Just got done playing Deus Ex for PC

Deus Ex is a PC game release in 2001. A shooter RPG the matrix hybrid. It's about a bionical man who finds out the United Nations in 2050 is corrupt. It's using a disease, the Gray Death to control people. The poor get shafted while the rich that can pay get the cure, Ambrosia. Pretty wicked and top-notch game. I loved the voice acting, which is funny because other people laugh at it. The endings are not black and white.

There is no evil or bad ending. All the endings are their own shades of gray, proving ethics in the world aren't as simple as some might like it to be. I know I link to the United Nations in this blog and their agencies. It doesn't mean I approve of everything they do. But I think the good in them generally outweighs whatever corruption there might be. I also think the corruptions fixable.

The story's not a novel, but it's not meant to be. It's interactive and interesting, giving a lot of thought to what freedom, justice and fairness actually are in society. The game's not easy to play and requires you to work your brain. I reccomend it to anybody looking for something challenging but thought provoking. It's an old game so if you want to get it, you'll either have to buy it online or try to pirate it.

"In a society with democratic institutions the struggle for power can be peaceful and constructive, a competition of ideologies. We just need to put our institutions back in order." - JC Denton (main character)

B-Day 2010 (NZ Budget-Day)

New Zealand is coming up to the annual government budget on the 20th of May. It's where the government plans to put its money into. English has said the government would be cutting "low quality" spending. A pretty vague thing to say that could be used later to to describe anything that gets axed. They'd also be raising GST to 15%. This contrasts with what the Bill English said in 2008 about raising GST: "We won’t be doing that … it’s not our policy”

Last budget National did a u-turn on taxcuts, which they said would be essential in boosting the economy. It's interesting reading this from Brian Easton in 2009 and knowing what National decided to do in the last budget. He explained that in order for taxcuts to happen: "A 10% government expenses cut will almost certainly have to heavily target the big ticket items of education, health and welfare." This is pretty much what has happened. Except of course for no tax cuts. Not for the poor and middle class anyway.

It's been signaled that there will be tax cuts in this budget: "Prime Minister John Key pledged to give across-the-board tax cuts in his statement to Parliament yesterday on his plans for the year. There would be upfront increases in social welfare benefits, superannuation and working for family payments to compensate for the GST rise."

Can this country afford taxcuts to do what it's doing now? Healthwise, Educationwise and Welfarewise? Not to mention all the other wises out there such as Justicewise, Conservationwise and Defencewise.

These taxcuts will largely benefit wealthy people. As the Sunday Star Times shares with us: "The Sunday Star-Times understands the government has settled on lowering the tax rate for those earning between $14,000 to $48,000 – which represents the bulk of wage earners – from 21% to 19%. The May budget is also expected to lower the tax rate for those earning up to $14,000 from 12.5% to 10%.The Star-Times also understands the government will, in one hit, lower the top rate for those earning more than $70,000 from 38% to 33%, rather than doing it gradually."

Almost all benefit goes to the rich. We will lose out as a society. This tax cut discriminates against the poor whose tax is reduced by 2% compared to the 5% of the wealthy. While it could be argued the wealthier pay more in tax, they are more capable in handling it compared to poor. Also the wealthier generally achieve their wealth because of the poorer and their wealth has often been boosted by their ethnicity, sex and their own family's socio-economic status. As for New Zealand's middle-class, any hope of extra change is offset by GST. While it's good to reduce consumption, not everybody can. Especially for those in poverty who have to deal with the challenges of being poor. This means generally being less healthy, and being able to afford less nutritious food like fruit, meat or vegetables. It also means discrimination from people viewing living on the beneft as a "dream", like feeding your family on baked beans and sausages is a dream. GST will affect these families the most who cannot easily cut consumption, especially as food prices continue to change.

