Whither Canada?

Wither Canada?

We are in a relatively good place right now in comparison with other nations in the world, but putting national policy on cruise control is always a dangerous move. Federally at the moment the choice is quite clear between the 'right' and the 'left'. The Conservatives and the NDP have starkly contrasting visions of where they want to take Canada.

An interesting way to look at this is to compare nations based on the amount of government expenditure as a percentage of GDP and their tax burden as a percentage of GDP. The numbers should be somewhat similar, otherwise there will be a serious shortfall. (See Greece and Britain)

Former NDP MP Tony Martin looks back on his time in Ottawa.

I thought we had a real chance at a progressive government in the fall and winter of 2008-2009 – the coalition. For me, the lowlight was not being able to achieve that. I thought we had a chance to achieve a progressive government that would have allowed us to do a whole bunch of things, including working on the reduction of poverty. The government we have has no interest in doing anything about poverty. The lowlight was we didn’t achieve it and that the Liberals walked away from an opportunity to throw Harper out.

Do not be fooled. You cannot say they haven't indicated whither they will take us.

Some samples (this is taken from OECD stats) for 2011:

Country	Gov’t Tax Burden % of GDP	Gov’t Expenditure % of GDP
Argentina	26.1	24.7
Australia	30.8	34.3
Austria	42.9	49.0
Belgium	46.5	50.0
Brazi	l 34.4	41.0
Canada	32.2	39.7
Chile	18.6	21.1
China	18.0	20.8
Cuba	41.2	78.1
Czech Republic	36.2	42.9
Denmark	49.0	51.8
Finland	43.2	49.5
France	44.6	52.8
Germany	40.6	43.7
Greece	35.1	46.8
Hong Kong	13.0	18.6
Israel	33.5	42.9
Italy	43.1	48.8
Japan	28.3	37.1
Malaysia	15.3	26.3
Mexico	8.2	23.7
Netherlands	39.	8 45.9
New Zealand	34.5	41.1
Norway	42.1	40.2
Singapore	14.2	17.0
South Korea	26.6	30.0
Spain	33.9	41.1
Sweden	47.9	52.5
Switzerland	29.4	32.0
Taiwan	12.9	18.5
UK	38.9	47.3
US	26.9	38.9

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_spending_as_a_percentage_of_GDP

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SNA_TABLE11



Right now I would estimate the OECD average to be about 42%, but I need to do a little number crunching. Two important points to consider:

1. Know your competition. For example, Singapore and Hong Kong must keep their taxes and government spending similar to compete, as must
South Korea and Japan, Australia and New Zealand, Canada and America.
It makes no sense to say we must compete with the likes of China or Taiwan, but we must remember they are breathing down our necks.

2. In public policy, one establishes models (stated or unstated). Governments can move their expenditure and tax numbers up or down over time, depending on different factors. Canada right now, at about 40% government spending is in a comfortable spot for many (but not the hard core libertarians). I can live with this. The problem is that demographic forces will cause this to grow (as it will in many other nations) unless we re-allocate spending.

Here, we must be careful. If the feds cut, but provinces make up the difference by increased spending, then we gain nothing. And the fastest growing bit of government in North America in recent years has been the one most off the radar (except the radar of the public sector unions) has been local government. How much do your local city and school board administrators make these days? How much has the staffing size and costs increased in recent years. It doesn't make headlines, but it should.

Now back to Jack. The darling of the NDP for oh so many years has been the lovely social democratic country of Sweden, where the government cares for your from cradle to grave, where daycare is free, retirement is comfortable (and health care is a mix of public and private services!). In Sweden, government spending is 52.5% of GDP. Taxes are 47.9%. And these will grow in coming years. For Canada to get here, our total taxes would have to rise by 49% and government spending by 32%. I guess the only comfort is that the NDP mainstream has quietly written off Cuba
(78% government expenditure)! Maybe the NDP equivocates and claims that Sweden isn't their only model. The other Scandinavian countries are similar in government spending: Denmark 51.8%, Netherlands 45.9, Finland 49.5%. Norway is the exception, but their numbers are distorted by their immense North Sea oil revenues.

