Since the third position here at Insights is usually reserved for a light-hearted take on the events of the day, let me play devil’s advocate, taking the opposite side to two of Oliver’s recent arguments. Oliver is almost certainly correct, and if the Initiative has a position on anything, it is his. But ideas are worth hashing out.

Oliver correctly notes that the market is punishing Volkswagen for cheating on the emissions tests – though expected large fines have much to do with it. And rules have their place. In a dense city, preventing nitrous oxide and particulate emissions can be very important. In the middle of Montana, not so much. Defeating emission controls has been sport since the 1970s, both for car enthusiasts and for manufacturers. The Wikipedia article on “defeat devices” lists a 1998 case in which seven manufacturers rigged heavy trucks to meet the standard during testing, but then to meet driver expectations on the highway.

If following all the rules all the time were best, work-to-rule campaigns would not count as industrial action. Maybe in some other world with manageable regulations, things would be different. But the American Code of Federal Regulations, as of 2008, spanned 50 titles of multiple volumes. And you would have to read over two hundred pages per day just to keep up with the flow of new regulations.

I wonder whether legislators ever really wanted some rules to be followed, or if they only passed them to be seen to be doing something while hoping nobody would be daft enough to take things seriously. 

A modern take on Atlas Shrugged could even have every firm in every industry implement a work-to-regulation campaign, taking every rule exceptionally seriously. Liability rules around health and safety are pushing New Zealand closer to that – just look at the construction industry’s treatment of scaffolding regulations.

Markets require rules. But adhering too closely to each and every one of them could bring the end of civilisation. Or, more optimistically, a bonfire of the worst rules.

And so we come to my second quibble – still while playing devil’s advocate. In last week’s NBR, Oliver argued that new migrants should have to affirm their agreement to some statement of New Zealand values. But can you imagine the kind of oath that would be written by today’s Parliament? I would have to say it with my fingers crossed, before breaking it.

PS: Oliver thinks I am wrong on both counts but he liked this piece.