The wisdom of David Seymour

Written By: - Date published: 2:15 pm, October 22nd, 2014 - 45 comments
Categories: act, Parliament - Tags:

seymourrimmer

With the commencement of Parliament we are into maiden speech season.  The most talked about speech so far is that of ACT’s sole MP and under secretary for Education David Seymour, but for all the wrong reasons.

Where do I start?  Steve Braunias has described the speech as more or less complete gibberish but I am not sure about the use of the word “less”.  Anyway I thought I would post some excerpts for everyone’s amusement.

David seems to think that some people believe that not anyone can create new wealth.

“You can tell everything you need to know about a person’s politics by acquiring their sincere answer to a simple question: Is it possible for anybody to create new wealth?

He wants to bring Epsom to the country.

Our communities are leafy and our schools prestigious. If people want more Epsom the answer should be to create more Epsom. More good schools, more good suburbs.

It seems that he has never seen an apartment house nor a poor area nor any place in the Country apart from Auckland and Christchurch.

But the opposition would cram more people into smaller denser dwellings, changing the character of our communities and putting intolerable pressure on burgeoning school zones.

He thinks many of us confuse tax rates with wealth.

When it comes to wealth, for too many the answers are higher tax rates, and taxing the same dollars one more time with an envy-fuelled capital gains tax.

He thinks he won the seat of Epsom because of some internal quality, not the fact it was gifted to him on a plate by National.

The people of Epsom did not vote for a mere abstraction, or even a political strategy. Not many, if any, of those who say I’m here due to the latter can say they came to this house by way of 13,000 doorsteps, 85,000 personally addressed letters, nearly 1,000 attendees of private house meetings, or 300 hours of waving signs at traffic.

He thinks that wealth creation is what knowledge should be used for.

Those of us who believe that wealth creation is a positive sum game are interested in a different question: Under what conditions can individuals best create wealth?

The answer lies in the use of knowledge in society. Since the total inventory of that knowledge is never given in its totality to a single mind or group of them, it must be grown and applied through a widespread process of conjecture and refutation.

He then gets all gushy and libertarian on it.

Governments have the extraordinary power to legally coerce. In some cases this power brings great goods.

Chief among them is an environment where we can safely go about our business in our various communities. That in turn requires rule by law rather than arbitrarily rule by men.

We meet at the pinnacle of several centuries of progress towards that goal.

We have moved towards the light of liberty by removing distinctions in law that once treated people differently depending on their religious conviction, gender and race. Most recently, this house decided to remove sexuality from the Marriage laws.

Many countries have never achieved that. But it is extraordinary that, as if engaged in some form of historic shuttle run, we who were first to touch the cone are now rushing back to create new distinctions in law.

I am not sure what he meant by the next passage.

It is fatal conceit to believe that one mind or group of minds can know enough to plan the myriad activities of the very society that they themselves are a product of. There is ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas but politics has a tendency to narrow human endeavour into what is visible to only a few actors.

The alternative is spontaneous activity coordinated only by a few general rules.

He equates spending promises with some sort of crime.

We can only lament the advanced auctions in stolen goods that pass for elections every three years and wonder how the various spending promises would add to this burden. With the demographic headwinds we face, fiscal discipline must be a mantra of our generation.

He does not want smart people to waste their potential.

… in a global and technologically sophisticated economy, the value of skills is ever increasing. We cannot afford to have smart people wasting their potential.

He finishes by saying it is his intent to help the prosperous flourish.

I am honoured to represent my fellow Epsom electors and lead the ACT Party in this house. It is my hope that I will contribute here to improving public policy for all New Zealanders so that prosperous and free individuals may flourish in this green and pleasant land.”

Anyway if you want the video version …

45 comments on “The wisdom of David Seymour ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tracey 1
    22 October 2014 at 2:20 pm

    green and pleasant land… isnt that a line from Jerusalem?!?

    we need compulsory drug testing for mps

  2. Tracey 2
    22 October 2014 at 2:26 pm

    Jerusalem Hymn

    And did those feet in ancient time
    Walk upon England’s mountain green?
    And was the holy Lamb of God
    On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
    And did the countenance divine
    Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
    And was Jerusalem builded here
    Among those dark satanic mills?