Some things to consider in coming years. Do you want more government in your life? Do you want more taxes? This is what Jack Layton said in response to the recent federal cabinet appointments. His priorities are:

Making life more affordable for ordinary Canadians
More health care
Better Retirement security
Family supporting jobs (?!)

It is nice to say, but it must be squared with the reality of the situation. Look at the stats. Compare countries. Remember demographics.







- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Libertarians of Canada despair!

Libertarians of Canada despair! Where is less government in our lives when the size of cabinet grows? When the senate grows? One thing Jack Layton and I may agree with is the need to abolish the senate as I doubt it will ever be seriously reformed. In power, even Smilin' Jack could succumb to the temptation of rewarding cronies with a senate seat. (The argument then would be "Quebec won't agree to abolishment. It's all constitutional."


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Elevate the common man, reject the elites.

The late William F. Buckley, one of the founders of the modern conservative movement in America once said: "I'd rather be governed by the first 2000 people of the Boston telephone directory than the faculty of Harvard." He thus placed his greater political faith in ordinary people (the demos) than in the elites. This makes for an interesting consideration. How many people in Canada today would agree with Buckley? Certainly, our recent rejection of a Harvard scholar for prime minister reflected in part an anti-intellectual bias. But he was just one scholar. Had it been the whole faculty of Harvard (or U of T -- McGill is now suspect), how would we have chosen?

In the recent book First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea
the author, Paul Woodruff lambastes America's political failings, holding up seven ideals of democracy that ancient Athens exemplified.
1. Freedom from tyranny.
2. Harmony
3. The rule of law.
4. Natural equality
5. Citizen wisdom
6. Reasoning without knowledge
7. Education (paideia)

I highly recommend the book. Woodruff looks more favorably upon parliamentary democracies like Canada than he does upon America. He is a great fan of proportional representations and other political modifications that bring political systems more in line with his 7 ideals.

All these ideals strongly conflict with rule by elites. The very success of Athenian democracy was founded on a rejection of rule by elites, who had become tyrants. Elites come to believe they know better than the common man. (This is the disease that plagues the Liberal house now.)

Woodruff recommends the creation of something like the ancient Greek assembly whereby citizens were chosen at random (like a jury) to debate and vote on issues of governance. I rather like this idea as a replacement for our current senate. This council of 500 founded on IT and social media could re-inject the public spirit into the political process that we need in Canada.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

On proportional representation and democratic reforms

The recent UK plebiscite on electoral reform, which sought to replace the current first past the post system with a variation on proportional representation was defeated. The status quo remains.

This defeat joins others in recent years, particularly in Canada. The province of Ontario rejected proportional representation in 2007, British Columbia twice in 2005 and 2009, and Prince Edward Island in 2005.
While one can argue that political manipulation by entrenched interests prevented the success of these referenda, it seems clear that there is not a huge desire on the part of Canadians for PR. Despite all the shortcomings of our first past the post electoral system, the stability that majority governments provide has put us in good stead. Compared to most other nations of the world, we are a strong and healthy country.

Some good websites that discuss the issue:

http://www.proportional-representation.org/

http://economics.about.com/cs/issues/a/proportionalrep.htm

http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/689


This does not bode well for underrepresented parties in federal and provincial parliaments in Canada. The Greens are unlikely to see a national plebiscite on this. However, the need for electoral reform remains if we are to realize the full potential of democracy and satisfy the needs of people. The voting turn-out in Canada is abysmal. It is dangerous to leave democracy to the elites. If not PR, then what other routes can we pursue to a fairer political system?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Friedrich von Hayek: His Life and Thought (Socialists wise up)

A monumental political and economic theorist:

Friedrich von Hayek: His Life and Thought

Friedrich A. Hayek interviewed by John O'Sullivan in 1985

Hoisted with their own petard

NDP talking points return to haunt them.

