Confessions of a Former Republican

[Pliny]

Perhaps you did not read the second page of the article because that is not the author's main point (admittedly the headline is misleading but that’s journalism, eh):

"Don’t get me wrong: President Obama bears responsibility for federal outlays being larger for each year of his presidency than at any time since 1946. If George W. Bush bears a lot of responsibility for FY2009, then Mr. Obama bears even more responsibility for the three years that followed — responsibility for both the very high spending and the questionable composition of the spending.

So is Mr. Obama’s performance on spending quite bad? Yes. But a difference in kind rather than in degree? Over his four fiscal years as president the average outlays-to-GDP ratio is 24.4 percent. During the Reagan years the average was 22.4 percent. Given the Great Recession, this two percentage point difference, though deceivingly very large, isn’t enough to claim that President Obama represents a radical departure from post-war presidents with respect to spending."

I am not saying that the Dems are good fiscal managers, I originally rated them as a -5 compared to -10 for Rep. Based on your arguments perhaps I will now say that the Dems and Rep are equally bad managers.

You are not grasping the severity of the Great Recession: http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=149

The dotcom recession was nothing compared to the Great Recession!

Bush II took a surplus and changed it into a huge deficit.

I don’t believe the Republicans when they say they will cut the budget because:

1) Over the past 30 years they have been no better at balancing the budget than the Democrats

2) They have lost all credibility with the War in Iraq and many other stupid policies and comments

I agree the headline is misleading. I also agree that Republicans and Democrats have both demonstrated fiscal irresponsibility and economic ignorance which, if not being the main cause, has contributed throughout the century to the economic boom-bust cycles we live through and all the while debasing and inflating the currency. Obama's spending and the non-partisan TARP agreement under Bush are really demonstrations of that ignorance. Obama's policies have shown more of a political agenda than economic sensibility.

But once again, if we look at Congress and its ability to aid or tie the hands of President's on budget matters, it must be noted that the Democrats have the edge and we can't rule out the role of the Federal Reserve - that promotes the use of Government intervention in the economy, and is in the long term, very responsible for fiscal policy and, due to its employment of Keynesian monetarist policies, gives us the fascistic "crony capitalism" we must endure. It gives us the boom-bust cycle, inflation, poorly managed corporations. In general, an ever-increasing economic instability.

I just wanted to add that government economic policy has a purpose that must always be kept in mind. Most often the primary purpose is to keep the economy on a a slightly inflationary path and avoid booms and busts or at least attempt to smooth them out.

This is often forgotten due to some politically expedient matter, such as a war on poverty or a redistribution of wealth, a war on terror or industrial tariffs and subsidies, or appeasing Unions and avoiding crises in health care or education monopolies or realizing the American Dream and giving everyone who shows a breath on a mirror a mortgage to buy a home.

When government has a purpose to equalize outcome, redistribute wealth, regulate industry, the primary economic purpose is forgotten. Their manipulation of the economy to accomplish social good creates distortion in the economy and we suffer boom-bust cycles that, in most instances, they furiously attempt to correct and generally prolong recovery.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Pliny

[kraychik]

So, this Jeremiah Goulka fellow is what, in his thirties? And he's notable for what reasons? I suppose he was a Republican for a few years, in his own mind? His "reformation" is supposed to make for compelling reading over at everyone's favourite leftist rag The Nation? What a worthless post.

[Pliny]

no, they're not.

Well, State and municipal Bankruptcies seem to be more imminent in the blue States. California is not looking too good. What criteria are you using?

It's not laws requiring them to ignore prudence that the bank lobby is bawling to get repealed.

-k

It would help though.

It would be better to ask if there are any regulations that are missing? If you want more we could start with overseeing oversights.

[Pliny]

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/sessions-wrong-on-bush-tax-cuts/

That is apparent in carepov's post of the debt to GDP ratio.

If Jeff Sessions said that revenues increased every year after the Bush tax cuts, the ones in 2001, then he was obviously mistaken.

