This recent headline from New Zealand should itself send chills down your spine…
“Government reveals details of fuel crisis rationing plan – and who will be prioritized.”
Anytime the pointy shoes get to decide who will and who will not get something, you must realise that you’re about to get royally screwed.
The uncomfortable parallels between the Convid response and the proposed fuel rationing plan cannot be ignored.
“Government reveals details of fuel crisis rationing plan – and who will be prioritized.”
Anytime the pointy shoes get to decide who will and who will not get something, you must realise that you’re about to get royally screwed.
The uncomfortable parallels between the CV response and the proposed fuel rationing plan cannot be ignored.
On the surface, the Fuel Response Plan looks more restrained... It’s incremental, it defers to markets in early phases, and it explicitly frames escalation as a last resort. Officials are at pains to say Phases 3 and 4 are unlikely. Then again, we saw the same BS... This is deliberate positioning.
The architecture of this plan is strikingly familiar…
Escalating powers are dressed as prudent planning.
The fuel plan begins with “monitor and inform.” In both cases, the framework is designed to normalise the existence of extraordinary powers before they’re used.
Phases 3 and 4 — rationing, purchasing limits, directed distribution — are legally and politically pre-legitimised by their inclusion in a published plan. The plan doesn’t just prepare for a crisis; it prepares the public to accept an intervention they haven’t yet been asked about. Most notably there is no consultation mechanism.
This is pure top-down central planning. The illusion of democracy should be well and truly shattered. Sadly, I suspect the sheep will fall for it… again.
Ministerial discretion is the operative mechanism. The Fuel Security Ministerial Oversight Group decides when to move between phases, guided by six criteria — none of which are automatic triggers. Ministers “will consider a broad range of information” and “assess the full picture.”
Economic fascism, stripped of its wartime aesthetic, is a specific and coherent system: private ownership is preserved in form, but the state directs resource allocation, sets priorities, and determines winners and losers.
The large private firm and the state apparatus become functionally indistinguishable. Property rights exist on paper while operational autonomy does not.
Let’s map that against the proposed fuel plan…
- Fuel companies retain ownership of their infrastructure and stocks — but government directs who they supply, in what priority, under what conditions.
- Industry “coordination” is the mechanism, meaning large incumbents with government relationships are at the table; small operators are not.
- Crony capitalism is taken to a new level.
- The priority bands — Band A through E — are not market outcomes. They are state-directed allocation dressed up in administrative language.
No comments:
Post a Comment