I'm tired of hearing that 60% of Canadian voters didn't vote for the Conservatives. Jack Layton and the NDP love to repeat this fact, as if to suggest the majority government is not legitimate. Well then, best case scenario, 70 % of Canadians didn't vote for the NDP. But wait, Quebec is an anomaly in this election. Let's take them out of the equation and look at all of Canada with Quebec excluded. Now, the Conservatives receive 48% of the national votes (vs. 40% Quebec included) and the NDP drops to 20%. 80% of Canadian voters outside Quebec didn't support the NDP. Remember this, Jack!

Now the NDP is changing their tactics, not being satisfied with the 40-60 stats for the Conservatives. In the May 5th edition of the Nanaimo News Bulletin, the re-elected Nanaimo-Cowichan NDP MP Jean Crowder crowed "It's important to remember the country has a Conservative majority with less than a quarter of the registered voting population supporting it."

What about the NDP? Less than 20% of registered Canadian voters supported the NDP. Again, let's exclude Quebec from the equation. Outside of Quebec, a mere 12% of Canadians supported the NDP. You can call the newly minted official opposition "Smiling Jack and the 12% Party".

And if you want to enter into the whole quagmire about proportional representation? The NDP received 42.9% of the vote in Quebec but got 77% of the seats (58 of 75 seats) Let's take away 26 of those seats to more fairly represent their share of the popular vote. We could start with the Vegas MP without much protest!


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Where the Rubber Meets the Road

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -- George Carlin

Let's hope this doesn't apply to Canada. But ...
Maybe Canada as a whole needs a spell of NDP government to learn how bad it can be. We in BC have been burned twice in the last 40 years, Ontario once. The trouble with the NDP is that they are full of aspiring social engineers and academics with minimal business and real world experience. They attempt all sorts of things only to find that they don't work and just end up pissing off everyone, including their own supporters.
Don't be fooled by official platforms as we well know that those policies are but the tip of a proverbial iceberg with political parties.

BTW interesting endorsement by the Globe and Mail


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

They just don't get it

They don't get it. They just don't get it. 'Gotcha politics' continues in the close federal race of Vancouver South. The former NDP premier of BC, now Liberal MP fighting for his political life, is pulling out all the stops. His current party is a master at this and they are desperate indeed. But they are putting another nail into the coffin of Canadian politics (which might in fact be a good thing). People get turned off, throw up their hands and disengage. The political elites in power (whether Conservatives or Liberals) secretly like this as it enhances their power. But it is a slap in the face of democracy.

The dirty secret only political junkies are aware of is that the Liberal Party of Canada is in its death throes. This was so even before this election. Their support keeps getting smaller and more geographically limited (to the GTA). If they were somehow able to form government, what do you think their first priority will be? Their party or the country? They will use every old trick they know to save themselves and destroy their opposition.
The old Liberal establishment is quaking in their boots at the thought of being displaced by the NDP!


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Michael Ignatieff's Plight

Ah, the wisdom of Aesop.  Do not try to be all things to all people.  Do not try to grasp too much at once.
The Liberals have done just this and the Canadian public see it for what it is -- inauthentic.   And so their failure to capture the attention of Canadians.    But of course,   people are suckers and fall for the more authentic but more dangerous policies of professor Jack Layton and the NDP.   (A reminder to all , especially in British Columbia,  it was under NDP rule that BC faced the shame of becoming a 'have not' province.  We shall never live this down!)

The Boy and the Filberts 


  A BOY put his hand into a pitcher full of filberts.  He grasped
as many as he could possibly hold, but when he tried to pull out
his hand, he was prevented from doing so by the neck of the
pitcher.  Unwilling to lose his filberts, and yet unable to
withdraw his hand, he burst into tears and bitterly lamented his
disappointment.  A bystander said to him, "Be satisfied with half
the quantity, and you will readily draw out your hand."  


 Do not attempt too much at once.  

