The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money – Margaret Thatcher
Here in Canada we have an election coming up. There are campaigns being run, promises being made, accusation being hurled and talking heads, well, talking. Of course election time also brings with it a question. Who should I vote for? Don't worry, I'm not going to convince you to vote for any particular party. I'm more interested in looking at some voting principles.
I always struggle at election time when trying to decide who to vote for. Do I vote for the party with the platform I agree with the most? What if that party has no reasonable chance of getting in? What if I don't like any of the platforms? Do I vote based on party lines, or do I only consider what the candidates in my riding stand for? What about the fact that politicians seem to break their word as if it was a brick at a karate convention? Should I vote at all if I'm forced to choose between pack-of-lies 1 and pack-of-lies 2?
I know pretty well where I stand on social/economic ideas, but the problem is none of the 'big' parties really come all that close to what I believe. If you merely look at the party platforms I'm probably the closest to the conservatives, especially on economic issues, but when I look at the conservative track record I end up shaking my head and wondering where they got the idea that what they are doing is fiscally conservative? The same thing happens when you look at social issues. Can I really trust anybody to represent what I believe? Probably not.
So if I don't like any of the major parties should I vote for some obscure party that doesn't have a shot at getting in? It seems kind of like wasting a ballot sometimes especially when I still dont' agree with their whole platform. However, I do think that it is important to support those that come closest to what I believe. When the rubber meets the road in parliament, it doesn't seem to make much difference whether there is a conservative or liberal government in control. The policies that come out often end up being different spins on the same thing with enough good mixed in with the bad to prevent the implosion of our country and enough bad in there to make me want to declare my home and independent entity. Ultimately I think that true, radical change will never come through an election. Some other event is going to have to trigger that, so I am left with a choice between voting for the 'best' candidate, even though I probably don't have a lot in common with him, or not voting/spoiling my ballot.
I suppose in the end I'll roll my eyes, cast my ballot, and go on my cynical way, because when it comes down to it, agreeing with less than half of the platform is better than agreeing with less than 10% of it. Good things seem to take time to come and sometimes it seems like stemming the tide is hopeless, but I guess I'm not called to stem the tide, just to throw my little bit of mud and do what I can, leaving the rest in hands that are bigger than mine.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Friday, April 15, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Maybe We'll be ok after all....
I've never been a fan a hysteria politics. By that I mean the kind of politics that takes a hold of some issue and blows it hysterical proportions (usually so that someone can benefit from they hysteria). This includes things like Global Warming, Swine Flu, and Peak Oil and of course many other similar issues. It is possible that there are problems that need to be addressed in these areas but the level of hype that surrounds these types of issues is, frankly, ridiculous. The problem with hysteria politics is that it whips people up into a hysterical response and often leads to foolish or downright dangerous legislation because 'something has to be done.' Of course if it really is a problem, something will be done eventually even without government intervention.
You may have heard about the company Joule Unlimited, which has come up with a way of producing hydrocarbons (diesel, gas, etc.) from genetically engineered cyanobacterium. Now, I don't think this will magically 'solve' all our energy problems (I'm no more a fan of hysterical solutions then I am of hysterical problems), but I do think its an illustration of the kind of solutions that are out there and how people will find them eventually. To panic about The Next Great Disaster that is going to destroy the world is counterproductive. If its really that bad, get to work on a solution. And yes, there are solutions to be found apart from the government. Joule Unlimited shows that nicely in that the work that it has done even though it did not qualify for government subsidies.
So be cautious when you hear hysteria politics. Be careful not to pressure you politician to 'do something' without good solid reasonable grounds for it. The more an issue is hyped and the more emotional it becomes the more cautious you should be about it. Emotions are easily manipulated by those who have money to be made from a certain agenda.
You may have heard about the company Joule Unlimited, which has come up with a way of producing hydrocarbons (diesel, gas, etc.) from genetically engineered cyanobacterium. Now, I don't think this will magically 'solve' all our energy problems (I'm no more a fan of hysterical solutions then I am of hysterical problems), but I do think its an illustration of the kind of solutions that are out there and how people will find them eventually. To panic about The Next Great Disaster that is going to destroy the world is counterproductive. If its really that bad, get to work on a solution. And yes, there are solutions to be found apart from the government. Joule Unlimited shows that nicely in that the work that it has done even though it did not qualify for government subsidies.
So be cautious when you hear hysteria politics. Be careful not to pressure you politician to 'do something' without good solid reasonable grounds for it. The more an issue is hyped and the more emotional it becomes the more cautious you should be about it. Emotions are easily manipulated by those who have money to be made from a certain agenda.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Have we forgotten how to fix the 'foundations of freedom?'
