74 replies to this topic

[G-Man]

Can't think of a more blatant example of local politicians dismissing their electorate. The piece that was being discussed was:

"Should we allow the voters to decide on whether to amalgamate?"

In no uncertain terms Colwood council has said that their citizens should not be allowed to have a voice on this question. If I lived there I wouldn't vote for a single one of these people again.

[aastra]

No one pays for a library or arena because they feel they may need it one day.

Are you kidding? So should I be opposed to paying for libraries and recreation centres if I hardly ever use them? I suppose I should be opposed to paying for playgrounds if I don't have kids? But then I should be happy to pay for playgrounds when I have kids? That's just silly.

I'm going to suggest the very reason Victoria was so popular as a retirement destination was precisely because people could move to the various municipalities and take full advantage of everything the city core had to offer...without paying for it! OBVIOUSLY if you give people the option of enjoying something without paying for it, many people will exercise the option.

Give people in James Bay the chance to opt out of Victoria and you just know a lot of them would be salivating.

If you boil this debate* down it gets reduced to a very simple question: Do you care about your wider community? Yes or no?

*Amalgamating Victoria, Oak Bay, and Esquimalt, I mean.

[Nparker]

Can't think of a more blatant example of local politicians dismissing their electorate. The piece that was being discussed was: "Should we allow the voters to decide on whether to amalgamate?"

Democracy in action or Democracy inaction....

[davek]

Are you kidding? So should I be opposed to paying for libraries and recreation centres if I hardly ever use them?

People should pay for what they use, and should be opposed to being forced to pay for things they don't. They should also be opposed to forcing others to pay for things they (the others) don't use.

OBVIOUSLY if you give people the option of enjoying something without paying for it, many people will exercise the option.

That's right. This is why the same people who complain that they are subsidizing Oak Bay and Esquimalt library users aren't bothered that they themselves are being subsidized by neighbours who pay for the library and don't use it. In fact, they like it so much that they endorse amalgamation so they can get even more subsidies from non-users.

If you boil this debate* down it gets reduced to a very simple question: Do you care about your wider community? Yes or no?

*Amalgamating Victoria, Oak Bay, and Esquimalt, I mean.

Anyone who cares about their wider community should oppose big government and the mass robbery that inevitably accompanies it.

[G-Man]

People should pay for what they use, and should be opposed to being forced to pay for things they don't. They should also be opposed to forcing others to pay for things they (the others) don't use.

So how does Welfare/Health Care/Pensions/corporate subsidies and highways work then?

[Holden West]

^Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer to that one.

[davek]

So how does Welfare/Health Care/Pensions/corporate subsidies and highways work then?

Welfare, and all other charities, should be restored to the church and civil societies, as was done prior to the rise of the welfare state. Health care and pensions should be paid for by those that need and want them. Corporations should not be subsidized. Highways have a long and successful history of being privately provided and maintained.

Drew Carey on highways;

http://reason.tv/video/show/6.html

Here is a good read on the manner in which civil society has provided goods many assume only government capable of delivering;

http://www.independe...y.asp?bookID=17

[G-Man]

^Ha as if. In a perfect world there would be subsidies to everything from our labour and there would be no currency with the exception of our labour.

[aastra]

People should pay for what they use, and should be opposed to being forced to pay for things they don't. They should also be opposed to forcing others to pay for things they (the others) don't use.

Okay, I admit you're starting to convince me. Let's suppose we were to set up charge stations at every public park. We could carry Victoria-issued or Oak Bay-issued RFID cards in our pockets, and then get charged automatically when we step into the park. If we're from Victoria and we enter a park in Oak Bay, we get charged double or something like that. No card with you when you enter? That's an offense punishable by some serious fine or maybe a bit of jail time.

We could have similar charging stations at every intersection on the Victoria/Oak Bay border. Anybody who resides on one side and walks across will get dinged a little bit, whereas cyclists will get dinged a little more, and motorists will get dinged severely. The sheer amount of time you spend on the roads or sidewalks would also be charged. A ten-minute walk would be charged five times as much as a two-minute errand. Whenever somebody from Oak Bay goes into a library in Victoria, they would be charged. If they sign out a book, they would be charged again (because that's a different level of service). The reason I really like this concept is this: anybody from outside Victoria would be charged when they enter Victoria, and then charged again when they enter downtown Victoria (or maybe even charged when they enter "uptown" Victoria, and then charged a third time when they enter "downtown"). That would really help Victorians with the costs of policing and maintaining downtown Victoria on behalf of the greater city.

[aastra]

I can anticipate the concerns about "big brother" in a system such as this. But in the end you're paying less tax to big government, and that should offset any negatives re: loss of personal privacy.

