74 replies to this topic

[aastra]

Anyone concerned with the well being and success of the community should support restricting government, and oppose its enhancement...

I'm with you on this. I support restricting the governments of Oak Bay and Esquimalt in a big way.

[davek]

...I'm not sure why you would claim the present system is "elitist" and "arrogant".

I wouldn't. I wrote, "Taking advantage of the democratic process to compel people to pay for amenities they do not feel are essential... is elitist, arrogant, and it disrespects the values of others." It's not the system, it's the "taking advantage". I know we have the ability to require people who don't use or value specific amenities to pay for them anyway. I know that by living here, they have given us their consent to do so. I know that when we do so, we may even be in the majority. But when we do this, we take away some of their ability to support the things they value more. We are saying we know better than they what deserves support. We're saying libraries are more valuable than Girl Guides and Scouts. And we could be wrong. If we don't acknowledge that, we're arrogant. And if we aren't a majority, it's elitist. And it's unnecessary. If an amenity is valued, the market will provide it for money (like grocery stores) or the community will provide it for love (like Little League). So I'm saying that we do shouldn't it, and that we don't need to do it.

You can argue that governmental level X should not have power y, and that it should go to level Z.

That's what I've been doing.

The government is you and your community.

And that means it is entirely appropriate to argue that it is over large, incompetent, divisive, and inferior to civil society in almost every application. Which it is. It is no outrage to suggest we can do better.

[davek]

Even in condo stratas, you find yourself paying for things you will never use so this argument does not hold up unless each individual person chooses what they want to use. Sounds like a nightmare where the poor get shafted by the rich.

And yet it isn't. When government is limited to the protection of rights, the ability of the rich to shaft the poor is curtailed.

[G-Man]

^ It seems to be helping all the poor in the States as the Bush presidency has removed government services over the last 8 years.

[G-Man]

You must love this place:

Sandy Springs

[G-Man]

If you think this is a good idea I highly recommend reading The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein or watch this short film:

http://www.naomiklei...rine/short-film

[davek]

I'm with you on this. I support restricting the governments of Oak Bay and Esquimalt in a big way.

How about Vancouver restricting Victoria and Kelowna?

Ontario restricting B.C. and Alberta?

The U.S. restricting Canada and Mexico?

[G-Man]

Exactly "What about the greater good!?"

[davek]

^ It seems to be helping all the poor in the States as the Bush presidency has removed government services over the last 8 years.

The US federal budget has grown from about 2 trillion dollars in 2000 to 3 trillion in 2008. Little of that has been defense spending. Programs like NCLB and SCHIP have been added. I don't know of any federal services that have been removed, nor have I seen any evidence that poor folk in the US are any worse off now than they were eight years ago.

I also don't know what this has to do with amalgamation, the optimal size of government, or the role of civil society in the provision of amenities.

Perhaps you're just being devil's advocate?

[davek]

You must love this place:

Sandy Springs

I haven't heard anything about it since I first read the article some time ago. Have you seen anything else on it?

[davek]

If you think this is a good idea I highly recommend reading The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein or watch this short film:

http://www.naomiklei...rine/short-film

I might watch the clip later, but I've heard enough from and about Naomi that I'm not going to invest time in reading her latest. Do I get any props for having watched both "Sicko" and "An Inconvenient Truth"? They were mostly nonsense, but I enjoyed them anyway.

Did you take a look at the links I posted earlier? The Drew Carey clip is one in a series. He is the Michael Moore of libertarianism... even if you think he's full of crap, he's funny as hell.

Will someone please PM me with instructions on posting icons within these posts, and not just up with the title?

[jklymak]

We're saying libraries are more valuable than Girl Guides and Scouts. And we could be wrong.

Yes, you are correct, that is what we are saying. I have no idea what you mean by "wrong" in this context; what amenities society provides is a question of values.

[davek]

Yes, you are correct, that is what we are saying. I have no idea what you mean by "wrong" in this context; ...