A lesson for the likes of Michael Ignatieff and before him Paul Martin.

An interesting study on poverty among Canadian seniors

The Liberals and NDP have been going on about senior citizens' poverty in Canada during this election, professing that they are the only ones who can protect seniors. This makes me laugh. The wealthiest demographic in Canada today has to be seniors and baby boomers who are now entering senior citizenship. Granted, much of their wealth is tied up in land and capital, but that's okay. If you own a million dollar home in Vancouver, don't dare to claim you are not rich. To say that they need additional government support is laughable. And the Liberals and NDP are also the most strongly opposed to any form of means checking before receiving government assistance. Again the wealthy establishment will be getting their share of my tax dollars while I struggle to support my family.

Here is a very interesting recent academic study on senior's poverty in Canada:

http://ideas.repec.org/h/sls/secfds/08.html#author


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Political Philosophy and Aesop

A good way to 'wisen' ourselves up politically is to revisit some old stories from childhood. You can't beat Aesop for this.

Here is a great online collection of Aesop's fables.

And here is an interesting academic paper using Aesop's fables to consider political philosophy.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Popular Vote and Majority Governments

Mr. Ignatieff was complaining the other day that 60% of Canadians oppose Stephen Harper. It was an interesting comment in light of our present parliamentary democracy where it only requires 40-43% of the popular vote to form a majority government which unfortunately permits a minimally limited tyranny. As well, the comment must be taken in light of the fact that a significant number of Canadians do not even vote and thus express their opinion.

Some interesting recent national majority governments and their popular votes:

Election: Party: Popular Vote:

2000 Liberal 40.8%
1997 Liberal 38.5%
1993 Liberal 41.3%
1988 Conservative 43%
1984 Conservative 50%


Vote splitting can allow majorities with lower popular votes, as Cretien proved in 1997. The Quebec vote can prevent majority governments, although this might begin to change.

There is a difference between parliamentary authority and moral authority to form a government. Although combined popular votes can reflect public will, people do not vote for governments on this basis.


From: http://www.electionalmanac.com/canada/popularvote.php




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

National Nimbleness

The world is indisputably changing ever more rapidly, aided by advanced technology and global communications. There are winners and losers in this, which history clearly shows. The recent Gallop survey on global wellbeing provides an interesting perspective on how few countries report their populace as thriving. If you are far from thriving in terms of wellbeing, you are considerably challenged. So often unfortunately, politics triumphs economics and drags nations down. Just consider Africa. When democracy is absent, accountability and the vital feedback loop are suppressed. The fall from the top can happen quite quickly. Remember Argentina in the early twentieth century. There is an element of luck, for which you can read geography. In addition, demography is becoming an even more important factor. There are brutal lessons in all this for Canada, particularly for our politicians and policy makers. We need to be at the forefront of change and by all rights this shouldn't be so difficult. This requires the ability to move and respond efficiently and effectively. For this we need flexibility and freedom, and a populace that is united and thriving in terms of wellbeing. Small government and low taxes keep our costs low and so enable flexibility. Otherwise, you end up with lumbering elephants (read elites) trying to maintain their positions or steal other positions with the aid of government influence and preferences. America and the EC have become burdened by many things which have slowed them. Will the 21st century belong to Canada? It depends.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

69% of Canadians are Happy. How about you?

69% of Canadians are Happy. How about you?

In this recent survey

Canadians appear to be among the happiest people in the world.

Here are the top 10 countries:

1. Denmark: 72%
2. Canada: 69%
2. Sweden: 69%
4. Australia: 66%
5. Finland: 64%
5. Venezuela: 64%
7. Israel: 63%
7. New Zealand: 63%
9. Netherlands: 62%
9. Ireland: 62%

Here are the bottom 10 countries:

1. Chad: 1%
2. Central African Republic: 2%
3. Haiti: 2%
4. Burkina Faso: 3%
5. Cambodia: 3%
6. Niger: 3%
7. Tajikistan: 3%
8. Tanzania: 4%
9. Mali: 4%
10. Comoros: 4%


How about you at this particular point in time? How about in the long run?
There are various happiness tests/surveys out on the web that purport to tell you whether and how happy you are and even give guidance to improve your 'happiness quotient'.