I'm including this video primarily for this quote at about 3.15
'We should avoid pressuring governments for any new services that aren't absolutely necessary'
I think this gets down to the root of the problem. Ballooning deficits. Unconscionable spending. Ludicrous money wasting. It all traces back to us always asking and expecting the government to 'do more.' Nothing comes for free! someone has to pay for and some freedoms have to be given up. We need to learn how to be less dependent on the government and stop asking them for things we are perfectly capable of doing ourselves. Just because its easy in the short run does not mean its good for us in the long run!
'We should avoid pressuring governments for any new services that aren't absolutely necessary'
I think this gets down to the root of the problem. Ballooning deficits. Unconscionable spending. Ludicrous money wasting. It all traces back to us always asking and expecting the government to 'do more.' Nothing comes for free! someone has to pay for and some freedoms have to be given up. We need to learn how to be less dependent on the government and stop asking them for things we are perfectly capable of doing ourselves. Just because its easy in the short run does not mean its good for us in the long run!
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
National Debt!
Has anything really changed? I don't think anyone likes our national debt, and politicians are always talking about how bad it is and how they are fighting against it and how this deficit budget is 'temporary,' but who among them really does anything about it?
Friday, October 20, 2006
More on Seatbelts
Well, well well, who would have guessed that seatbelts are so exciting they warrent two posts on this blog? I want to fist of all say thank you to all those that posted comments on my last post, they have been really helpful to me in seeing where the weaknesses in my argument are and in seeing where I am being misunderstood. I'm not always so good at expressing what I mean and your comments help me figure out what assumptions I have that I need to make more articulate and where I need to smack myself on the head and say, 'duh, what were you thinking Dave?'
So, a little clarification on what I was saying in my last post, this time having spent a little time thinking about it instead of just spouting some thoughts off the top of my head. I still stand by my original point in that I think the government should not be considering this type of legislation and that to do so is put its hands where they don't belong, but I want to expand and clarify why exactly I think so. First of all I want to talk about my argument that this legislation will discriminate against the poor. This statement is in fact true. People with less money have less vehicles per person and so are more likely to overcrowd a vehicle with more occupants than seatbelts, and hence this law affect one group (poor people) more than another group (the wealthy) and thus is discriminatory. However, discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing (for example I could have a very disciminatory taste in wines)and the fact that a law influences one group more than another says nothing at all about the propriety or acceptability of that law. The reason I included this argument in the first place was that most of the politicians that support this law would be against the idea of discrimination and so their support of this law is illogical, however, if someone was to use this argument against a law I liked I would dismiss it out of hand and so I should not use it myself. My apologies for a poor use of terminology.
Also, it seems that there is some disagreement as to how much this law would actually cost society. I personally think that it would be expensive because anything that the government gets its fingers into ends up costing us (as well as for a number of other reason that I can share if you really want me too) but without having actual numbers it is pretty much useless to argue about this point, although I do think that the government should try to understand the cost of its legislation versus the benifits that will be gained by it. It is true that its hard to put a price on human life but there comes a point where it is outrageous to keep spending money for the possibliity of extending someone's life by a few years.
However, those points were not at all the main idea that I was trying to get across, they were more like extra points of consideration, while the main thrust of what I was saying was that the government needs to keep out of stuff that is not its business. Let me say first of all that I have no problem with seatbelts. I think they are a great invention and I wear mine as a matter of habit. I think it is foolish not to wear one without good reason and I have no doubt that they do help protect you in case of an accident. What I am arguing against here is seatbelt LAWS, particularily trying to stop someone from riding in a vehicle that has more occupant than there are seatbelts in that vehicle. I certainly agree that to do so is more dangerous than not; after all I did link to an article where 4 people where killed in just that situation. My problem is not that it is a dangerous activity, it is that the government has absolutly no right at all to tell me what level of danger is acceptable for me. I am a responsible adult and am quite aware that I would be putting myself in a higher risk situation, and I don't need some allknowing government to tell me that I can't. I am reponsible for my actions (even God's soveriegnty doesn't abdicate me of that responsibilty) and to try and pawn that responsibily off onto the government is utterly rediculous. If I choose to ride in a car with more people than seatbelts, I am responible for anything that happens to me, not the government. It doesn't matter how 'stupid' I may be for not wearing it, I am still the one that is responsible for my actions and not the government. The government may not tell me how safely I have to live my life because to do so overstep its realm of authority.