The poors tax contribution is miniscule compared to the rich, they are the ones affected more by poverty and that poverty discriminates against minorities. We know unemployment is a factor in the causes of crime and the government thinks the solution is to lock criminals up and throw away the key. There's no guarantee that higher growth = higher employment. While New Zealands economy may grow, there's only so many jobs to go around. For businesses jobs cost money. If you can get somebody more qualified to do more for the same amount of money they will do it. Considering the governments record on job cutting, there probably wont be many jobs for the unemployed to enter into. Especially if they've got a criminal record. And as Marty G at The Standard points out, this government hasn't exactly been keen on supporting New Zealand businesses.

Little will be done with these taxcuts to reduce the amount of inequality causing problems in our society. Nearly 14 years ago the social policy journal reported that unemployment was highest for people under 20 and over 55, males, Māori and Pacific Islanders. They reported the cause was partly due to a lack of education, qualification and lack of employment in rural areas. Unfortunately these facts are still relevant to New Zealand today.

Social Service Caritas Aotearoa New Zealand(2008, p. 14) explain that: "The level of inequality is uneven across New Zealand society... Inequality is also reflected in ethnicity – outcomes are poorer for Maori and Pacific Islanders than for Pakeha and Asian New Zealanders" These taxcuts will also do little to reduce child poverty. As the Child Poverty Action Group(p. 5) explain: "While work is very important for reducing poverty and increasing overall wellbeing, a “work first” policy is not sufficient to eliminate child poverty. Parental or child illness and disability, physical and social isolation including poor access to services, fewer employment opportunities and lack of support may all act to preclude parents from paid work.”

So while National would like to increase Working for Families, they haven't specified how much and the poorer children will be left out. While a Whanau Ora co-ordinator/provider who can work cross-culturally sounds nice, it will probably take away from what we already have. It's likely Peter will be robbed to pay Paul. Except the thief will say it was to stop Paul's "low quality" spending as Bill English likes to put it. "Ministers have agreed that Whanau Ora will be financially neutral - funded by reprioritising existing funding in votes Health, Social Development and Maori Affairs. Those details will be set out in the budget." Reprioritising is a vague word and doesn't give much understanding of what will be a priority. These Whanau Ora co-ordinators may want to co-ordinate with other agencies, but their may not be much left of them to co-ordinate with.

Brian Easton has some thoughts on this upcoming budget. He feels raising taxes is probably the most ethical thing we can do right now: "We have very high overseas debt, which we are not addressing, and the ongoing fiscal deficit is making it worse. If nothing is done, our credit rating will be downgraded and interest rates will rise[...] Even so, to avoid a credit downgrading we are also going to have to cut government spending. I don’t know what, and I don’t know when. But I do know that even if it is phased in, it will create difficulties for ordinary New Zealanders – which is why I favour raising taxes as part of the adjustment.

He has also shared insight from Peter Lindert into what raising taxes can do: "In his book Growing Public: Social Spending and Economic Growth Since the Eighteenth Century, Peter Lindert points out that European countries have much more efficient tax gathering systems. They are able to raise higher taxes to fund a more comprehensive welfare state than the US. On the basis of the evidence, he concludes that their “net social costs of transfers, and the taxes that finance them, are essentially zero. They do not bring the GDP costs that much of the Anglo-American literature has imagined.” He goes on: “High budget democracies show more care in choosing the design of taxes and transfers so as to avoid compromising growth … Broad universalism in taxes and entitlements fosters growth better than the low-budget countries’ preferences for strict means testing and complicated tax compromises.”

This country has problems with its health, education and welfare sector caused by cost cutting and other factors. It looks like this coming budget will probably worsen these. If our tax system was made more progressive one like Britain, Australia or Canada's it would likely help fix our problems.