Do you believe there is an immediate economic response to government policies and that results are always consistent?

The fiscal year ends in Sept. the first tax cuts were in July. Let's give them a chance to work their way into the economy. Do you think two years more is enough time? How could more tax cuts in 2003 bring about increased revenues? Did they have an immediate impact on the economy?

[carepov]

I agree the headline is misleading. I also agree that Republicans and Democrats have both demonstrated fiscal irresponsibility and economic ignorance which, if not being the main cause, has contributed throughout the century to the economic boom-bust cycles we live through and all the while debasing and inflating the currency. Obama's spending and the non-partisan TARP agreement under Bush are really demonstrations of that ignorance. Obama's policies have shown more of a political agenda than economic sensibility.

But once again, if we look at Congress and its ability to aid or tie the hands of President's on budget matters, it must be noted that the Democrats have the edge and we can't rule out the role of the Federal Reserve - that promotes the use of Government intervention in the economy, and is in the long term, very responsible for fiscal policy and, due to its employment of Keynesian monetarist policies, gives us the fascistic "crony capitalism" we must endure. It gives us the boom-bust cycle, inflation, poorly managed corporations. In general, an ever-increasing economic instability.

Indeed we agree on many things, who’da thunk it? Yes there are factors more important than the Presidential or Congressional party in power that affect deficits and debts; I will add war to your list.

This guy did some interesting work on these issues:

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

Anyways, based on historical results, a Democratic President is not likely to be any worse than a Republican President in terms of fiscal management. Do you agree?

[Pliny]

Indeed we agree on many things, who’da thunk it? Yes there are factors more important than the Presidential or Congressional party in power that affect deficits and debts; I will add war to your list.

This guy did some interesting work on these issues:

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

Anyways, based on historical results, a Democratic President is not likely to be any worse than a Republican President in terms of fiscal management. Do you agree?

That is a good website. Thanks.

Do I agree A Democratic President is not likely to be any worse than a Republican President in terms of fiscal management?

No. But not by much because a Democrat President is more likely to want to introduce costly, redistributive social programs that have short term benefits and long term adverse economic effects that require constant economic topping up or tinkering. Neither Democrats nor Republicans will take effective measures on already established entitlements. The Dems primary objectives are more about social justice and equality which, in my view, gives them an edge on overall economic irresponsibility over Republicans. Economic conditions will not sustain an increasing plethora of long term entitlements which become dependencies.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Pliny

[carepov]

That is a good website. Thanks.

Do I agree A Democratic President is not likely to be any worse than a Republican President in terms of fiscal management?

No. But not by much because a Democrat President is more likely to want to introduce costly, redistributive social programs that have short term benefits and long term adverse economic effects that require constant economic topping up or tinkering. Neither Democrats nor Republicans will take effective measures on already established entitlements. The Dems primary objectives are more about social justice and equality which, in my view, gives them an edge on overall economic irresponsibility over Republicans. Economic conditions will not sustain an increasing plethora of long term entitlements which become dependencies.

You are propagating the myth - all the historical data we have looked at shows that the federal budget is more poorly managed when a Republican President is in power. Perhaps you are right about new social spending by Democrats, but perhaps there is increased Defense spending under Republicans that more than offsets? Also, surely you would agree that the creation of the useless/wasteful Department of Homeland Security is a giant blotch on the Republican record!

[Pliny]

You are propagating the myth - all the historical data we have looked at shows that the federal budget is more poorly managed when a Republican President is in power.

Not many people say the federal budget is more poorly managed under a Democrat President. I am trying to correct that myth.

It is unfair to say that the myth is true, because a Democrat congress has for the most part prevailed under both Democrat and Republican Presidents. And Democrats tend to introduce more long term public liabilities that wind up being unsustainable and permanent.

Perhaps you are right about new social spending by Democrats, but perhaps there is increased Defense spending under Republicans that more than offsets?

Defense is a legitimate mandate of the Federal government and is not an entitlement program but I agree Republicans spend unnecessarily on it.