I am in the process of creating my own "Happiness Test". Watch for it.
When complete, I'll post the link here.

A Greek philosophy professor of mine many years ago likened happiness to "butterfly landing on you". I thought it a very apt analogy. It is like being at the right place at the right time under the right conditions. There is an element of luck (fate?) involved.

And yet we can enable such moments so that they can happen and can happen more than once. Think of luck as the crossroads of opportunity and preparation rather than merely a haphazard occurrence.

So much has been written over the centuries about happiness that I cannot and will not provide a historical survey here. I will comment on a few important points and then give my two cents.

America is quite unique in that they put the pursuit of happiness into the very preamble to their great constitution. Interestingly, however, this nation founded on the notion that its people have the "right to the pursuit of happiness" is not in the latest top ten happiest nations.

This is relevant to politics and economics because politics can and does indeed affect the happiness of people. Think of Robert Mugabe. Did his politics enable the happiness of the black mobs to whom he gave the white farmers' farms? (Not to speak of the white farmers.) Does democracy facilitate greater happiness? I believe it does. Happiness founded on economic freedom without political freedom is a false happiness. It is founded on sticks that will easily crumble. Think of China.


The dimensions of happiness (which we manage individually and as nations and a world) in my view are (in no particular order):


* a life in accord with one's spirit
* success
* personal comfort
* security
* work or some occupation that engages one
* interest
* freedom
* self-knowledge
* good fortune
* love
* friendship and family
* usefulness
* good wine (for this read some physical pleasures)

There are certainly things we can add to this list, which depends on our own lives and values. Beauty is an important variable for me, but personal comfort is pleasant but not essential. There is a continuum for each dimension as well.

There are enemies of happiness too, which are important to consider. In many ways they are simply the antithesis of the above enabling factors. Some of these enemies include:

* anomie and other disconnectedness and frustration
* failure
* low self-esteem and attacks on self-esteem
* poverty and material impoverishment
* fear
* illness
* loneliness
* boredom
* enslavement
* bad luck
* ignorance


Feel free to add your own to these lists. Reflect on these variables as they apply to your life now, in the past and in the future.

Happiness is not just something that happens. Some people are more disposed to it than others. But it can be enabled.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Where do we go from here?

Strong personalities will invoke hostility but they can and will effect change, for good or bad depending on one's outlook and interests. A wishy washy middle of the road fence sitter will not necessarily be hated, but there are dangers in fiddling while Rome burns.

A fascinating take on the two directions the candidates for leader of Canada is here: Kelly McParland: Party platforms show gaping divide between Toryworld and Liberal-land

The next big question we need to ask following this election is:
How do we build national harmony?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

My Political Philosophy

I wrote this some years ago, but it still stands as a balanced and fairly complete statement of principles. My attention these days is to the area of design.


The Political Philosophy of Leslie Barclay

Introduction

It would be wonderful if all humans could live the bulk of their lives from birth to death in a state of peaceful happiness, with good fortune, good health and joyful relationships with family, friends and neighbors. When one speaks of utopia, it is conditions such as these that one envisions. Mindful that utopias are frought with dangers in that they enter into dubious ends and means tradeoffs that engender moral and political straightjackets, I prefer a gentle society that tends rather to enable human happiness instead of forcing it upon people.

I think that it is important to begin with the individual and the family as the focus and the building blocks of a social, economic and political philosophy. Adopt a micro to macro perspective rather than vice versa. In this way one can better consider the motivations and values of the average individual (of course, keeping in mind that exceptional individuals always exist). We must not lose sight of the individual, nor must we ignore the greater whole.

