice and oppression faced by so many of the people he meets. Understandably he is moved by what he sees and devotes himself to working for a better and a brighter future. As Che Guevara grows he chooses the ideology of Marxism as the bedrock of the social change he fights for, and consequently violent revolution as his means.

The irony is that by using Marxism to attack totalitarian dictatorships, he simply helps to shift countries from one kind of fierce tyranny to another. The injustices in the countries he sought to remedy would have been better served by the introduction of the rule of law and respect for private property rights.

The poor in countries like Peru have been enslaved by, amongst other things, the inability to own private property. The protection of private property rights allows families the ability to plan for their future; it gives them security and means they can invest in something that belongs to them. Conversely, Marxism strips that idea of ownership away, building instead a society based not on freedom, but on tyranny.

For the most part Marxism has been seen for what it is -- in the West now we are under no illusion about the terrors of Stalinist Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia or Mao's China. Yet, Cuba, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara are deified. Our culture seems to exhibit a perverse kind of adoration for this particular strand of Marxism. Wellington, our nation's capital, devotes an entire street to Cuba, and there you will find a cafe named after Fidel himself.

Student halls throughout the country are adorned with posters of Che Guevara wearing his trademark beret, and t-shirts with the same image emblazoned across them can be easily purchased from mainstream retail stores.

Che is a modern martyr -- for some, something close to a saint. This obstinate insistence on the canonising of a violent revolutionary shows that there is something seriously wrong with our view of history. Che Guevara may have had the best of intentions, and his early life may have been inspiring. He was a charismatic and attractive figure to many. But he turned into a brutal killer, a man with blood on his hands. His life was built on an ideology that killed and oppressed millions, and ground human freedom and human dignity into the ground, yet even in a civilised country such as ours, he is enthroned. Ignorance and wishful thinking can be no excuse.

PROTECTING AND AFFIRMING LIFE Right to Life's tortuous court battle with the Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) has taken another step forward. Justice France has allowed affidavits from medical experts to be presented as evidence at the main hearing. These experts testify to the possibility of removing the unborn child from the womb, operating and then being able to return her safely to the uterus. Right to Life argue that the current law's protections over unborn children are not being properly followed by the ASC. Further they argue that the current law does not go far enough in recognising the intrinsic right to life of the unborn child. The current law is based on the 'born alive' rule, a rule that only recognises a child as a human being once it has been born alive.

Right to Life are attempting to challenge this 'born alive' rule, which, they argue, underlies the interpretation that the Abortion Supervisory Committee is taking of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1997, and, therefore, the way abortions are conducted in New Zealand.

The issue of abortion has many complicated and deeply personal facets; the lack of support for pregnant women, cultural pressure for early sexual activity, our attitude to marriage, family, children and community, and our willingness to make room for the weak. But underneath the heated debate and the agony of abortion, there is a deeper question: what sort of society do we want to be?

According to Statistics New Zealand: 'There were 17,930 abortions performed in New Zealand in 2006.' We have, as a society, and as individuals, become used to high numbers of abortions; we have got used to seeing it as an option. But uncomfortable as it is, we need to face the fact that these statistics represent a failure. For many of the pregnant women pressured, coaxed or proud to choose abortion, that final choice represents a failure of support, a failure of care, a failure of compassion, and a failure of conscience.

For each of the unborn children involved, that choice is terminal. We have become what John Paul II called 'a culture of death' not only in our willingness to tolerate our abortion rate, but in our willingness to close our hearts to the needs and concerns of both pregnant women and their unborn children. We pride ourselves on being an inclusive society, a society which makes a place for the weak, the young and the voiceless, and one which protects and recognises human dignity.

We should ask ourselves whether our abortion policy stands in that honourable tradition, whether it is truly compassionate and life-affirming. People of goodwill on all sides of the debate need to give this issue another look; we should ask ourselves whether we really practise the dignity, inclusion and compassion we preach.

'A FOUNTAIN OF 'FREE' GOODIES' Talk of money is cheap this week, as an extraordinarily large surplus and a high uptake of rates rebates from local government have been heralded as signs of a well-functioning economy. These large piles of excess money beg the question: is it really necessary to take so much money from the public to begin with?

Financial statements for the year ended June 2007 show that the Government has an operating balance of almost $8.7 billion. This surplus is sitting in the Government's coffers, which, according to Finance Minister Michael Cullen, reflects a 'responsible and disciplined fiscal strategy.' This same financial year has also seen the 'promising increase' of the rates rebate scheme from local government, which has given over 65,000 New Zealand households rebates from their rates, adding to a total of nearly $30 million. This, too, has been declared as a scheme that 'provides valuable relief for low income households,' by returning money from rates paid to those who meet certain criteria.

Many families are struggling to make ends meet with living costs going up, interest rates rising and New Zealand maintaining one of the highest taxation regimes in the OECD. Meanwhile the Government is sitting on a large mound of excess money which has been taken from these families.

Yet, personal tax rates remain the same. The rebating or stockpiling of such large amounts of money not only cause inefficient churning, by passing it unnecessarily through the bureaucratic process, but it also reinforces in culture the idea that that Government is in some way a benevolent benefactor. As public policy expert Lawrence Reed puts it: 'A free and independent people do not look to government for their sustenance. They see government not as a fountain of 'free' goodies, but rather as a protector of their liberties ....'

Government responsibility is one thing, but creating a culture which fosters those in power to disregard the value of public money is another. Removing the stress of hefty bills by reducing rates from the outset or lowering taxes to help ease the continual pressure of making ends meet would surely be a wiser move.

IN THE NEWS

HOPE FOR THOSE IN INDIA'S LOWEST CASTES According to The Economist, companies in India have been ordered by the Government to hire more employees from lower castes and tribal communities; a failure to do so could result in the imposition of 'strong measures.'

This could include the introduction of quotas, which are already in place in both the education and government sectors. Companies are unhappy at the prospect of set quotas, arguing that employees who have a job by right are less likely to work as hard as those chosen by merit. The threat appears to be working, however, with many companies offering scholarships and training programmes to members of the lower castes, in order to maintain a measure of control over whom they employ in their company.

NEW SURVEY FINDS LIFE HARD FOR SMALL BUSINESSES This year's Business New Zealand-KPMG compliance cost survey shows the impact that new legislation is having on organisations throughout New Zealand. The survey focuses on the 'administrative and time costs of complying with legislation' as opposed to the direct financial costs of compliance.

The survey suggests that the introduction of KiwiSaver to the already complicated taxation system has compounded the bureaucratic burden faced by owners of small businesses. The survey also found that compliance costs on businesses per full-time employee are nearly four times as high for businesses with five or fewer employees ($2,384) when compared to businesses with 100 or more employees ($627). The high compliance costs make it difficult for new businesses to get established and something as obvious as making taxation legislation simpler could make life much easier. Read the summary report of the compliance cost survey < http://www.businessnz.org.nz/file/1299/Compliance%20Cost%20Summary%20Report%202007.pdf >

TALKING POINT

'Guevara was no hip revolutionary with a free spirit wearing earbuds .... He was a psychopath with a central role in Cuba's 1961 mass executions in the 'year of the wall.' Guevara signed at least 600 death warrants and executed children against firing squad walls; he was responsible for at least 2,000 deaths.' Investor's Business Daily (2006)

ends

© Scoop Media