    Bring me my bow of burning gold!
    Bring me my arrows of desire!
    Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
    Bring me my chariot of fire!
    I will not cease from mental fight,
    Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
    Till we have built Jerusalem
    In England’s green and pleasant land.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1
      22 October 2014 at 2:34 pm

      Sid Vicious performing ‘My Way’.

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 2.2
      22 October 2014 at 2:36 pm

      quite remarkable. he didn’t speak his mind truthfully about his vision for “dark satanic mills”?

    • Jo 2.3
      22 October 2014 at 3:13 pm

      Deeply delicious, ‘so that prosperous and free individuals may flourish…’
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_did_those_feet_in_ancient_time

      ‘[William] Blake was an outspoken supporter of the French Revolution, […] The poem expressed his desire for radical change without overt sedition. (In 1803 Blake was charged at Chichester with high treason for having “uttered seditious and treasonable expressions”, but was acquitted.[23]) […]

      Christopher Rowland, a Professor of Theology at Oxford University, has argued that this includes
      … everyone in the task of speaking out about what they saw. Prophecy for Blake, however, was not a prediction of the end of the world, but telling the truth as best a person can about what he or she sees, fortified by insight and an “honest persuasion” that with personal struggle, things could be improved. A human being observes, is indignant and speaks out: it’s a basic political maxim which is necessary for any age. Blake wanted to stir people from their intellectual slumbers, and the daily grind of their toil, to see that they were captivated in the grip of a culture which kept them thinking in ways which served the interests of the powerful.[24]

      The words of the poem “stress the importance of people taking responsibility for change and building a better society ‘in England’s green and pleasant land.'”[24]’

      Blake wrote the poem in 1802, when the industrial revolution’s harshest social effects were becoming more apparent. From out of the mouths of babes…

      • Tracey 2.3.1
        22 October 2014 at 3:21 pm

        as we all say here in Epsom

        ..ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas

        says it all really.

        • ianmac 2.3.1.1
          22 October 2014 at 4:22 pm

          Had to look it up.
          “..ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas”
          = “what one sees and what one does not see.”
          Huh?

          • Tracey 2.3.1.1.1
            22 October 2014 at 4:32 pm

            i thought it was apt for the good folk of epsom…

            wilful blindness
            none so blind
            selfish fuckwits

            all summed up in the beautiful language

        • mac1 2.3.1.2
          22 October 2014 at 6:12 pm

          I think he meant: “ce qu’on voit et ce que l’on ne veut pas voir” (what one sees and what one does not want to see) or to quote the aural version “Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest….
          lalalalalalalalala.”

  3. Chooky 3
    22 October 2014 at 2:33 pm

    God …and he is going to re-organise the Education System!

  4. Chooky 4
    22 October 2014 at 2:36 pm

    What does the ‘H’ branded on his forehead mean?…is it ‘H’ for Hooton? ..or ‘H’ for hell?

  5. aerobubble 5
    22 October 2014 at 3:59 pm

    Oops. Happened again. A few elections back Peters
    missed the 5%, yet ACT got extra MPs despite getting less votes. Now, Colins
    misses the 5%, and Maori party get an extra MP, also got less party votes.

    Our system keeps letting them back in the back door, even when there
    is a party with a large vote without representation.

  6. adam 6
    22 October 2014 at 4:30 pm

    I see he’s wearing his war badge.

    What a vial little creep he is, what a load of piffle. What a sanctimonious self righteous prig. Just utter dribble , is there help to wipe his chin?

    What joy it is to behold, that we now have many more of these corporate elects, to tell us how bad we are for breathing. How joyous it is to behold, to get lectures on morality from these house wiggers.

    I wonder what charge he will have laid on him by police in the next few years?

  7. Westiechick 7
    22 October 2014 at 4:53 pm

    Thanks Micky I needed some humour in my day. Parody surely. If not, I want some of what he is smoking.

  8. Dont worry. Be happy 8
    22 October 2014 at 5:31 pm

    What’s with the poppy? Are we into ANZAC porn already?