"The welfare state, warts and all, is one of the more noble achievements of those people we call New Zealanders. A failure to develop that achievement would represent a failure of the nation... The Welfare State has been a community response to historical change. To go against this historical thrust would be to abandon New Zealand as a community." - Brian Easton, 1979, p. 177 in "Social Policy and the Welfare State in New Zealand"

Revised 6/5/10, 1:40 PM

Protest against mining one of the biggest in New Zealand's history

Backstory: Recently in New Zealand, there's been controversey surrounding mining of national park conservation land, or schedule 4 land. This is land put aside for conservation. Not land used for building or mining. The current government wants to change this so the conservation land can be used to mine coal or other minerals. The head of the reserve bank has stated this is a fruitless thing to do. There has been plans to mine several areas.

Today New Zealand had one of the biggest protests in its history. Around 50,000 people marched against the mining of conservation land. Congratulations everybody, I wish I could of been there to feel the energy and contribute. It sends a strong message that this land is precious to our enviornment and the ancestors of this country. The government has tried to give the impression that anyone protesting mining of schedule 4 land is against all mining. People aren't falling for it. Many recognise we need minerals for things like cars or computers. But mining for the sake of mining is pretty useless. These are overseas companies that want to take nearly the whole cake and leave us with some crumbs.

Our Prime Minister, John Key has said: "National will be on the lookout for new and innovative solutions to environmental challenges." Mining our conservation land is not a innovate solution to our enviornmental challenges. He's also said: "Our environment isn’t just a bonus. It’s part of being a Kiwi. It underpins our enviable quality of life. It gives us an in-built edge over many of our economic rivals. I’m thinking, for example, of what Australia would do for our abundant water resources. And, increasingly, New Zealand’s environmental credentials will underpin our prosperity and our trade profile." Now this inbuilt edge is under threat for the sake of a few cents, in the bigger picture.

Many New Zealanders are disappointed with John Key's stance on the enviornment. General Manager of Forest and Bird explains this: "In the past six months, environmentalists have observed with increasing disquiet a range of announcements from the Government that threaten damaging consequences for the environment. For example, Mr Key's pre-election promises on climate change have not been followed through by his actions in Government."


Thank you to everyone who showed up or supports it. Mining for the sake of mining is not what this country needs. If you're wanting to get involved or more involved, check Forest and Bird for ideas.

Meritocracy: Whose reward?

Ah that Genghis, what will he do next?

On a serious note, finding a balance between being awarded for work and being able to live from it is an issue. Many people work in sweatshops to earn what a checkout person in New Zealand earns working for 15 minutes. Thats if your lucky.

Dosomething.org shares several facts about Sweatshops. Facts such as how many earn as little as 1/4th for their basic human needs. Most of their income is spent on food. The US government also selectively gives aid to countries that have sweatshops operated by US companies. The Anti-Slavery society gives more insight into sweatshops: "Many children in Asia are kidnapped or otherwise trapped in servitude, where they work in factories and workshops for no pay and receive constant beatings."

In highschool I remember a world vision volunteer visiting my class before New Zealand's yearly 40 hour famine. He discussed how the conditions in sweatshops were better than many alternatives. These alternatives included digging in the trash, trying to look for garbage to sell. If you were blind or disabled, you would dig in the garbage at night. I think he didn't want to break our young spirits by explaining other some of the other alternatives. Unfortunately I think some of us could already guess.

Harvard Business School doctoral student Neeru Paharia and Professor Rohit Deshpandé have several ideas to stop sweatshops. They include:

• Stopping the desire for sweatshop products
• Empowering consumers to drive the opinion on how products should be made
• That shoppers become more self-aware about sweatshops themselves

Neeru Paharia also had this to add: "It's troubling that so much of our social and economic system is based on our moral judgment, especially if it's easy for us to justify our actions based on what we want." If you want it, it's yours as long as you can pay for it. You can be awarded for your work. No worries about the child's award for all their hard work. Their hard work can be your award.

This is a problem with Meritocracy in our system. Of course in New Zealand we aren't a pure meritocracy. We do have a mininum wage and a welfare system that is suppose to ensure people aren't in poverty in New Zealand. However problems do exist and so does poverty in New Zealand for that matter. Who receives an award can vary based on age, race and sex.