The initial driving questions should be:

How can we design the rules governing a society in such a way that they enhance;

* an individual's happiness
* an individuals prosperity
* an individual's social behavior and ultimately love
* an individual's educational development and greater wisdom
* an individual's environmental behavior


Justice

Aristotle observed that if all men were friends, justice would not be necessary. If we were all friends with a good dose of personal and social responsibility, anarchy might even work. This not being the case though, justice adminstered through the state is necessary. Politics is the means by which justice is served through the state.

Genuine human happiness for all can only occur within a society that is just. So what is exactly is justice? Several good definitions follow:

1. Justice is that which concerns fairness or equity, often divided into three parts: procedural justice, concerned with fair methods of making decisions and settling disputes; distributive justice, concerned with the fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of society; and corrective justice, concerned with correcting wrongs and harms through compensation or retribution (from National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans, NHMRC, 2001).

and

2. In the Hebrew scriptures, justice is a virtue by which people carry out the demands of a relationship, whether it is with god or other people. These demands differed, depending on the nature of the relationship. In the New Testament, faith in Jesus Christ puts the Christian in special relationship with him. The 'just' believers will honour this relationship in the way that they live. Through justice, people respect the rights of other individuals and groups e.g. the right to a decent standard of living, the right to be educated, the right to live in peace and freedom.
(from: www.mn.catholic.org.au/about/glossary_AM.htm )

and finally, most simply

3. Justice, broadly defined, is a state in which everyone begins equal, has equal opportunity to succeed and has certain social rights that must be universally protected independent of social standing.


I begin my political philosophy with the view that our Canadian society, which is so often held internationally as a model, is in fact rife with injustice and that this is the greatest barrier to enabling greater happiness. While we are certainly more just than the typical African or Middle Easern nation, we still have a lot to do. Consider this. Is it just that:

* pornography and in particular child pornography flourishes?
* physical, sexual and mental abuse of children and adults (primarily women) flourishes?
* criminals repeatedly are released from prison only to commit crimes (often murder and rape) again?
* youth and native suicide rates have skyrocketed in recent years?
* innocent and helpless unborn babies are murdered in the womb in growing numbers with almost no
one to defend them?
* there are many people who would like a job that challenges them and values their education,
experience and skills, but are relegated to unemployment, underemployment or demeaning
employment?
* the average taxpayer must work on average half the year to pay all the taxes from various levels of
government?
* native Canadians in large numbers should live in poverty and dependency mired in alcohol and
abuse?
* family breakup and the resultant mental pain suffered by the children is so common?
* half of older teenagers should suffer from an STD because they engage in casual sex?
* drug and alcohol abuse is rampant in society and that drug gangs increasingly stir up trouble for the
police and society in general?
* various minority groups continue to be unfairly discriminated against?
* tax dollars should be wasted and corruption go unpunished?
* poverty in Canada seems to become increasingly entrenched with the comcomitant homelessness and
hunger?
* gambling is the latest addiction to inflict the masses, increasingly to the benefit of government general
revenue coffers?
* there are many sick people in Canada who cannot get the healing they need, but are denied the
freedom to go outside the government system for the treatment they require?


There is more and all this is only Canada. Expand the perspective to the whole world and it is even scarier. But, lets not fall prey to the holier than thou attitude when there remains so much injustice in Canada even now. Lets focus on the root causes of all this misery in view of eliminating them and establishing the rules and institutions that will not give rise to further injustice. A just society can be created by establishing just institutions and just social and economic practices. The failure of social justice, on the other hand, is a disease that affects not only those in poverty, but all of us.


Politics and the State

Justice requires the establishment of a state. The role of the state is to protect its citizens, enforce its laws and maintain social justice. The state leads to the development, for better or for worse, of politics. Politics should be an open and participatory device for solving problems and hence securing justice. It ought further to enable individuals to live a good life in harmony with society, technology and the environment. That government is best which best enables its citizens to pursue and realize the ends which comprise a good life rather than fostering the withdrawn and excessive selfish pursuit and realization of greed and sensual indulgence.
Political design and analysis should focus on the impact upon and interaction among individuals, society, technology and the invironment,particularly how power, wealth and freedom is distributed and used.