[Holden West]

Okay, I admit you're starting to convince me. Let's suppose we were to set up charge stations at every public park. We could carry Victoria-issued or Oak Bay-issued RFID cards in our pockets, and then get charged automatically when we step into the park. If we're from Victoria and we enter a park in Oak Bay, we get charged double or something like that. No card with you when you enter? That's an offense punishable by some serious fine or maybe a bit of jail time.

We could have similar charging stations at every intersection on the Victoria/Oak Bay border. Anybody who resides on one side and walks across will get dinged a little bit, whereas cyclists will get dinged a little more, and motorists will get dinged severely. The sheer amount of time you spend on the roads or sidewalks would also be charged. A ten-minute walk would be charged five times as much as a two-minute errand. Whenever somebody from Oak Bay goes into a library in Victoria, they would be charged. If they sign out a book, they would be charged again (because that's a different level of service). The reason I really like this concept is this: anybody from outside Victoria would be charged when they enter Victoria, and then charged again when they enter downtown Victoria (or maybe even charged when they enter "uptown" Victoria, and then charged a third time when they enter "downtown"). That would really help Victorians with the costs of policing and maintaining downtown Victoria on behalf of the greater city.

Thanks, aastra. It's good to finally hear a common sense alternative to the limp-wristed, bleeding-heart commie, nanny-state ideology. I've never had a disease, my house has never caught fire, I don't have kids and haven't committed a crime either so why am I paying for hospitals, the fire department, schools and the justice system? You're smart enough to write a column for the National Post or the Western Standard.

[aastra]

Pay for use. Pretty sensible.

[gumgum]

I don't use the trees, but my dog does. Who pays for them in that case?

[Holden West]

^You are not your brother's keeper. Your freeloading dog should get a job and pay his own way.

[aastra]

Just chip him and he'll be charged automatically. If he runs up a big bill then that's his problem. Assuming the chip doesn't kill him first:

http://www.washingto...0800997_pf.html

[davek]

I'm enjoying this almost as much as you three are, but don't neglect to check those links I posted earlier. Eventually, when you realize that government has failed you every time, you'll have a head start in your search for alternatives.

[aastra]

I suspect you and I actually don't differ all that much in our attitudes toward big government and taxation and all of that stuff. Where I disagree with you is that I believe there are certain essential community amenities for which everyone should expect to pay because those amenities (I feel) are essential to the well being and success of the community. You seem to disagree with this sentiment, because (I think) you value the money in your pocket more than you value the success of the community. I know plenty of people who feel the same way, if that is indeed how you feel. But what I don't understand is, why do people who feel that way bother to live in cities at all? If you don't want to pay for sidewalks and libraries and downtown policing and all of those things that a community requires to be healthy and successful, then why not move onto a farm in some rural area that doesn't require such expenditures?

As for the Victoria/Oak Bay/Esquimalt thing, I just have no respect whatsoever for artificial, arbitrary political boundaries, especially when they exist to benefit the bank accounts of small clusters of small-thinking people at the expense of the greater good (including the greater good of the small clusters of people themselves).

[davek]

Where I disagree with you is that I believe there are certain essential community amenities for which everyone should expect to pay because those amenities (I feel) are essential to the well being and success of the community.

Different groups have different ideas on which amenities are essential, and what constitutes the greater good. Taking advantage of the democratic process to compel people to pay for amenities they do not feel are essential is divisive and creates resentment. It is elitist, arrogant, and it disrespects the values of others.

Anyone who takes the time to look at the links I posted will to see that it is also unnecessary. Civil society has a long history of providing policing, education, social services, and every other function a successful community requires. Government provision of those amenities displaces the voluntary community associations that come together to provide them, and weakens the very society it is alleged to strengthen. Further research will provide examples that private institutions are very effective at overcoming free rider problem, and other externalities.

Anyone concerned with the well being and success of the community should support restricting government, and oppose its enhancement, even when it is cloaked in the guise of the greater good.

[jklymak]

Different groups have different ideas on which amenities are essential, and what constitutes the greater good. Taking advantage of the democratic process to compel people to pay for amenities they do not feel are essential is divisive and creates resentment. It is elitist, arrogant, and it disrespects the values of others.

Individuals in groups are always compelled "to pay for amenities they do not feel are essential". That is the cost of living in a group, be it your condo association, your neighbourhood association, your municipality, or your nation. What you are saying is true no matter the size of the group, so I'm not sure why you would claim the present system is "elitist" and "arrogant". I can certainly conceive of worse political arrangements.

You can argue that governmental level X should not have power y, and that it should go to level Z. And if enough people agree with you, you can get the constitution changed. Thats the nice thing about our system - its pretty flexible.

Anyone concerned with the well being and success of the community should support restricting government, and oppose its enhancement, even when it is cloaked in the guise of the greater good.

You talk of "government" like it is imposed by aliens that must be resisted. The government is you and your community. If you think government shouldn't provide an amenity, or they should charge a user's fee, then lobby for that. But blindly opposing all "enhancement" of government just sounds dogmatic.

[G-Man]

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.