Individuality does have a link with Meritocracy. Humans have a long history of working towards their goals and being awarded for doing so. However some people forget that we don't all play on a level playing field. The work we can do is influenced by our DNA, the circumstances we were born under and the community. As well as this there are people who want to steal awards and claim them for themselves. Sweatshops are an example of this.

Dr. Joseph H. Saleh is Assistant Professor of Aerospace Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He was also a technical consultant for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. When working for the Michigan Institute of Technology, he had some comments and suggestions for a fairer Meritocracy:

"Consistency and transparency on what constitutes merit are necessary conditions for a meritocracy to actually be one... Meritocracy requires that we first articulate what constitutes "merit," and what constitutes merit in turn should reflect 1) our values, 2) what kind of people we want to attract and retain, and 3) what kind of behaviors we want to promote and encourage. So while talking about meritocracy, perhaps even better while talking about a "caring meritocracy," we can also talk about our shared values at MIT."

With this combination of ethics and engineering, maybe we could use this to benefit New Zealand's social and economic system? We could make our system:

1. Have more transperacy about how products are made and come from
   
2. Reflect Aotearoa New Zealand's values
3. Attract people to our country that appreciate these values
   
4. Promote and encourage behaviours based on Aotearoa New Zealand's values
   

To some extent our system does these four things already. But not to a totally large extent. I'd say many some products sold in New Zealand have involved slave labour in some form unfortunately. I also think the Warehouse wouldn't be too pleased if people knew where their bargains were coming from. However recognising a problem is usually the first way to fixing it. As well as this, some people feel they are too small to change the system and may be blind to the benefit of working as a group.

As for Aotearoa New Zealand's values, they can be hard to pinpoint. Our national anthem doesn't give us much of a clue about what these values are. I'm all for saving the Queen but I'm also for saving other people as well. The well-regarded New Zealand historian Michael King does give us some suggestions about where New Zealand's values come from.

In his interview with Kim Hill Michael talked about the values within New Zealand which are from Maori and Pakeha(NZ Europeans): "Pakeha culture is largely derived from Europe, its more individually oriented whereas Maori culture is more communally oriented. Pakeha culture has all sorts of other values that New Zealanders think are precious, like protecting the underdog, not having great extremes of wealth and extremities of poor. There’s a whole list of these things." How do you define a underdog? What is extremely wealthy or poor? And how can you have a combination of collectivism and individuality? For instance in individuality you usually earn your respect. Generally though in Maori culture, you are already born with it due to your inherited mana. As Michael explains, the values New Zealanders share are many. Investigating some practical definitions would be helpful.

Dwight Furrow is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at San Diego Mesa College, USA. Furrow(2005, p.4) explains in his book Ethics that humans often base their ethical behaviour on beliefs and habits they've learned early in life. Infact Furrow(2005, p.1) also says teachers and parents are responsible for teaching ethical behaviour. We are all individuals with our own individual needs and thoughts. But there are things that must be taught by the collective in order for people to be in a safe society. A collective teaching and encouraging New Zealand's values would play a part in a fair New Zealand Meritocracy.

David Perry director of Vann Center for ethics at Davidson College gives some insight into preventing people being exploited by meritocracy. Within his review of Tobias Wolff's novel Old School, he states that "our ethical system [at Davidson] is opposed to the contemptuous, arrogant and cruel sort of meritocracy advocated by Ayn Rand (91-96). Our code of honor at Davidson, unlike hers, is joined at the hip with mercy and forgiveness." He acknowledges that problems and unfairness happen in the real world and meritocracy should make room for this.


Genghis Khan shows us some of meritocracys pros and pitfalls. We can earn rewards through hard work. But these rewards aren't always earned fairly, they can be stolen from others and we don't always get the same rewards for the same work. Rewards play a part in our individuality and can help us gain meaning to our lives. But exploiting others for rewards makes us earn them unfairly. This hurts society, which hurts us for being part of society.