The political culture and structure ought to foster:
1) virtue: in particular a) consciousness b) selflessness c) moderation and d) doubt
2) choice (supported by virtue): in particular diversity, not conformity, supported by freedom and
responsibility
3) community: in particular interdependence, friendship, peace and the public good
4) democratic citizenship: in particular, disinterested individualism and participation
5) wealth: in particular, enough wealth, equitably distributed and pursued in moderation, to ensure
survival and comfort necessary for the good life.
6) environmental stewardship -- facilitate sustainable economic and environmental behavior

Benjamin Franklin believed that we should practice daily 13 virtues:
industry, frugality, temperance, silience, order, resolution, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity and humility.

Wouldn't it be nice if our political culture could encourage more people to do likewise.

Once we abandon anarchy and agree to the establishment of a state with all its various political rules and establishments, we give rise to many unintended consequences. A rule founded on altruistic beliefs can result in outcomes that do not in fact benefit the persons they were intended to benefit. The tragedy of American single welfare moms in the 1980s who had more children than they could raise because welfare paid them in effect to have babies immediately comes to mind. Therefore, it is important to pause and consider before establishing new rules and establishments and even go further and consider existing rules and establishments in light of the following.


PRIMARY IDEALS AND BELIEFS: (used to assess public policy)


A. Philosophy and Purpose:

1. A truly just society is one in which all citizens are political and economic 'haves'; a system of
popular political democracy is in place and genuine poverty is eliminated. (Inequality will remain
but it will be of 'haves' -- some will have more and some less; it will be a difference in degree, not
kind and public policy can decide what degree of this inequality it deems appropriate and how to
manage this; ideally a predominantly middle class society is best, with few individuals at the
extreme and the gap between these extremes is small.)

2. Centralized government is an evil, albeit a necessary one, because it is the delegation or
assumption of powers over individuals citizens by a group, large or small. It is a reduction of
the individual for the sake of the mass and its primary method of operation is elitist coersion;
it fosters apathy and non-participation. We must be wary of its tendencies and its dangers.

B. Design:

3. Power and political decision-making should be highly decentralized, visible and controlled as
much as possible at the community level and by those whom the decisions affect. This best
limits the powers of government and fosters self-government (government by the people, not
the elites); only when the benefits of centralized authority far outweight the benefits of local
or community-based authority should government be centralized (such as instances of defence
and foreign policy). There are times when policy should be developed centrally for purposes of
consistency, but implementation can be local. Also to be decided is whether the citzenry wishes
a decentralized representative or direct democracy or what mixture of the two.

4. Government intervention (in the form of rules and regulations, taxes, funding and services) is
necessary because of human imperfection and the tendency towards selfishness and inequality
but it should be limited and effective. Attention must be paid to its costs and consequences
(particularly the incentives engendered by government policy) and effectiveness evaluated in
light of belief #1 and the following: it must support and encourage individual responsibility,
self-reliance and initiative; the maintenance of two-parent families, neighborhood and community
and the societal self-support and duty therein; social and environmental responsibility;
moderation in action at all three levels (individual, society and the environment). These virtues
and institutions that support and encourage them are necessary for justice (peace and freedom).
The primary message of government should be "People, govern yourselves."

5. Private property, widely distributed and protected, is a cornerstone of an economically just
society and underlies economic and political freedom, social and environmental responsibility.
Upon this foundation, free trade occurring within a mostly free market with limited government
intervention, best creates and initially distributes wealth.

6. The public good. In order to balance the force of private property and to enhance equality and
participation, the public good (not necessarily government) must be attended to as forcefully
as private property is secured.



THE PRIMARY ROLE AND FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT; (at federal, provincial and local levels)


1. Limit excessive inequality of power and wealth (thereby securing economic and social justice).

2. Enforce laws and regulations strictly and fairly through the police and courts (thereby limiting
violence and crime in the society and securing personal security and freedom).