I suppose that is the crux of the argument: when can the government tell me what to do and when does it need to stay out of my life? There are some areas where the government is obviously allowed (and required) to tell me what to do, for example it has every right to tell me not to kill you for disagreing with me, but there are also areas where it just as obviously does not have control over me, for example in telling me what kind of toothpaste I need to use tonight. The problem is discovering what sets the line. What is it that determines wether or not the government has jurisdiction over a particular activity? What exactly is the role of government in society? As Ruth pointed out, the role of government is to punish evil and approve of good (see Romans 13). This does not mean punish evil and mandate good, but punish evil and approve of or encourage good. Thus it is appropriate for the government to forbid and punish murder as being a sinful action, but it is not appropriate for it to require me to use only Crest toothpaste, even if there were studies that indicated that it better for my health to use Crest than any other kind of toothpaste. It might be a good thing for me to use only Crest toothpaste but the government would be overstepping its authourity to require me to use it.
So what about seatbelts? Is it immoral to put more people in a car than available seatbelts? No, of course not. It is no more immoral than going snowboarding or parasailing or walking on the side of the road or doing any other activity that increases your chance of getting hurt or killed. Thus the government is overstepping the bounds of its authority in trying to pass this type of legislation.
That is the gist of what I was trying to say in my last post. I hope this helps clear up any confusion. Keep the comments coming and enjoy your weekend
Dave Westy
So, a little clarification on what I was saying in my last post, this time having spent a little time thinking about it instead of just spouting some thoughts off the top of my head. I still stand by my original point in that I think the government should not be considering this type of legislation and that to do so is put its hands where they don't belong, but I want to expand and clarify why exactly I think so. First of all I want to talk about my argument that this legislation will discriminate against the poor. This statement is in fact true. People with less money have less vehicles per person and so are more likely to overcrowd a vehicle with more occupants than seatbelts, and hence this law affect one group (poor people) more than another group (the wealthy) and thus is discriminatory. However, discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing (for example I could have a very disciminatory taste in wines)and the fact that a law influences one group more than another says nothing at all about the propriety or acceptability of that law. The reason I included this argument in the first place was that most of the politicians that support this law would be against the idea of discrimination and so their support of this law is illogical, however, if someone was to use this argument against a law I liked I would dismiss it out of hand and so I should not use it myself. My apologies for a poor use of terminology.
Also, it seems that there is some disagreement as to how much this law would actually cost society. I personally think that it would be expensive because anything that the government gets its fingers into ends up costing us (as well as for a number of other reason that I can share if you really want me too) but without having actual numbers it is pretty much useless to argue about this point, although I do think that the government should try to understand the cost of its legislation versus the benifits that will be gained by it. It is true that its hard to put a price on human life but there comes a point where it is outrageous to keep spending money for the possibliity of extending someone's life by a few years.
However, those points were not at all the main idea that I was trying to get across, they were more like extra points of consideration, while the main thrust of what I was saying was that the government needs to keep out of stuff that is not its business. Let me say first of all that I have no problem with seatbelts. I think they are a great invention and I wear mine as a matter of habit. I think it is foolish not to wear one without good reason and I have no doubt that they do help protect you in case of an accident. What I am arguing against here is seatbelt LAWS, particularily trying to stop someone from riding in a vehicle that has more occupant than there are seatbelts in that vehicle. I certainly agree that to do so is more dangerous than not; after all I did link to an article where 4 people where killed in just that situation. My problem is not that it is a dangerous activity, it is that the government has absolutly no right at all to tell me what level of danger is acceptable for me. I am a responsible adult and am quite aware that I would be putting myself in a higher risk situation, and I don't need some allknowing government to tell me that I can't. I am reponsible for my actions (even God's soveriegnty doesn't abdicate me of that responsibilty) and to try and pawn that responsibily off onto the government is utterly rediculous. If I choose to ride in a car with more people than seatbelts, I am responible for anything that happens to me, not the government. It doesn't matter how 'stupid' I may be for not wearing it, I am still the one that is responsible for my actions and not the government. The government may not tell me how safely I have to live my life because to do so overstep its realm of authority.
I suppose that is the crux of the argument: when can the government tell me what to do and when does it need to stay out of my life? There are some areas where the government is obviously allowed (and required) to tell me what to do, for example it has every right to tell me not to kill you for disagreing with me, but there are also areas where it just as obviously does not have control over me, for example in telling me what kind of toothpaste I need to use tonight. The problem is discovering what sets the line. What is it that determines wether or not the government has jurisdiction over a particular activity? What exactly is the role of government in society? As Ruth pointed out, the role of government is to punish evil and approve of good (see Romans 13). This does not mean punish evil and mandate good, but punish evil and approve of or encourage good. Thus it is appropriate for the government to forbid and punish murder as being a sinful action, but it is not appropriate for it to require me to use only Crest toothpaste, even if there were studies that indicated that it better for my health to use Crest than any other kind of toothpaste. It might be a good thing for me to use only Crest toothpaste but the government would be overstepping its authourity to require me to use it.