  9. John 9
    22 October 2014 at 6:02 pm

    Maybe David needs to actually go and have a look around NZ, We already have excellent schools, most underfunded and in need of large capital work and a larger number of the children going to them need shoes, warm clothing and food, more than those who actually already have it.

    We have a need for housing and yet his pals have not added any to the list yet they bagged the other parties election promises.

    Even more sad is that he believes his one man / vote / party will change parliament. Yeah Right

  10. feijoa 10
    22 October 2014 at 6:21 pm

    WTF is this guy on??

    He seriously needs to get out more. I barely understood a word of that ACT-planet stuff…- does he just talk to his own mirror or what?

    • ghostwhowalksnz 10.1
      23 October 2014 at 10:56 am

      His comments about Roger Douglas watching from the gallery at Parliament tell us who really is manipulating this glove puppet

  11. Psycho Milt 11
    22 October 2014 at 8:36 pm

    I am not sure what he meant by the next passage.

    He means using the public sector to deliver goods and services is inherently a terrible idea, whereas the private sector offers a recipe for goods/service perfection. Essentially, he’s thanking his sponsors.

    • Anne 11.1
      22 October 2014 at 9:55 pm

      Well, why didn’t he say so!

      Jeez… what a load of convoluted gobbledegook! He’s 31 years old and he lives in a schizophrenic bubble of unreality and he’s now deciding on the future of this country’s education system. Like Alma Rae below, I will also be passing on the video. There’s a limit to one’s endurance of stupidity and insanity.

  12. Alma Rae 12
    22 October 2014 at 9:36 pm

    Think I’ll pass on the video, thanks. Sufficient unto the day are the evils thereof…

  13. Rodel 13
    22 October 2014 at 9:57 pm

    He didn’t have the cuppa tea but just remember Key gifted this twit a seat in parliament.
    Honestly to think this fool has any influence in our precious education system is beyond belief.
    But wait- didn’t the lonely John Banks have the same power? (BTW- where is he now?)

    Thanks Mr Key- you’re a legend of integrity!

    Oh for a Gough Whitlam or even a Lange in the left.I don’t see one.

  14. AmaKiwi 14
    22 October 2014 at 10:10 pm

    The National voters of Epsom who vote ACT have no shame. Each Act MP is worse than the last. Hide, Banks, Seymour.

  15. Morrissey 15
    23 October 2014 at 7:40 am

    Two words: Epsom’s shame.

  16. TeWhareWhero 16
    23 October 2014 at 10:05 am

    I swear if someone on the Left had written that as a satire they would be accused of exaggeration.

  17. North 17
    23 October 2014 at 12:37 pm

    Yes there was one conjunction of words rooted in reality Gosman. Which facile as ever you pounce on as proof of a satisfying totality. That one conjunction is de minimis of course.

  18. repateet 18
    23 October 2014 at 12:37 pm

    I’m blaming the lack of charter schools when this idiot went to school!

  19. Steve Wrathall 19
    23 October 2014 at 9:28 pm

    Oooh, we’re playing spot the resemblance of a NZ MP to an ’80s UK comedy character. OK, I’ll play. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMR5zhnQMvs

  20. TeWhareWhero 20
    23 October 2014 at 9:41 pm

    “There is ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas but politics has a tendency to narrow human endeavour into what is visible to only a few actors.”

    The French quote is the title of an essay by Claude Frédéric Bastiat (classical liberal theorist and political economist who is a strong influence on libertarian and the Austrian schools of economic thought) “Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne void pas” (That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen).

    The Parable of the Broken Window seeks to illustrate why destruction and money spent to recover from destruction is not actually a net benefit to society because of ‘opportunity costs’ and the ‘law of unintended consequences’ which affect economic activity in ways that are ‘unseen’.

  21. EricColbert 21
    24 October 2014 at 7:48 pm

    I want to disagree with this. People can believe in a particular way of doing things, but that does not mean they don’t understand the rationale of other people to do it differently. It’s just a matter of pulling all the facts out of storage and weighing each against another to find the “BEST” way to do it. It doesn’t mean that other methods are not sucessful or unachievable at all.