3. Provide for all citizens to be educated at the school of their choice (thereby ensuring a skilled
and educated population). Public education must combat ignorance and assist in the develop-
ment of virtue and wisdom.

4. Provide for fire protection, construction and maintenance of streets and sewers, and military
defence (thereby creating and maintaining a decent physical infrastructure that will enable a
productive and efficient economy and healthy and secure populace).

5. Ensure that the primary health needs of all citizens are met (thereby ensuring a healthy and
psychologically secure population at all ages).

6. Ensure that the primary needs of the less fortunate in the society are met through a limited
welfare system and the support of private charity (thereby eliminating 'have-nots' from the
society).

7. Support the public good (and encourage disinterested participation in it by the public). The
public good includes parks, libraries, radio, recreation and entertainment, and schools.



OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES:


1. Government spending should not exceed 40% of the nationall economy. 30% to 40% is best,
with the actual number chosen by the citizens and controlled by legislation.

2. Public functions need not be operated by government but rather funded and regulated; what
'works' continues and is funded while ineffective programs are replaced by better programs.

3. We must always look at the consequences of government policy and action (particularly its
incentives and rewards; disincentives and punishments) and ask whether it will best meet the
ends that have been decided upon.

4. People and organizations should pay for the costs of irresponsible actions.

5. Welfare policies should serve to help those genuinely in need and to empower recipients to
escape from the culture of dependency.

6. THE TOUCHSTONE; IF GOVERNMENT FOCUSES ON ITS LIMITED ROLES RATHER THAN
TRYING TO BE ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE, IT WILL BE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY PERFORM
THOSE NECESSARY AND BENEFICIAL FUNCTIONS.








- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Public Disengagement

It is sad what is happening to democracy in North America. The public is becoming disengaged for various reasons. One sees this most clearly in declining voter turnout rates. I fear it is a systemic problem that will not easily be solved. The irony is that this is happening at the same time as Web 2.0 is creating a sort of model for participatory democracy and people in oppressed countries are seeking a voice. The Reform Party attempted to bring democracy closer to the people, but they could not achieve traction.
Various provincial plebiscites on changing the system from the present first past the post representative democracy have failed. People fear the potential instability of a radical change. This plays nicely into the hands of those elites who profit from the status quo.

Three influential books on democracy are apropos here:
1. A Wish For Kings by Lewis Lapham
2. Revolt of the Elites by Christopher Lasch
3. First Democracy by Paul Woodruff

Very important books that provide a foundation for the change that must come, that is inevitable unless we are to fall into a political pattern I don't want my children to grow up in.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Future Liberal and NDP Coaltion (of the Permanent Sort)?

Looking at the latest polls of the Canadian federal election that have the Conservatives hovering around 40%,  the recently leftward-tilted Liberals at between 26-30% and  the permanently left-leaning NDP around 15%, it made me think.    If I were of the latter persuasion (which I am not),  I would seriously consider a permanent merger of the parties as it would likely put me into a majority government public support position.   If the Conservatives do indeed win a majority in this election,  look to a movement like this beginning.  They would change their name to something like the Liberal Democrats.   Of course, Liberals being what they are, the NDP will likely get screwed.  Depending on the strategic flavour and/or leader of the year, the Liberals sway left and right.  A devout social democratic/socialist would not be pleased by a right sway.   But what could they do?

The Public Interest

A strike at Vancouver Island University has been continuing for four weeks with neither of the two parties (teachers and the administration) able to come to an agreement. It is now time for the provincial government which regulates and funds the university and has has responsibility for the greater public interest to take action. This means sending the teachers back to work and possibly imposing a contract, which could have unpleasant aspects for both parties. While it won't please some folks, there are students to think about, other employees at the university and the public and economy of the city of Nanaimo. It will also serve as an incentive for other such bargaining to reach an agreement rather than have one imposed.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad