Rural Subsidies

[charter.rights]

So if no one else was willing to pay the upfront cost for say an ambulance service so that you could use it at your convenience, you would die. Same goes for such things as police and firefighters. My house is on fire. Your VISA number and expiry date please, we'll put you on the list. My house is being robbed. Same answer. Or, sorry but business has been a little slow lately so we let had to let a bunch of people go. We just can't fit you in.

People do act in their best interest, that is why we have emergency services for everyone. They are acting in your best interest whether you like it or not. That is why you won't die in spite of your principles.

Of course none of that is entirely true. Common services such as ambulances and fire brigades weren't available 150 years ago and yet your great grandparents survived long enough reproduce the gene line. When public services are not provided, common services from from different sources. Some used to have to pay their doctors in goats and chickens. Some used to build tabs at the local mercantile and pay at harvest time. Some use folk medicine remedies. There was lots of ingenuity. The provision of common services for the most part is one of convenience. And certainly we know that having the know-how to set a broken bone properly at home far outweighs the 6 hour wait we have in the emergency department, only to be sent home to come back in two days because the six hour wait caused too much swelling and cannot the bone be set.

As a society we have become dependent on common services being provided for free. In many rural communities they don't depend on these services as much as the urbanites do. That would make any reduction in services potentially fatal only to city dwellers and only because they aren't being responsible enough or smart enough to look after themselves.

[Renegade]

I'm saying that there is the likelyhood of a tradeoff, and it works out to roughly the same.

The higher taxes that are appraised on cottage and farmland are a tradeoff to the subsidies we get if any, the cost is passed off to urban consumers, 9 dollar wheat and 11 dollar canola anyone.

There is no way to know if the tradeoff is the same because there is no accounting for subsidies. Even if we accept your premis that the tradeoff on subsidies are the same, then why bother to subsidize at all, afterall you would be giving up as much in subsidies as you get, whithout the overhead to institute subsidies.

You introduced the regional issue complaining how cities subsidized everything, I merely corrected you.

Actually I never said that "cities subsidized everything". Show me where and I'll correct myself. As I've said before, my comments were specfic to the kinds of services I mentioned.

Most country people vote tory which means in principle getting less services all around, so I don't see why your complaining about country people getting services when our vote pattern suggests we want less services and more of our own money in our pocket.

Again either you have misquoted or misunderstood what I have said. I have no complaint about "country people getting services". I have simply stated that they should pay the full cost of those services, btw, as should urban dwellers.

[Renegade]

So if no one else was willing to pay the upfront cost for say an ambulance service so that you could use it at your convenience, you would die. Same goes for such things as police and firefighters. My house is on fire. Your VISA number and expiry date please, we'll put you on the list. My house is being robbed. Same answer. Or, sorry but business has been a little slow lately so we let had to let a bunch of people go. We just can't fit you in.

Yes you are absolutely correct. If no one is willing to pay for the upfront cost of a service, that service will not be provided. That is no different than today. If I decide to put a house in the tundra in the middle of nowhere, no one will build the infrastructure or pay the upfront cost for setting up fire, police, or ambulatory services. That is exactly why we choose to live in consolodated areas so that there is enough demand to create these services. Despite who decides to invest upfront (government or private) they must make a decision on the economic viability of that investment and how the cost will be recovered.

People do act in their best interest, that is why we have emergency services for everyone.

You are suggesting that "people" act in their own best interest, but "I" do not? I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions about my best interests.

They are acting in your best interest whether you like it or not.

I'm sure any good dictatorship will agree with you.

That is why you won't die in spite of your principles.

yeah, whatever. It is my right to decide the priciples I live by.

[White Doors]

I have seen no evidence of of your "libertarian persuasion", so I'll take the statement at face falue.

Maybe you'd like to define what "societal good" or "common good" is. Personally, I think it is just an excuse used by people who somehow want to override individual rights.

How did the internet get built? (And no I don't mean the original ARPANET, I mean the actual infrastructure that now connects most of the world). Answer that and you have your answer.

If by "Anarchy" you mean lack of a central authority coercing others, sure I agree. If you are "of a libertarian persuasion" as you claim, you would agree that we should avoid a central coercive authority when possible.

Have I given you any reason not to take what I say at face value?

How did the internet get built? bad example renegade. The internet got built on the back of the cable companies and phone companies who already had infrstructure in place for cable and phone services. Cable and phone services are regulated.

I agree that individual rights are very important. I also agree that I don't want to go back living like a cave man.

There is a balance in all thing in life and this is not exempt.

[White Doors]

I was not aware that you had been appointed forum moderator.

I;m not sure why you are getting upset.

What Wilbur said it true and succinct.

Just because you don't use something doesn't mean that you don't need it.

ie: 'societal good' is also good for the individual - including you.

[White Doors]

yeah, whatever. It is my right to decide the priciples I live by

Along with rights comes responsibilities.

The government has decided that everyone is, at some level, responsible for each other.

The fact that you may not like that is irrelevent.

[Renegade]

Have I given you any reason not to take what I say at face value?

As I said, I take it at face value, which to me means a claim without evidence.

How did the internet get built? bad example renegade. The internet got built on the back of the cable companies and phone companies who already had infrstructure in place for cable and phone services. Cable and phone services are regulated.

Actually you are only talking about the last-mile to the consumer residence. The backbones did not use existing infrastructure.

I agree that individual rights are very important. I also agree that I don't want to go back living like a cave man.

There is a balance in all thing in life and this is not exempt.

Then perhaps thats where the difference between you and me lies. It is where that point of balance is. I don't believe anything i've suggested causes me or anyone else to live like a cave man. It simply encourages responsible economic choices.

I;m not sure why you are getting upset.

Do I seem upset to you? If I do, you are misreading me.

What Wilbur said it true and succinct.

Just because you don't use something doesn't mean that you don't need it.

I think we have a different concept of "use". I "use" a fire hydrant just by its existance across the street from me even if my house never catches fire. That is because its mere existance provides me security. In that case I fully agree I should pay my share for my "use" of the system. My point is that if I lived in the wilderness and I wanted that same security of a fire-hydrant infront of my house, I should pay the increased cost of that "use" because there is increased cost to set up that infrastructure and because there is less "users" to spread the cost. This is true even if my house never catches fire.

ie: 'societal good' is also good for the individual - including you.

Again how about you define what 'societal good' is, instead of telling me how great it is for me.

Along with rights comes responsibilities.

Sure, but we need to be specific on what those are before I agree which rights incur which responsibilites.

The government has decided that everyone is, at some level, responsible for each other.

Sure, but my principles are not based upon what the government decides. Governments have also made other decisions which have proved regrettable.

The fact that you may not like that is irrelevent.

The fact that you do is also irrelevant.

[Wilber]

Yes you are absolutely correct. If no one is willing to pay for the upfront cost of a service, that service will not be provided. That is no different than today. If I decide to put a house in the tundra in the middle of nowhere, no one will build the infrastructure or pay the upfront cost for setting up fire, police, or ambulatory services. That is exactly why we choose to live in consolodated areas so that there is enough demand to create these services. Despite who decides to invest upfront (government or private) they must make a decision on the economic viability of that investment and how the cost will be recovered.

You may "choose" to live in areas which can consolidate services or it may be no choice at all and you just have to live there to make a living. Either way you can't survive without that provided by those who "choose" to live elsewhere.

Of course you won't have the same services if you put a house in the tundra, although someone will eventually get to you if you are in trouble. Air Ambulances, Search and Rescue and such. If you have an emergency service that is totally user pay it will be run on the investors ability to make a profit and the service it provides will be adjusted accordingly.

I'm sure any good dictatorship will agree with you.

Speaking of dictatorship, should government also be user pay? Should you be assessed your portion of the cost of governing the country (the actual government not programs) before you are allowed to cast a ballot? As we only have voter turnouts in the 60% range with no user fee at the ballot box that could become a very expensive proposition as more and more people found themselves unwilling or unable to vote excluding all but a few from any say in who governs them. Should user pay be extended to the police and armed forces? People who finance private militaries don't rent them out to other citizens. They use them to control other citizens and to get what they want. They are called Warlords. Anarchy is a pipe dream because there are always those who want power so much that they will do what ever it takes to get it and keep it.

You are suggesting that "people" act in their own best interest, but "I" do not? I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions about my best interests.

What you don't seem to get is that a certain amount of leveling the playing field gives more people more services and choices. You would restrict them to only what they could afford out of their own pockets.

Thankfully we live in a democracy where the majority have decided that when it comes to at least some areas, the principle of looking after each other trumps your principle of selective involvement.

Of course none of that is entirely true. Common services such as ambulances and fire brigades weren't available 150 years ago and yet your great grandparents survived long enough reproduce the gene line.

Charter. Do you want to turn the clock back a few hundred years years with the associated mortality rates? When whole towns and large parts of major cities burned down on a regular basis? When people who could afford it felt the need to be armed just to walk down the street? When people died like flies from diseases like cholera because there were no decent water or sanitary systems. When infant mortality rates were so high that your ancestors needed to have six or seven kids to reproduce the gene line instead of the two and a bit that you need? When adult life expectancies were half of what they are today?

No thanks.

[Wilber]

I think we have a different concept of "use". I "use" a fire hydrant just by its existance across the street from me even if my house never catches fire. That is because its mere existance provides me security. In that case I fully agree I should pay my share for my "use" of the system. My point is that if I lived in the wilderness and I wanted that same security of a fire-hydrant infront of my house, I should pay the increased cost of that "use" because there is increased cost to set up that infrastructure and because there is less "users" to spread the cost. This is true even if my house never catches fire.

If you had ever lived in the middle of nowhere you would know that you do have to pay through the nose to have that fire hydrant, electricity, or any other services brought in to you if you can get them at all. You would also know how much more it will cost to insure a home where there is no hydrant or fire department close by.

[Renegade]

You may "choose" to live in areas which can consolidate services or it may be no choice at all and you just have to live there to make a living. Either way you can't survive without that provided by those who "choose" to live elsewhere.

Unless you are being held against your will, you choose to live where you do. If you live there because it is the only place you can make a living, then that too is a choice, both in your choice in how you make a living and and that the renumeration you earn is worth the loss of flexibility in where you live.

Of course you won't have the same services if you put a house in the tundra, although someone will eventually get to you if you are in trouble. Air Ambulances, Search and Rescue and such. If you have an emergency service that is totally user pay it will be run on the investors ability to make a profit and the service it provides will be adjusted accordingly.

Why won't I have those same services you seem to feel are essential? Please explain why I have to wait for Air Amulances and Search and Rescue, when you have roads built and immediate Amublance service. Afterall, isn't that what you are advocating that everyone is entitled to the same service despite the fact that it cost more in certain areas?

Speaking of dictatorship, should government also be user pay? Should you be assessed your portion of the cost of governing the country (the actual government not programs) before you are allowed to cast a ballot? As we only have voter turnouts in the 60% range with no user fee at the ballot box that could become a very expensive proposition as more and more people found themselves unwilling or unable to vote excluding all but a few from any say in who governs them.

Yes you should pay for governmental services to the extent you use them, at least to the extent they are separable and allocatable. We discussed this in this thread and I stated my position. Who should be allowed to vote?

Should user pay be extended to the police and armed forces? People who finance private militaries don't rent them out to other citizens. They use them to control other citizens and to get what they want. They are called Warlords. Anarchy is a pipe dream because there are always those who want power so much that they will do what ever it takes to get it and keep it.

Absolutely user pay should be extended to the police and armed forces. The obstacle to implementation is to the measurement of benefit. Specificly for police services, the rich are the major beneficiaries and thus users of police services because they have more for the police to protect thus they should contribute more toward those services. The fact that there may be others (ie warlords) who create private armies, point to a need for our own security services that we all contribute to. These private militaries already exist in our system. They are called the Mafia, Hells Angles among others.

What you don't seem to get is that a certain amount of leveling the playing field gives more people more services and choices.

It doesn't give more people more services. It gives *some* people more services. "leveling the playing" is simply a euphemism for a coercive transfer of wealth.

You would restrict them to only what they could afford out of their own pockets.

Of course, because anything else restricts them to what someone else has to pay for. IMV, it is completely fair to restrict people to what they can afford.

Thankfully we live in a democracy where the majority have decided that when it comes to at least some areas, the principle of looking after each other trumps your principle of selective involvement.

Unfortunately we have a system whereby the majority can override individual rights and freedoms. As you can see by my tagline, tyranny by the majority is still tyranny.

[Renegade]

If you had ever lived in the middle of nowhere you would know that you do have to pay through the nose to have that fire hydrant, electricity, or any other services brought in to you if you can get them at all. You would also know how much more it will cost to insure a home where there is no hydrant or fire department close by.

OK. So are you saying you agree that you should have to pay "through the nose" or are you saying you should have to pay the same cost as in town?

[Wilber]

Why won't I have those same services you seem to feel are essential? Please explain why I have to wait for Air Amulances and Search and Rescue, when you have roads built and immediate Amublance service. Afterall, isn't that what you are advocating that everyone is entitled to the same service despite the fact that it cost more in certain areas?

No, I am countering your argument that somehow you subsidize them. I know I can't get the all same services that are available to a city dweller and I know that I have to pay more for some that I do get.

Specificly for police services, the rich are the major beneficiaries and thus users of police services because they have more for the police to protect thus they should contribute more toward those services.

Tell that to my son. He's a cop and about the only rich people he ever has much to do with are drug dealers. Protecting property is a relatively small part of what the police do. If you only have the clothes on your back and ten bucks in your pocket, I bet that is far more important to you than $10,000 to most rich folks.

The fact that there may be others (ie warlords) who create private armies, point to a need for our own security services that we all contribute to. These private militaries already exist in our system. They are called the Mafia, Hells Angles among others.

Lets stick to legal private militaries but since you brought them up. Again you only want to contribute to what you determine to be in your interest. An efficient and honest police and military are definitely not in the interest of the Mafia or Hells Angels so I guess they should be able to opt out.

[AngusThermopyle]

Unfortunately we have a system whereby the majority can override individual rights and freedoms. As you can see by my tagline, tyranny by the majority is still tyranny.

Do you understand the meaning of tyranny? I've seen true tyranny with my own eyes, let me assure you, Canada is not a tyrannical country.

[Renegade]

No, I am countering your argument that somehow you subsidize them. I know I can't get the all same services that are available to a city dweller and I know that I have to pay more for some that I do get.

I'm not following your logic. If you believe that some services are essential and should be available to everyone, why would you think you should pay more for some that you do get? Why do you think if I placed my home in the tundra I should be entitled to any less in services?

Tell that to my son. He's a cop and about the only rich people he ever has much to do with are drug dealers. Protecting property is a relatively small part of what the police do. If you only have the clothes on your back and ten bucks in your pocket, I bet that is far more important to you than $10,000 to most rich folks.

Based upon your answer I can't tell if you are ageeing with me or not. The richer you are they more you will benefit from police and security services becaue they protect your wealth. If police services did not exist and you had only $10 in your pocket it is unlikely you will spend anything to replace those police services, however if you had millions and those services did not exist, I bet private security services would be high on your spending list.

Lets stick to legal private militaries but since you brought them up. Again you only want to contribute to what you determine to be in your interest. An efficient and honest police and military are definitely not in the interest of the Mafia or Hells Angels so I guess they should be able to opt out.

Actually you brought it up, not me. Sure they would likely opt out. Ironially they do contribute to police services when it is in their interest to do so. We call those contributions bribes.

[Renegade]

Do you understand the meaning of tyranny? I've seen true tyranny with my own eyes, let me assure you, Canada is not a tyrannical country.

I use the phrase in this context "Tyranny of the majority". Any coercive action which overrides individual rights is tyranny. It is simply a matter of degree. If there was no potential for tyranny in Canada we would not need a Charter of rights. While the Charter is a good start, I dont' think it goes far enough to protect individual rights.

Edited January 12, 2008 by Renegade

[charter.rights]

I use the phrase in this context "Tyranny of the majority". Any coercive action which overrides individual rights is tyranny. It is simply a matter of degree. If there was no potential for tyranny in Canada we would not need a Charter of rights. While the Charter is a good start, I dont' think it goes far enough to protect individual rights.

That is a misconception.

Aboriginal, gay, religious rights etc are "collective" rights which are put on par with individual rights under the Charter. Their inclusion are not tyrannic. They are the foundation of a true and democratic society.

[Wilber]

I'm not following your logic. If you believe that some services are essential and should be available to everyone, why would you think you should pay more for some that you do get? Why do you think if I placed my home in the tundra I should be entitled to any less in services?

My logic is that somehow you believe that you are subsidizing those who do not live in the city. I am pointing out to you that you will pay more for access to services because the phone or power company won't run their lines a mile into your house without charging you for it. You may have to run your own lines to their nearest ones if you want them. Some services you may not be able to get at all because your free enterprise companies won't provide them at any price. If you do get comparable services, your municipal tax rates will likely be higher because the tax base has to be spread out to cover a larger area.

Based upon your answer I can't tell if you are ageeing with me or not. The richer you are they more you will benefit from police and security services becaue they protect your wealth. If police services did not exist and you had only $10 in your pocket it is unlikely you will spend anything to replace those police services, however if you had millions and those services did not exist, I bet private security services would be high on your spending list.

Lets get one thing straight, the police are not in the business of protecting wealth, their primary purpose is to protect people. They might take an interest in your wealth if they have time but don't count on it.

So you are saying only those who can afford to pay for it should have the protection of the police and other emergency services. That those who can't afford to pay should be left at the mercy of every scumbag in the universe, have to fight their own fires and find their own way to the hospital? Yes, some things are essential in a civilized society.

Actually you brought it up, not me. Sure they would likely opt out. Ironially they do contribute to police services when it is in their interest to do so. We call those contributions bribes.

I didn't bring up the Mafia and the Hells Angels, you did and I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that we hire them to enforce the law and defend the country?

Sorry but I don't like your world.

[Renegade]

That is a misconception.

Aboriginal, gay, religious rights etc are "collective" rights which are put on par with individual rights under the Charter. Their inclusion are not tyrannic. They are the foundation of a true and democratic society.

I disagree. While there is a lot which is beneficial about the charter, I don't agree with embedded discrimmination toward any groups. IMV "collective rights" do not exist and are simply a political invention. The discrimmination embedded in the charter has got nothing to do with a true and democratic society, but that is a whole different thread of discussion.

[Renegade]

My logic is that somehow you believe that you are subsidizing those who do not live in the city.

I do, and I am. I'm not saying everywhere, but at least in the kinds of services I described.

I am pointing out to you that you will pay more for access to services because the phone or power company won't run their lines a mile into your house without charging you for it. You may have to run your own lines to their nearest ones if you want them. Some services you may not be able to get at all because your free enterprise companies won't provide them at any price. If you do get comparable services, your municipal tax rates will likely be higher because the tax base has to be spread out to cover a larger area.

If you are describing the consequences of me choosing to live in a remote location then I agree with you. The phone and power company will indeed change me more as the should, and some services I will do without completely. This should discourage me from living in this remote location as it should.

Lets get one thing straight, the police are not in the business of protecting wealth, their primary purpose is to protect people. They might take an interest in your wealth if they have time but don't count on it.

Police exist to provide law enforcement. Law are enacted to protect civil, individual, and property rights. I don't know that you can make a generalization on what the police's primary purpose is. Unless you can point to some policy of prioritization, I assume cases are prioritized individually. It should be undesputable that the existance of security services benefit the wealthy.

So you are saying only those who can afford to pay for it should have the protection of the police and other emergency services. That those who can't afford to pay should be left at the mercy of every scumbag in the universe, have to fight their own fires and find their own way to the hospital? Yes, some things are essential in a civilized society.

Personally I'd be fine with an exemption from payment for those who are unable to pay, however those are exceptions. The general rule shoudl be that benefiiaries and users should pay for a service

I didn't bring up the Mafia and the Hells Angels, you did and I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that we hire them to enforce the law and defend the country?

To refresh your memory, you brought up private security forces, and I pointed out that Mafia and Hells Angles are simply private security forces. Let's drop it because it isn't really relevant to the thread.

Sorry but I don't like your world.

Sorry, but I don't like yours for the reason that it is coercive.

-----------------------------------------------

BTW, You never addressed whether you believe in your world, I should be entitled to the same power, phone, health, etc services, and at the same cost should I decide to put my house up in an isolated location on the tundra. If not, why not?

[Wilber]

I do, and I am. I'm not saying everywhere, but at least in the kinds of services I described.

How can you be so sure. You just cherry pick. My taxes go toward your transit and a lot of other things you have in your city which receive federal and provincial funding that I don't have in my community. The nearest bus stop to me is over two kilometers away and they run once an hour. Looks like subsidies go both ways so stop whining.

BTW, You never addressed whether you believe in your world, I should be entitled to the same power, phone, health, etc services, and at the same cost should I decide to put my house up in an isolated location on the tundra. If not, why not?

I don't care whether you believe in my world. You started this thread and I am telling you I don't want to live in your world.

To answer your question, because some things don't serve the public interest enough to justify their cost. In general, good infrastructure such as transportation and communication serve us all, though at times there are public projects which are certainly questionable. The only way we can have that is by spreading the load which means we will sometimes pay for things we don't personally use because it is in the best interest of the society in general to do so. I really don't think we would have much of a country if we all just holed up in our respective towns refusing to support anything that we didn't use ourselves.

[Renegade]

How can you be so sure. You just cherry pick. My taxes go toward your transit and a lot of other things you have in your city which receive federal and provincial funding that I don't have in my community. The nearest bus stop to me is over two kilometers away and they run once an hour. Looks like subsidies go both ways so stop whining.

I can be so sure because the services I pointed to are subsidized and I've already showed you evidence of it. Of course I'm cherry picking because I'm pointing to the specfic ones which are subsidized. You correctly point out that there may be other areas where rural communities subsidize urban ones. I have agreed that that too is equally wrong. We each have no way of accounting at which community overall, subisidizes the other more. My point then is that ALL subsidies should be removed. Why should one community bother to subsidize the other only to have that subsidy returned in another area. The subsidized community never benefits as much as the community doing the subsidization due to administrative overhead. If my whining bothers you, you are free to ignore it.

I don't care whether you believe in my world. You started this thread and I am telling you I don't want to live in your world.

And you responded to this thread, and I'm telling you that I don't care if you don't want to live in my world.

To answer your question, because some things don't serve the public interest enough to justify their cost. In general, good infrastructure such as transportation and communication serve us all, though at times there are public projects which are certainly questionable. The only way we can have that is by spreading the load which means we will sometimes pay for things we don't personally use because it is in the best interest of the society in general to do so. I really don't think we would have much of a country if we all just holed up in our respective towns refusing to support anything that we didn't use ourselves.

Again there is that vague term "public interest" without any definition. It kind of reminds me of when the US government uses the phrase "in the interest of national security". It seem to me it is cop-out and an excuse to use such an ill-defined term and what "public interest" is seems very subjective.

Edited January 14, 2008 by Renegade

[Wilber]

If my whining bothers you, you are free to ignore it.

It does and I will.

[Fain]

People who live in the country should pay the TRUE cost of living out there. Subsidies are created for them because of an inability to pull their own weightin society. Remove the subsidies they receive and they'll be forced to stand on their own feet, which will move the amount of farmers closer to the necessary market equilibrium.

Getting rid of rural subsidies will chip off a bit more of the economic deadweight we suffer from and thereby move us closer to efficiency.

[blueblood]

People who live in the country should pay the TRUE cost of living out there. Subsidies are created for them because of an inability to pull their own weightin society. Remove the subsidies they receive and they'll be forced to stand on their own feet, which will move the amount of farmers closer to the necessary market equilibrium.

Getting rid of rural subsidies will chip off a bit more of the economic deadweight we suffer from and thereby move us closer to efficiency.

Shall we apply the same logic to Ontario and Quebec when the American economy goes in the tank and can't buy their manufactured goods?

Chip off the red hot rural economy now? In one year, who is going to become the deadweight?

[Fain]

Shall we apply the same logic to Ontario and Quebec when the American economy goes in the tank and can't buy their manufactured goods?

Chip off the red hot rural economy now? In one year, who is going to become the deadweight?

WHEN THEIR ECONOMY GOES IN THE TANK? IN ONE YEAR?

how about try justifying the way it is now and has been for the last while instead of pulling all that . Country hicks aint pulling their weight and that's simple enough to see. And do you make the prediction in your last sentence that cities produce more deadwight than rural communities in a year.

Canadian farming shouldn't be subsidized ever but forced to compete.