It means that even when the majority says libraries are more essential than Girl Guides and Scouts, it may be that Girl Guides and Scouts contribute more to the success of a community than libraries, using whatever measurement each individual has used to make that determination.

... what amenities society provides is a question of values.

I agree, but I don't want anyone to confuse government with society. When society is used to mean the private sector or civil society, the amenities delivered are based entirely on the revealed values of voluntary participants. When government provides amenities, they are delivered based on the values of elected officials who have the power to disperse costs and concentrate benefits, and must do so in order to maintain the power to advance their own agenda, which will often include their personal benefit. It is extremely common for the wealthy and powerful to exploit this phenomenon, allowing the values of the minority to be imposed on the whole community. In these cases, amenities are provided based on distorted values. Because of this, it cannot be known if civil society values libraries over Little League. The best we can say is that there is a group which has sufficient sway over the interests of a minimum number of counselors, and that group prefers subsidized libraries over Little League.

[jklymak]

It means that even when the majority says libraries are more essential than Girl Guides and Scouts, it may be that Girl Guides and Scouts contribute more to the success of a community than libraries, using whatever measurement each individual has used to make that determination.

Then by your definition there are as many definitions of "wrong" as there are individuals. Hardly a useful way for a society or government to make decisions.

I agree, but I don't want anyone to confuse government with society.

Of course not, but governments that do not reflect the wishes of their societies tend to be unstable. Even the crassest dictatorship needs to provide certain protections and commn amenities.

When society is used to mean the private sector or civil society, the amenities delivered are based entirely on the revealed values of voluntary participants. When government provides amenities, they are delivered based on the values of elected officials who have the power to disperse costs and concentrate benefits, and must do so in order to maintain the power to advance their own agenda, which will often include their personal benefit.

Sure this happens. Most politicians that are caught at it don't do well in our political system. However, the power to "disperse costs" is the whole point of government. If we left the military to the "revealed values of voluntary participants" there would be no military larger than a local militia. Similarly various social programs. We could move back to private social welfare, but as a society we have deemed it more fair for everyone to share the burden of caring for the disadvantaged.

It is extremely common for the wealthy and powerful to exploit this phenomenon, allowing the values of the minority to be imposed on the whole community. In these cases, amenities are provided based on distorted values. Because of this, it cannot be known if civil society values libraries over Little League. The best we can say is that there is a group which has sufficient sway over the interests of a minimum number of counselors, and that group prefers subsidized libraries over Little League.

Your argument would be more compelling to me if you didn't use something like a library, which I think disproportianately advantages the poor. Its hard to see why the rich and powerful would be bending council to their will to improve access to books. In fact, as far as I can tell, it is the rich and powerful who oppose most of the social measures of our system, and would far prefer revealing their values as voluntary participants because they are rich enough to do so.

[davek]

Then by your definition there are as many definitions of "wrong" as there are individuals. Hardly a useful way for a society or government to make decisions.

What I wrote is that there are as many definitions of community success as there are individuals. Because the market and civil society will fairly provide that which the community most values, government need not, and should not be allowed to, make any decisions other than the provision of the military, and some police and judicial services.

... governments that do not reflect the wishes of their societies tend to be unstable.

If that were true, Cuba and North Korea would be unstable governments. Still, I think I get the gist of your position, which is that we enjoy a comparatively happy existence in Canada because the government reflects the wishes of civil society. Since I have already explained that government can, and frequently must, work against the wishes of society, you know I don't agree. It is due to the degree to which government has been limited. I am convinced greater limitations will yield greater benefits.

... Most politicians that are caught at it don't do well in our political system...

I think when you reconsider this, you will find too many examples to the contrary.

However, the power to "disperse costs" is the whole point of government.

The whole point of government is to control the police power in the defense of the freedom which is your birthright. It cannot be trusted with any power beyond that.

I think we have plenty here to discuss, so if it's all right with you, I'll just leave the rest of your post, with the qualification that I feel (with all due respect) that you have drawn several incorrect conclusions based on unexamined assumptions.