A Great Society would give the Elite more ‘Soul’

New Zealand has given up on the dream of the Great Society, in the interests of all, and settled for mediocrity compensating by being overly concerned with ‘looking good’ i.e. image as a substitute for substance and truth.

Many of New Zealand’s ‘tall poppies’ have either been forced to seek opportunities overseas (800,000 now live overseas) or forced to live on the fringes of New Zealand society where there are some of the most talented, intelligent, holistic and creative people in society and, in one of the many perversities of mediocre societies, exploited, kept in poverty and stopped from saying too much often by those who did not have the courage to pursue their own dreams – the social controllers in society. This elite do it because they realize that such individuals are very vulnerable often having little choice apart from giving up his/her gifts and talents and serving the elite.

Also, despite the removal of the ‘best and the brightest’ the liberal, middle class, professional elite are used to expecting, as if they are somehow more special and deserving, privileged treatment by political parties and the human rights establishment but in human rights terms those suffering the worst violations, largely amongst the most disadvantaged, should be the ones emphasized.

But on reading the article (see Global Systematic Discrimination against the Poor on this site, which shows that global elites are manipulating human rights in their interests) some of New Zealand’s liberal, middle class, professional elite who are discontented with the present situation, those who want to think for themselves rather than simply obeying the dictates of international bodies through our government, may well support having the empowerment rights to development and human rights education described in the article and the above book included in domestic and international human rights law. This will provide the necessary support to help them break out of the ‘neo liberal square’, the ‘them versus us’ attitude and ‘budgeting mentality’ that prevails – these are the negative forces associated with mediocrity which have taken over the world and is often to be found in ‘failed States’.

The right to development rather than just simply focus on the old ideas of the present Corporations and ideas which maintain the neo liberal status quo places greater emphasis on small business and the maximization of new ideas for the good of all – it is such innovation that will take society and the world forward. This is a far more positive and creative approach than the present policies which privilege social controllers involved in redistribution of the wealth upwards and the creation of unemployment. The positive approach sees people as important in themselves while the negative approach sees people as a means to an end, simply to be used.

The right to development also includes holistic development (greater ‘soul’) which would help the elite overcome their considerable alienation from the rest of society so they are more free to follow their heart wherein all people matter - a far more natural state of being than the present ‘elite versus the rest’ situation where a large sector of society are excluded with many social problems including poor health leading to shorten lives, child poverty and abuse with many children going to school hungry. These are some of the reasons why mediocrity is unacceptable while the Great Society, which frees all from their social prisons, is the only acceptable aim for a good society.

As well as reaching their full spiritual potential the right to development enables, for example, intellectuals to seek the truth and reach their full intellectual potential, and as it would be in law, without the threat of being isolated by their group. The right to development would require a more balanced approach to development involving both big and small business and so provide the middle classes with more opportunities as social and/or economic entrepreneurs in the community where they can further their economic and social development, mixing with different classes while achieving something worthwhile (as well as doing something they love) and still retaining their social status and friendships.

While the right to human rights education would enable them to develop beyond liberalism and so be better able to understand and address the huge, complex social problems facing today’s world which the present limited neo liberal ideology and elites are only capable of dealing with by way of military force and increasing social control. Or, at the very least, if there is a lack of support amongst the elite for economic, social and cultural rights, to ensure the liberal rights they profess to uphold are truly universal e.g. ensuring the poor have a voice of their own whereby they can promote economic, social and cultural rights and leave it for the democratic majority to decide whether they want these rights, and core minimum obligations in law (described more fully in the article and my book ‘Freedom from our social prisons’ (Lexington Books) cited in the article).

Also the inclusion of non retrogression would protect prevailing standards of human rights in society so long as the core minimum obligations of the State were met i.e. the gap between rich and poor cannot be increased unless these core minimum obligations (described more fully in the article) are addressed. However the elite will gain in terms of the above empowerment rights which will enable them to help themselves and get more satisfaction out of their achievements and not simply be reliant on their middle class social status and an easy, safe, boring mediocrity.

ENDS

© Scoop Media