So what about seatbelts? Is it immoral to put more people in a car than available seatbelts? No, of course not. It is no more immoral than going snowboarding or parasailing or walking on the side of the road or doing any other activity that increases your chance of getting hurt or killed. Thus the government is overstepping the bounds of its authority in trying to pass this type of legislation.
That is the gist of what I was trying to say in my last post. I hope this helps clear up any confusion. Keep the comments coming and enjoy your weekend
Dave Westy
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Seatbelts
There was a fatal crash in Toronto this weekend. Apparently 10 Koreans were riding in a minivan, which of course means that there were more people than seat belts, and so now; 'Ontario moved swiftly yesterday to close a loophole in the province's 30-year-old seat-belt law' by introducing legislation that requires there be no more passengers than seat belts in a vehicle. This is a wonderful new development isn't it? Seat belts save lives, and so anything that forces people to wear their seat belts more is a good thing isn't it? Well, as you might have guessed, I think there is another side to the story and so I would like to present you with a few of the reasons that I think this move is another example of how our government runs on 'feel good' principles instead of 'do good' principles.
1. Its my life. If I want to go bungee jumping, or skydiving, or work as a crane operator or do any other high risk activity I am free to do so. Why? because it is my life and I am free to decide what level of risk is acceptable. If I am allowed to place myself in additional risk for my pleasure or convenience with these kind of activities why not with packing more people into my car?
2. It discriminates against the poor. You might have 2 cars to choose from every time you want to go riding but I might not have that luxury and cramming 8 people into my goe metro might be the only way I can get the whole family around. Ok sure I could make two trips but I'm poor remember? I can't afford the gas.
3. It makes for good rhetoric, but not necessarily good sense. It sounds really good to talk about how we are going to save lives, and how it is all worth it if we even save one life but that is not necessarily true. There are risks in life that we have to live with,and it hard to decide what is acceptable risk. We will never get rid of all risk in life and so we have to make decisions as to what is acceptable risk. Is it acceptable to drive a car at all? even with seat belts people still die in car wrecks. Is it an acceptable risk to get out of bed in the morning? There is no way some generic law can come up with what is acceptable risk because it is different for each person. Let me decide what is an acceptable level of risk, it'll save us all a lot of money in trying to enforce a useless law.
4. Speaking of money: Its going to cost a lot of money to come up with the law, to make the legislation, and to enforce it. Is this money well spent? we have already established that it is hard to decide what level of risk is acceptable, but what about quantifying the risk itself? I haven't seen any numbers, but I suspect the benefit is marginal. Most people that are going to wear a seat belt already do and changing legislation won't change that. You see proliferating laws doesn't solve problems. The laws have to address actual problems and have to make sense.
Dave Westy
1. Its my life. If I want to go bungee jumping, or skydiving, or work as a crane operator or do any other high risk activity I am free to do so. Why? because it is my life and I am free to decide what level of risk is acceptable. If I am allowed to place myself in additional risk for my pleasure or convenience with these kind of activities why not with packing more people into my car?
2. It discriminates against the poor. You might have 2 cars to choose from every time you want to go riding but I might not have that luxury and cramming 8 people into my goe metro might be the only way I can get the whole family around. Ok sure I could make two trips but I'm poor remember? I can't afford the gas.
3. It makes for good rhetoric, but not necessarily good sense. It sounds really good to talk about how we are going to save lives, and how it is all worth it if we even save one life but that is not necessarily true. There are risks in life that we have to live with,and it hard to decide what is acceptable risk. We will never get rid of all risk in life and so we have to make decisions as to what is acceptable risk. Is it acceptable to drive a car at all? even with seat belts people still die in car wrecks. Is it an acceptable risk to get out of bed in the morning? There is no way some generic law can come up with what is acceptable risk because it is different for each person. Let me decide what is an acceptable level of risk, it'll save us all a lot of money in trying to enforce a useless law.
4. Speaking of money: Its going to cost a lot of money to come up with the law, to make the legislation, and to enforce it. Is this money well spent? we have already established that it is hard to decide what level of risk is acceptable, but what about quantifying the risk itself? I haven't seen any numbers, but I suspect the benefit is marginal. Most people that are going to wear a seat belt already do and changing legislation won't change that. You see proliferating laws doesn't solve problems. The laws have to address actual problems and have to make sense.
Dave Westy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)