Jump to content

Don't Go After The Addiction...


Recommended Posts

An article in my local newspaper caught my attention. A person I know of probably 3rd hand received their twelfth conviction for DUI. They are an alcoholic. This has affected many people close to this person.

Obviously, addictions, in their extreme forms, are very harmful, and not only to the addict. They can get in the way of family and friends, work, and often cause financial trouble. What do we do about them? If we try to curb addictions by outlawing their source, it will just go underground. Prohibition hasn't ever worked, and besides, the government makes a ton of money off our vices.

But many people are hurt, even ruined, because of addictions. Something, in my opinion, needs to be done.

Pretend for a moment that there is a generic government agency, or .... GGA. B) Now, I will stress, this isn't socialism.... not really. We have a capitalist system, people earn money for themselves.

When a company is to pay you, they send the money (electronic deposit, credit, whatever) to the GGA. This agency then holds the money until you have taken care of necessary purchases using government credit, that will only be accepted at certain types of businesses. These types of businesses will include grocery stores, landlords/real estate agencies, and other groups who require so-called necessary payment from you.

After the GGA has determined to their satisfaction that you have taken care of necessary payments and products, and only after this happens, will you receive the remainder of your paycheque for you to do with as you see fit.

I don't believe this is infringing on anybody's rights, because the individual, and the group, both benefit. You're allowed to piss away the rest of your cheque if you want, but first you must provide for your dependants, settle any debts or deficits, and you will be unable to incur any further debt, because all necessary services and products have already been paid for.

This is not communism, because the prices and payments for even the pre-paid services are not set by the government. The consumer has their choice where to shop, which house to buy, and it's up to them to find the best value, if they want it. The government merely acts as a go-between to ensure that you can't gamble away your daughter's lunch money for the next week of school.

There is in fact a precedent. In Quebec, for several years now, there has been a system in place to ensure that landlords do repairs and whatever maintenance was necessary on the building. If the tenant feels that some work needs to be done and the landlord won't do it, the tenant would go to this rental board, pay them, and the board wouldn't pass on the money to the landlord until the work was done. Obviously, this protects the tenant from negligent landlords.

The system I propose above should protect dependants of addicts, and to a certain extent, the addicts themselves, from their addictions. No longer will their problem cut into necessary funds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree with your idea, I don't think this policy would have a positive effect unless Provincial government's were given the go ahead, to legally supply addicts with thier narcotic fix.

The reason why this policy would be a failure standing on its own, is because property crime and violence would most likely skyrocket as addicts became desperate to find income through other means.

Which of course would lead to more government expences to be doled out for criminal trials, ect.

But if we were to implement this policy and supply drug addicts with their fix, through strict supervision, I think the policy would be a success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many problems with this. How do you decide what a person is to spend? If you set a low limit on, say, groceries, what if a person blows all their money on a very expensive delicatessen and then doesn't have enough to eat that month? If you set a high limit and a person spends all their money at the cheap cash-and-carry grocery store, what of the remainder that they don't need to spend but are obliged to?

Which companies are you going to let people spend at? All grocery stores, or just some? How do you police it and make sure that unethical businessmen or drug dealers are not setting up phony grocery store businesses?

How deep do you micromanage this system? Are you going to just set a limit for, say, groceries, or are you going to set a limit for bread, milk, etc, and how do you account for people who don't eat bread and drink milk? Are you going to set separate obligations for those with families? Are you going to make sure that mothers buy diapers? How are you going to find out which mothers don't breast-feed and make sure they buy formula? What if an infirm person gets someone else to buy their groceries, whose account does it count against?

To make this work you would need a massive bureaucracy, with an enforcement arm and a surveillance arm that had access to private bank accounts, to privileged company payroll information, to the transaction records of privately held businesses etc. Basically, a huge violation of personal rights and an elimination of privacy.

What this basically amounts to is massive state interference in the personal lives of the citizens, rather like communism or Nazism. Power tends to snowball. The massive accumulation of power by communists and Nazis led to the murder of about 130 million innocent people and I don't think we want to start down that road. I'd rather drug addicts blew their pay on drugs and neglected themselves than we create a massive state spying institution and end up with a Gestapo, a Lubyanka and a GULAG. This is the absolute worst idea I have heard in a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would obviously big a huge undertaking, the likes of which has never been attempted. Maybe it wouldn't work, maybe it would collapse under its own weight. But why not try to hash out something that might work?

How do you decide what a person is to spend?

First of all, there would be no obligatory minimum, high or low. As long as the needs determined by the government are met, they can spend as much or as little of their money as they want. Perhaps a computer database could be set up, showing the number of people who need to be fed, and which would automatically spit out a rough calculation of the amount of food that needs to be bought.

Which companies are you going to let people spend at? All grocery stores, or just some? How do you police it and make sure that unethical businessmen or drug dealers are not setting up phony grocery store businesses?

All grocery stores would need to be included, because otherwise you'd be putting people out of business. However, stores providing nonessential services and products, would not be included. Candy stores and gift shops wouldn't count.

Obviously, some people would try to take advantage of the system, this is true for any system. These people would be dealt with by the law, which would certainly need some new provisions to deal with this massive overhaul.

How deep do you micromanage this system? Are you going to just set a limit for, say, groceries, or are you going to set a limit for bread, milk, etc, and how do you account for people who don't eat bread and drink milk? Are you going to set separate obligations for those with families? Are you going to make sure that mothers buy diapers? How are you going to find out which mothers don't breast-feed and make sure they buy formula? What if an infirm person gets someone else to buy their groceries, whose account does it count against?

As I mentioned above, the ideal solution, in terms of managing this system, is to have a computer database that grocery stores can tap into and discover who needs what.

As for people having others buy their groceries, a system could be worked out where they will be allowed to do this. Monitering would also be necessary for this, to ensure people don't use others' grocery credit.

To make this work you would need a massive bureaucracy, with an enforcement arm and a surveillance arm that had access to private bank accounts, to privileged company payroll information, to the transaction records of privately held businesses etc. Basically, a huge violation of personal rights and an elimination of privacy.

A big bureaucracy, maybe, but surveillance would be mostly automatic, and enforcement would simply rely on the fact that people simply couldn't get access to physical cash, and won't be permitted to use their credit cards or anything, until they've taken care of necessary things. Any criminal activity, such as your drug dealing grocers, would fall under police matters as normal.

We already require businesses and individuals to keep records. They're called censuses and tax records and such. The government already knows how many kids you have, what their names are, and can easily discover most things about them. The only new thing is that more people would need access to this, which I suppose means that more safeguards and checks and balances are necessary to prevent abuses of this massive database of information.

Maybe it won't work, but I appreciate any input or points about this idea. Ask questions about how it will work, or make suggestions. Either way, we all get a little smarter. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would obviously big a huge undertaking, the likes of which has never been attempted. Maybe it wouldn't work, maybe it would collapse under its own weight.

Great, another excuse to gamble away billions of taxpayer dollars on something that "maybe wouldn't work." Maybe you don't mind another hike in your income tax, but I do.

First of all, there would be no obligatory minimum, high or low. As long as the needs determined by the government are met, they can spend as much or as little of their money as they want.

Ah, so the government determines what they need. This would be the same government that refused a wheelchair to a disabled war veteran because they were concerned that his house had no ramp, that $2bn was better spent in a stupid gun registry than on the police forces, that all baby walkers needed to be banned because some parent was dumb enough to let a kid fall downstairs in one etc. Come off it. The government cannot be relied upon to make good decisions and it certainly can't be expected to micromanage the daily needs of 30 million Canadians with any degree of competence or efficiency. The communists tried central management of resource allocation and millions starved.

Perhaps a computer database could be set up

Oh, brilliant. Do you know how many times the gun registry database has been compromised already (i.e. hacked)? What if some student doing the data entry for minimum wage makes a typo and a family doesn't get any food for a month? What you are basically proposing is a massive computer system that contains all the income data, family information and resource allocations for the entire population. You don't think this is going to be a prime target for hackers? What if there's a technical problem? Back in the early 90s some construction worker cut through the main internet backbone in the USA and the entire internet slowed to an absolute crawl for four days. Can you imagine what would happen if nobody could get any food for four days?

As for people having others buy their groceries, a system could be worked out where they will be allowed to do this. Monitering would also be necessary for this, to ensure people don't use others' grocery credit.

Systems, systems, systems. The only way to do this is a truly enormous bureacracy that will be a vast drain on resources, one that'll be open to abuse and corruption. How can you assume that everybody involved with the creation and maintenance of this system will be of saintly virtue, and how can you be certain that all of the programmers and network engineers you'll hire to put it into place will all be so perfectly skilled that not a single mistake will be made?

We already require businesses and individuals to keep records. They're called censuses and tax records and such.

Records is one thing. You are talking about actual pre-emptive intervention in the economy and in individual lives. This is massive state interference, and it is communist in nature. Furthermore, you are forgetting that the further the decision-making process is divorced from the actual scene, the worse the decisions are. This is why planned economies are failures, and this is why in Western armies officers in the field are encouraged to use their initiative and make their own command decisions - generals hundreds of miles away don't know what's going on.

What you are doing is proposing a removal of the right of people to be responsible for their own lives, and divorcing control of their lives from them by several government levels. If this was done, there would be a severe compromise in individual rights and liberties and an undermining of the values that underpin our society. This idea will never, ever work. Just forget about it. If you want to help drug addicts, help them at the individual level where it'll do some good. Imposing massive state control on our entire society to help drug addicts is like using a sledgehammer to drive in a thumb-tack. And you still haven't told me how this new culture of state control will be prevented from snowballing into a new Nazism or Marxism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming that the addicts would be employed by social services for some sort of welfare for work program, and thus recieve their paycheques from the government to begin with, I have to dissent with the following objections.

There are many problems with this. How do you decide what a person is to spend? If you set a low limit on, say, groceries, what if a person blows all their money on a very expensive delicatessen and then doesn't have enough to eat that month?

This objection is largely irrelevent because most drug addicts at present, immediately cash in their welfare cheques to get their narcotic fix, instead of spending it on food.

At least this way, some of the tax payers money would go into the economy, instead of feeding the black market. People are rational, the majority aren't going to purchase gourmet food on a limited salary.

There is also a moral aspect to this, as a tax payer or employer, do you feel comfortable cutting someone a cheque when you know its immediately going be used to purchase cocaine or heroin, i don't.

If you set a high limit and a person spends all their money at the cheap cash-and-carry grocery store, what of the remainder that they don't need to spend but are obliged to?

Like food stamps a rough quota could be given based on the individual and how many dependents they have. Welfare cheques for most Province's are $500 and under per month. Most addicts work at temporary labour firms, so when you take into account shelter, food, clothing, and transportation, there is barely, if any, surplus.

Which companies are you going to let people spend at? All grocery stores, or just some? How do you police it and make sure that unethical businessmen or drug dealers are not setting up phony grocery store businesses?

Food stamps have been around for a long time and as of yet the Hell's Angels haven't decided to set up phony grocery stores to cash in on the stamps lol, honestly considering that you can make up to $300,000 dollars on one kilo of raw opium, I don't think organized crime would be too interested.

To make this work you would need a massive bureaucracy, with an enforcement arm and a surveillance arm that had access to private bank accounts, to privileged company payroll information, to the transaction records of privately held businesses etc. Basically, a huge violation of personal rights and an elimination of privacy.

You want to talk about invasion of privacy and surveillance, go take a walk through any major metroplis city in the United States and smile at the dozen security cameras probing the sidewalks, because they would prefer to persecute addicts and let them engage in property crime, instead of setting up those "socialist" programs.

The United States tax payers spent over $81 billion dollars in drug related law enforcement between 1990-1999. That's a high price to pay for society that advocates for no government intervention.

What you are doing is proposing a removal of the right of people to be responsible for their own lives, and divorcing control of their lives from them by several government levels. If this was done, there would be a severe compromise in individual rights and liberties and an undermining of the values that underpin our society. This idea will never, ever work. Just forget about it. If you want to help drug addicts, help them at the individual level where it'll do some good. Imposing massive state control on our entire society to help drug addicts is like using a sledgehammer to drive in a thumb-tack. And you still haven't told me how this new culture of state control will be prevented from snowballing into a new Nazism or Marxism.

I don't see how your analogy follows, the Soviet Union and nazi Germany were extremly authoritarian societies, that were previoulsy, military based colonial empires. The countries in western europe currently engaged in the type of program being discussed, are far more libertarian than the U. S. police state.

I think a better analogy would be to state that the prohibition policies of the US could snowball into Pinochet-ism. After all, Augusto Pinochet was an advent free marketer, admired by Reagan and Thatcher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PI, you are obviously interpreting this programme as being for addicts only, while the rest of the general populace carries on as before. That's not how I interpreted it, because this system when only applied to addicts is even more unfeasible.

How are you going to get them into the programme? Are you going to make it voluntary (in which case virtually nobody will volunteer and it becomes a total waste of time and tax money), or are you going to violate their civil liberties and rights and just draft them into it?

After all, Augusto Pinochet was an advent free marketer, admired by Reagan and Thatcher.

Free marketer, yes, capitalist, no. Capitalism requires democracy. Pinochet's combination of authoritarianism with the free market resulted in a wildly unstable economy with inflation that reached 341%, unemployment that soared to over 18% (comparable to that of the USA during the Great Depression), interest rates that topped 50%, and contrary to the trends of capitalism, the overal GDP dropped sharply during his reign and, in 1993, still had not recovered to the level it was at 20 years earlier. That's not capitalism.

Furthermore, if you imagine that because we are libertarian now guarantees that we shall always be libertarian in the future no matter what we do I think you need to read more of the Weimar Republic, and the famous quote of Pastor Niemoller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had in fact intended for this program to be for everyone, but now that someone mentions it, I see no reason why it couldn't apply to only addicts.

Oh, but then everyone will find out that you're an addict, when you walk in with your food stamps! So set up a small government grocery store, where people on the program can get their food, with a minimum of intrusion by others.

We already have addiction-related programs, and you, Hugo, advocated dealing with it at the individual level, so maybe that's how it should be. Who needs the 12 steps when you are forced to make responsible financial decisions? This would also help addicts to learn responsibility and sound money management.

A case-by-case system such as this would prevent most of the "massive bureaucracy" that you fear. Sure it'd be there, but it's already set up, it just needs to . . . expand it's horizons a bit. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the long term such a system just won't work. You see, the only thing that is going to actually kick an addiction for good is personal willpower, accountability and responsibility. By removing the options for those from addicts, you are not helping them overcome their addiction at all. What you are doing is letting them remain addicts but preventing them from getting their fix. If this system was to fail, or a loophole be found, those addicts would be back on their drug of choice before you could say "syringe."

This would also help addicts to learn responsibility and sound money management.

No, it would prevent that. They have no incentive to learn responsibility and fiscal skills because the benefits that those attributes would give them are already available for nothing. Your statement is akin to opining that grocery stores help people to learn agriculture and animal husbandry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are you going to get them into the programme? Are you going to make it voluntary (in which case virtually nobody will volunteer and it becomes a total waste of time and tax money), or are you going to violate their civil liberties and rights and just draft them into it?

If we confine the program to those just on welfare, there would be no need to violate anyone's rights. In Canada welfare comes with specified terms of agreement, so simply put, if they wanted their welfare cheque they would have to agree to the program. You may not be able to save them, but at least you know your tax dollars went to food and shelter, instead of narcotics.

You see, the only thing that is going to actually kick an addiction for good is personal willpower, accountability and responsibility. By removing the options for those from addicts, you are not helping them overcome their addiction at all.

I don't agree with this comment at all, western europe has had a far greater success rate in helping addicts recover than the United States, who chooses to punish addicts instead of supporting them. Most addicts are so demoralized, that willpower does not suffice, and today the majority will be infected with HIV before they get a chance to turn things around.

I like udawg's proposal, so long as it stays within the "confines" of those suffering from substance abuse.

I also think it should go in conjunction with legally supplied heroin and cocaine facilities, which have led to a reduction in property crime and addiction, in specified European cities.

We should also have needle exchanges to reduce HIV and hepatitis, and social counselling in co-ordination for welfare for work programs to build self esteem.

Finally, i think we should demcriminalize most narcotics and take the growing profits out of organized crime.

All of this, by the way, will be less costly to the tax payer,than the already balooning bureacracy needed to employ those to enforce prohibition.

Anyways that's my two bits, take it or leave it.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we confine the program to those just on welfare, there would be no need to violate anyone's rights. In Canada welfare comes with specified terms of agreement, so simply put, if they wanted their welfare cheque they would have to agree to the program.

Welfare itself is unjust and should be scrapped. There is no reason why some people should have a right to freeload off others. If you are applying this to the unemployed, disabled or others claiming benefits, what you are basically saying is the jobless or disabled are not entitled to make their own financial decisions - highly unjust and discriminatory.

I don't agree with this comment at all, western europe has had a far greater success rate in helping addicts recover than the United States, who chooses to punish addicts instead of supporting them.

Actually, the most successful of all programmes are the religious (faith-based) ones. What does that tell you?

I wouldn't be looking to western europe for any miracles. Most European countries have higher crime rates than the USA, more people below the poverty line and lower standards of living. They may be treating their addicts better, but they are damaging their whole society in the process.

Finally, i think we should demcriminalize most narcotics and take the growing profits out of organized crime.

Great idea. Heaven knows, we have absolutely no problems with smoking or alcohol abuse in our society, so a few dozen far more destructive drugs thrown into the mix won't do any harm, and nor will government endorsement of those drugs!

We should be looking to get rid of organised crime by putting the criminals in jail, not by stealing their business. It's kind of like saying you are going to defeat terrorism by bombing all your own buildings first before they get a chance to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welfare itself is unjust and should be scrapped. There is no reason why some people should have a right to freeload off others.

Scrapping welfare would just lead to more taxes for rising crime, and more people falling through the cracks, highly immoral.

If social programs were eliminated there would be no great economic boom as a result, people would be scrambling to buy private welfare insurance, private unemployment and private health care, which would be far more costly. The trickle down effect is utter idealogical BS, just like Marxism, libertarainism in practice does not work.

Actually, the most successful of all programmes are the religious (faith-based) ones. What does that tell you?

I don't know? but I can tell you christianity and capitalism don't mix, at least not the new testament. Its too bad that North American christianinty has been taken over by a small right wing sect, that re-interprets the scripture to its liking. If anything it deters a younger generation from even giving the bible a chance.

Most European countries have higher crime rates than the USA, more people below the poverty line and lower standards of living.

Maby Eastern Europe and the UK, but not the rest of North Western Europe; Germany and Scandanavia are consitantly ranked higher in terms of quality of life than the United States.

We should be looking to get rid of organised crime by putting the criminals in jail, not by stealing their business. It's kind of like saying you are going to defeat terrorism by bombing all your own buildings first before they get a chance to.

In the United States opium was decriminalized from 1890 to 1905, and during this time its use dropped by over one half, when it was banned, opium use started to drastically rise.

Decriminalizing drugs takes away the deviance aspect which makes it alluring in the first place, for instance only 2.4% of people in Holland have tried cocaine compared to a staggering 12% in the US.

Not to mention the United States taxpayers payed over $81 billion dollars during the 90's to fight the war on drugs.

Finally, if your so concerned about liberty ,why would you support a plan that has led to a virtuous police state, war zones in urban communites, and a mass violation of civil rights.

Not even the Fraser or Cato institute support prohibtion, its a lost cause, just forget about it, the US narcotic policy is an utter flop and prime example of the wrong road to take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scrapping welfare would just lead to more taxes for rising crime, and more people falling through the cracks, highly immoral.

Why? Explain yourself. This isn't self-evident.

The trickle down effect is utter idealogical BS, just like Marxism, libertarainism in practice does not work.

That is incorrect. Libertarianism has been responsible for incredibly huge increases in standard of living and wealth since its inception, at a rate of change that vastly outstrips any system before it. The trickle down effect is not BS, it is fact. You are far better off than your grandparents, who were far better off than their grandparents.

If social programs were eliminated there would be no great economic boom as a result, people would be scrambling to buy private welfare insurance, private unemployment and private health care, which would be far more costly.

Due to the inefficiency and lack of incentive for improvement in state-run services it is only logical that private employment and health insurance would cost less than the taxes that currently pay for them. For example, I pay around $75 per month for electricity, to a company that was up until very recently state-run and still has a monopoly in the region because of that (it's about what I paid to the state-run power company too). My mother, in the UK, pays about $20 per month for electricity because where she lives, there are several competing private electricity companies that drive prices down for the consumer. Competition produces lower prices and better service. State-run services have no competition, so the consumer pays more and gets worse. Take a look at the Soviet car industry. In 1985 a car cost about 12 years average salary and was an absolutely worthless hunk of junk. In the US, however, the average price of a new car was about 2 years average salary and was a far superior vehicle. Would you pay 12 years salary for this? Look at it - the doors don't even fit right!

but I can tell you christianity and capitalism don't mix, at least not the new testament.

Please go and read the thread entitled "Which one true God" where I have already answered this question for you.

Maby Eastern Europe and the UK, but not the rest of North Western Europe; Germany and Scandanavia are consitantly ranked higher in terms of quality of life than the United States.

That's the popular perception. The reason you don't have facts to back that up is because you don't know. If you'd researched this properly, you'd know that pretty much all Northern and Western European countries have more people below the poverty line, higher crime rates and lower mean/real incomes than the USA.

Not to mention the United States taxpayers payed over $81 billion dollars during the 90's to fight the war on drugs.

Yes, and they spent $100bn in 1999 alone fighting AIDS, and the cause of that is already known! Drugs are an affliction and a scourge of our society. Legalisation is state approval, and I don't think that's a good idea. Perhaps a good approach would be similar to the issue of software piracy, to prosecute dealers and not users, but we cannot just pretend the problem does not exist. If we legalise murder and robbery the crime rate will drop enormously overnight - does that mean we no longer have a problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Explain yourself. This isn't self-evident

Crime rates since the post war period in the United States peaked in 1982, under Ronald Reagen, when drastic cuts to social services took place. In some places the individual crime rate was as high as 6000 persons for every 100,000 person counted.

The economic policies during the Reagen era, did not produce a trickle down effect, unions declined, salaries declined, but inequality amongst the rich and poor greatly increased.

Admittedly there was strong job growth, but these were mainly poor paying service sector jobs that replaced the disappearence of stable paying manufacturing jobs, due to increased offshoring, and job flight to Mexico.

The crime rate began to escalate under Richard Nixon with the advent of the "war on drugs", Peaked under Reagan, and then peaked again under George Bush senior before tapering off under Clinton.

Competition produces lower prices and better service. State-run services have no competition, so the consumer pays more and gets worse.

This is not always true, British Columbia has a state run automobile insurance company, and we pay some of the lowest premiums in the Canada, much lower than Ontario or New Brunswick. Private insurance is normally more exuberant than public insurance. As for public versus private outside essential services, you won't get an argument from me, I'm not a fan nationalization.

pretty much all Northern and Western European countries have more people below the poverty line, higher crime rates and lower mean/real incomes than the USA

Well although I've never seen statistics on European poverty lines, I can tell you that West Germany and Scandanavia are consistently picked above the United States in terms of quality of life, year after year via reports from the United Nations, and the World Health Organization. Americans in general may have more disposable income, but statistics show the nations listed above, live healthier, have lower stress rates, shorter work weeks and longer vacations. As for crime rates, admittely countries like Holland and Finland are far above the United States, but the US still has the most violent crime rate, and out of all G7 cities Washington DC I believe is still the homicide capital.

As for the legalization of drugs I would never advocate for that, I'm for decriminalization not legalization. Just because we supply the addict with thier fix doesn't mean we liscence companies to market heroin. Anyways I agree, we should be prosecuting the big time dealers not the small time junkies. As for liberatarainism, I would buy into it if I thought it would produce a better quality of life, but no one has sold me on it yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crime rates since the post war period in the United States peaked in 1982, under Ronald Reagen, when drastic cuts to social services took place... then peaked again under George Bush senior.

During the Reagan and Bush Administrations, the nation's overall crime rate fell by one percent

(Crime in the United States, Federal Bureau of Investigations, 1991).

Where do your statistics come from?

This is not always true, British Columbia has a state run automobile insurance company, and we pay some of the lowest premiums in the Canada, much lower than Ontario or New Brunswick.

Do you factor into that the amount of tax money that each British Columbian pays (including those who don't drive) that goes towards subsidising the premiums?

I can tell you that West Germany and Scandanavia are consistently picked above the United States in terms of quality of life, year after year via reports from the United Nations, and the World Health Organization.

I have very little respect for the UN and the WHO, given their track record for recognising problems and correctly reporting them. If the UN is so good at recognising quality of life, why did it not recognise that Kosovans were being murdered in their thousands under their noses for 8 years?

As for crime rates, admittely countries like Holland and Finland are far above the United States, but the US still has the most violent crime rate, and out of all G7 cities Washington DC I believe is still the homicide capital.

Homicide capital of the US. Toronto has three times as many murders per 1000 people as Chicago (one of America's most violent cities) and eight times as many as New York City. America does not do well in murder statistics but if you factor in all violent crime and property crime (theft and burglary), the US is streets ahead of Canada and Europe.

As for liberatarainism, I would buy into it if I thought it would produce a better quality of life, but no one has sold me on it yet... I've never seen statistics on European poverty lines...

Given how badly researched your "facts" are, I'm not surprised. If you'd try reading a little, you might learn the truth about all of these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post Hugo. At the risk of sounding anti-English, which I'm not, smug is the word that describes many English Canadians. Pierre Berton wrote a book about it but Robertson Davies really drove the point home for me.

Some English Canadians like to feel sorry for others - they even say, "There but for the grace of God go I." (Imagine the moral superiority of such a declaration.)

These English Canadians believe that Canada is a more civilized, safer country than the US. Chretien played into this English Canadian smugness, and the CBC is rampant with it.

I'm no psychologist but I suppose the smugness ultimately stems from an inferiority complex.

Anyway, the facts speak otherwise, as your post attests. Health care is another one. Talk to any American and one quickly discovers that, in practical terms, our system borders on Soviet. It will be soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do your statistics come from?

Same place where your statistics come from, The FBI's uniform crime reports, I suggest you re-check yours at the local "Public" library.

Do you factor into that the amount of tax money that each British Columbian pays (including those who don't drive) that goes towards subsidising the premiums?

Privatizing ICBC would yeild no substancial returns for the general public, it is a relatively small piece of the operating budget, rates remain consistantly lower than Ontario, and accident victems are better compensated for their injuries. In short, its worth the tax payers subsidies.

B.C. public corporations have consistently pulled in an exuberant amount of revenue for the tax payers over the years. BC hydro made over 1 billion dollars in profit selling energy to California's deregulated electricity market. Companies in California still owe the Powerex Corp, over $280 million dollars. Sorry I have no desire to see ENRON involved in any shape or form, in the Canadian electricity market.

In addition, British Columbia has the third lowest rates in Canada following Quebec and Manitoba. Can't say that about Ontario thanks to that bafoon Mike Harris.

have very little respect for the UN and the WHO, given their track record for recognising problems and correctly reporting them.

No of course not, instead you respect Ronald Reagan, a man who waged a personal war against the Sandinista's and funded right wing para military guerilla's to roam through the countryside burning hospitals, mutilating women's genitalia, and arranging mass firing squads of children.

Homicide capital of the US. Toronto has three times as many murders per 1000 people as Chicago (one of America's most violent cities) and eight times as many as New York City. America does not do well in murder statistics but if you factor in all violent crime and property crime (theft and burglary), the US is streets ahead of Canada and Europe.

I highly doubt this, but as for Toronto, it wouldn't suprise me, due to the drastic rise in homelessness, after nearly ten years of Tory rule.

Given how badly researched your "facts" are, I'm not surprised. If you'd try reading a little, you might learn the truth about all of these things

Typical rude response form another self concieted conservative. This is what I get for trying to place nice with an individual whose idealogy is based on pure self interest and the pursuit of profit.

Sir, my facts are sound, and being a student all I get to due is "read" but unfortuantly not all of us have the extra leisure time review statistics at are whim, most of us are too busy struggling to get by, and I've got papers due.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same place where your statistics come from, The FBI's uniform crime reports, I suggest you re-check yours at the local "Public" library.

Right back at you. Since you can't cite a publication, your source can't be considered valid. "The FBI" is not sufficient when I have already quoted the FBI from a specific report that directly contradicts what you allege but cannot prove that they said.

Furthermore, even if what you were saying were true, you still have not even started to explain how those "facts" might support your theory, and you have not eliminated other phenomena that can affect crime rates.

In short, its worth the tax payers subsidies.

Coming from a student who pays next to nothing in taxes, that's charming. Who gave you the right to decide that the hard-earned money of others should be taken away? When you actually work, pay taxes and see about 50% of all your money (for the average Canadian) being taken by the government to fund things that you don't benefit from and don't believe in, you'll feel differently.

Can't say that about Ontario thanks to that bafoon Mike Harris.

You mean Bob Rae. Harris just tried to clean up the enormous mess that Rae left behind, and was lambasted for failing to wave his magic wand and turn back time to before Rae was elected.

No of course not, instead you respect Ronald Reagan, a man who waged a personal war against the Sandinista's and funded right wing para military guerilla's to roam through the countryside burning hospitals, mutilating women's genitalia, and arranging mass firing squads of children.

Don't forget the man who put the USSR to death, which was the most aggressive, warlike and evil regime the world has ever seen, with the blood of 41 million innocents on its hands and countless more doomed to slave labour, exile, deportation, torture and so forth. But I'm sure you think the USSR "isn't so bad", as another leftist on this board opined, which perfectly illustrates leftist stupidities and ignorance of history.

I highly doubt this, but as for Toronto, it wouldn't suprise me, due to the drastic rise in homelessness, after nearly ten years of Tory rule.

You believe it's the Tories' fault that the Liberal government takes so much money away from Toronto and returns so little? You really have a problem with identifying root causes, don't you?

Typical rude response form another self concieted conservative. This is what I get for trying to place nice with an individual whose idealogy is based on pure self interest and the pursuit of profit.

So you say. I support capitalism because it is by far the best system for raising the standard of living for all and for wealth creation, for all. Mixed and socialist economies are the systems that keep people impoverished.

Sir, my facts are sound, and being a student all I get to due is "read"

Your facts are uncited. You have actually admitted that you have offered opinions on phenomena you have not investigated in any way, that you have based your opinions upon pure speculation and not fact, you have failed to cite sources, you have displayed gross ignorance for historical fact, failure to analyze root causes and more.

If you don't have time to review statistics and do your research, kindly refrain from ignorantly offering opinions on the subjects you cannot research. I'm not about to lecture anybody on quantum mechanics, but here you sit, telling us all how things really are when you have no grasp of even the most basic facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...