Also, surely you would agree that the creation of the useless/wasteful Department of Homeland Security is a giant blotch on the Republican record!

Yes. I agree entirely with that.

I would like to just point out that it was under Democrat Presidents from WWI forward that the US entered most of their wars. WWI - Wilson (D), WWII - FD Roosevelt(D), Korean and Vietnamese wars - Truman(D), Iraq War - GHWB®, Bosnia - Clinton(D), War on Terror - Bush®, Obama(D)He isn't finished yet.

[carepov]

...

Thanks Pliny, good point about the effect of congress; like I said I have moderated my preference for Dems, and it sounds like you have softened your preference of Rep.

Do you think that the chances of another war are greater with Romney (for example Iran)?

Don't all the Republican social policies that attempt to control individual behaviour/morals bother you?

[Pliny]

Thanks Pliny, good point about the effect of congress; like I said I have moderated my preference for Dems, and it sounds like you have softened your preference of Rep.

Well, chances of me agreeing with Democrat policy or principles is pretty slim and my support of Republicans was pretty soft to start with but more than anything I appreciate your honesty and willingness to look without being in lockstep on every issue as I find most partisan posters are on this forum.

Do you think that the chances of another war are greater with Romney (for example Iran)?

We'll never know the answer to that question.

I think Obama overall is a destabilizing influence in the balance of power. I believe anti-American forces feel emboldened by his policies. By anti-American forces I mean the one-worlder socialist/environmentalist, countries like Russia and China that wish more power and world influence, and those that despise western culture. Obama, in my view, believes that all are equal or should be equal. he holds that view of individuals in his domestic policy and nations in his foreign policy. There wouldn't be any danger in that if that were an axiomatic truth but it isn't a truth at all and you can't make it that way without sacrificing yourself. Although he believes in equality for all, deep down he knows that someone has to create this equality and he believes it is him but he can't bring people up to his level so he has to degrade and lessen himself to create this equality. It is how he operates and he is, on a national level, degrading and lessening America. He cannot make the other countries powerful and rich so he must bring America down to a lesser level, thus I see an emboldening of those anti-American forces that lie in wait to strip it of any American exceptionalism at any actual or apparent weakness(es)created by or demonstrated in its leaders.

What can Romney do but support Israel? I believe there is no appetite in America for another confrontation like Iraq or Afghanistan so whatever happens will be very different. Israel may have the wherewithal to act on its own to neutralize Iran, if necessary and just want moral support from the US. The UN's role will probably be critical.

Don't all the Republican social policies that attempt to control individual behaviour/morals bother you?

Which social policies that attempt to control individual behavior/morals bother you?

Personally, I am against government legislating control of individual behavior/mores. I am only against the use of force and violence by one individual against another individual. One of the biggest building blocks of western society is that individuals have a sense of the sanctity of person and property. Government is actively eroding respect for that tenet and has been slowly doing so for quite some time.

As an individual I hold conservative values myself but don't believe they should be imposed on anyone by law. People with like values/mores will tend to associate. Beyond respecting the sanctity of person and property of all individuals I don't see that much more behavior need be legislated.

[carepov]

Well, chances of me agreeing with Democrat policy or principles is pretty slim and my support of Republicans was pretty soft to start with but more than anything I appreciate your honesty and willingness to look without being in lockstep on every issue as I find most partisan posters are on this forum.

Thanks, it is nice to be involved in a civilized discussion.

I think Obama overall is a destabilizing influence in the balance of power. I believe anti-American forces feel emboldened by his policies. By anti-American forces I mean the one-worlder socialist/environmentalist, countries like Russia and China that wish more power and world influence, and those that despise western culture.

On Foreign Policy, I do not think it is possible to do a worse job on than GWB 2001-2009. Remember almost the whole world was pro-USA on 9/12/2001! Similar to the economy, Obama he has had an uphill battle. Getting out of Iraq relatively smoothly is excellent, and it seems like he is successfully unwinding Afghanistan.

Obama, in my view, believes that all are equal or should be equal. he holds that view of individuals in his domestic policy and nations in his foreign policy…Although he believes in equality for all…

No. I think you are wrong. He specifically says that “everyone in America deserves an equal shot”. There is a big difference between equal opportunity and equal outcomes. Surely you beleive in the principle of equal oportunity, no?

What can Romney do but support Israel? I believe there is no appetite in America for another confrontation like Iraq or Afghanistan so whatever happens will be very different. Israel may have the wherewithal to act on its own to neutralize Iran, if necessary and just want moral support from the US. The UN's role will probably be critical.

Based on the bungling in 2001-2008, Romney would be more likely to screw-up in the ME.

Which social policies that attempt to control individual behavior/morals bother you?

-Patriot Act

-Support torture and arbitrary detention

-anti-abortion

-anti-gay marriage

-discrimination of gays in military

-anti-medical marijuana

-worse than Dems on general drug prohibition

-21 year-old drinking age (perhaps the Dems are just as bad)

-Support prayers in schools

-Support the idea of requiring people (possible illegal-immigrants) to show ID for no reason

Also, the GOP has more regressive policies on crime and is more in favour of capital punishment

Personally, I am against government legislating control of individual behavior/mores. I am only against the use of force and violence by one individual against another individual. One of the biggest building blocks of western society is that individuals have a sense of the sanctity of person and property. Government is actively eroding respect for that tenet and has been slowly doing so for quite some time.

As an individual I hold conservative values myself but don't believe they should be imposed on anyone by law. People with like values/mores will tend to associate. Beyond respecting the sanctity of person and property of all individuals I don't see that much more behavior need be legislated.

In general, I agree with these views and we would both certainly agree no political party respects these views. IMO, the Reps are more disrespectful of individual rights than the Dems.

[Pliny]

Thanks, it is nice to be involved in a civilized discussion.

On Foreign Policy, I do not think it is possible to do a worse job on than GWB 2001-2009. Remember almost the whole world was pro-USA on 9/12/2001! Similar to the economy, Obama he has had an uphill battle. Getting out of Iraq relatively smoothly is excellent, and it seems like he is successfully unwinding Afghanistan.

Bush, in my view, made some really bad choices, probably the worst was the Patriot Act. I don't see that Obama has improved anything for Americans, domestically or in foreign relations. The nation has never been more divided.

No. I think you are wrong. He specifically says that “everyone in America deserves an equal shot”. There is a big difference between equal opportunity and equal outcomes. Surely you beleive in the principle of equal oportunity, no?

How do you give everyone an "equal shot"? What is an "equal shot" and how is it determined someone hasn't got an equal shot? What equal shot is everyone shooting for? But the big question is "who should determine when someone has more than an equal shot or someone has less than an equal shot? It is a platitude containing too many generalities and an assignment of authority, and thus opportunity, to "someone" that negates the very concept.

No one should have obstacles put in their way to hold them down or prop them up. They need to be allowed to rise to the level of responsibility they are willing to take and the place where the effort they are willing to expend takes them. They also need to have a level of challenge in their life that fulfills them as individuals which they themselves should determine. No one should have the authority to predetermine another person's position in society or who should judge what opportunity should be made available to some and unavailable to others.

Can you see the contradiction in the concept? It grants to someone a level of authority and power over other people's lives that depends upon that someone's concept of equal opportunity, not to mention any personal biases or abuses of that power that are possible.

It may occur that society finds itself in a situation where "useless eaters" are denying the rest of the population that possibility of equal opportunity. Those useless eaters may not be producing enough and consuming too much. Instead of those perceived to have too much opportunity and putting obstacles in their way it now becomes switched to eliminating those who are perceived to have little opportunity and are standing in the way of achieving the goal of equal opportunity.

Nowhere in the world is there more opportunity to determine your own destiny and no one else should determine another's destiny. The perception of success arises out of the person's overcoming of his own personal challenges. Certainly, the concept of respect for the sanctity of person and property offer him the greatest opportunity to overcome his own obstacles in life and those obstacles will be different for everyone not the same or equal for all in any respect.

Based on the bungling in 2001-2008, Romney would be more likely to screw-up in the ME.

If you want to base it on that it would be a mistake. I would prefer a candidate like Ron Paul to be running but he would never win at this time. Obama has to go and more education about what government is has to occur before it will ever be limited to what it should be.

-Patriot Act

-Support torture and arbitrary detention

-anti-abortion

-anti-gay marriage

-discrimination of gays in military

-anti-medical marijuana

-worse than Dems on general drug prohibition

-21 year-old drinking age (perhaps the Dems are just as bad)

-Support prayers in schools

-Support the idea of requiring people (possible illegal-immigrants) to show ID for no reason

Also, the GOP has more regressive policies on crime and is more in favour of capital punishment

In general, I agree with these views and we would both certainly agree no political party respects these views. IMO, the Reps are more disrespectful of individual rights than the Dems.

I would like to take up each of these points but time won't allow it right now. Perhaps later.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Pliny

[carepov]

Bush, in my view, made some really bad choices, probably the worst was the Patriot Act. I don't see that Obama has improved anything for Americans, domestically or in foreign relations.

You seem to be quick to admit the “bad choices” made by the previous Republican administration and equally quick to dismiss them as unimportant or insignificant. What mistakes has Obama made that can compare to: the Patriot Act, Iraq and other War on Terror mistakes, creation of DHS?

The nation has never been more divided.

Funny that every four years analysts say: “The nation has never been more divided.” I read that the USA was pretty divided in days of 'Nam too.

How do you give everyone an "equal shot"? What is an "equal shot" and how is it determined someone hasn't got an equal shot? What equal shot is everyone shooting for? But the big question is "who should determine when someone has more than an equal shot or someone has less than an equal shot? It is a platitude containing too many generalities and an assignment of authority, and thus opportunity, to "someone" that negates the very concept.

No one should have obstacles put in their way to hold them down or prop them up…

Nowhere in the world is there more opportunity to determine your own destiny and no one else should determine another's destiny.

You are right is many ways - but you are not understanding what I mean by “equal opportunity”. It is impossible for me to define it precisely and, like you said, impossible to determine exactly. However it is still an admirable goal to work towards – and it is good for society.

It helps if we look at just one segment of the population: children, say 0-14ish. You said it yourself: “No [child] should have obstacles put in their way to hold them down…”. Think of all the obstacles many children face! There is clearly a great deal of improvement we can make in Canada and the USA.

It is difficult, but not impossible, to measure equal opportunity. One example is per capita spending on primary education. Do you agree that this should be more or less equal with a country/state or province?

Also, I agree with you generally that we should not strive toward “equal outcomes” BUT grossly unequal outcomes are an indicator of unequal opportunities. For example, life expectancy, infant mortality and over-representation in the prison population of native vs. non-native Canadians.

Striving toward "equal opportunity" for children is not only morally just (no one gets to choose to where they are born) but it is also a benefit to society as investing in the care and education of children pays off economically in the long run.

Edited September 28, 2012 by carepov

[eyeball]

It would be better to ask if there are any regulations that are missing? If you want more we could start with overseeing oversights.

Exactly. If you want to nip a lot of the cronyism and corruption in the bud you have to monitor the regulators, read; apply souveillance - not throughout the entire government mind you, just at the top and then sit back and watch the decency and virtue trickle down through the rest as naturally as wealth is said to trickle.

This might actually get the wealth trickling a little more naturally and quicker than we've been misled to disbelieve.

[Pliny]

You seem to be quick to admit the “bad choices” made by the previous Republican administration and equally quick to dismiss them as unimportant or insignificant. What mistakes has Obama made that can compare to: the Patriot Act, Iraq and other War on Terror mistakes, creation of DHS?

Obama basically could have passed any legislation he wanted to from 2009 to 2010. He had a democrat congress - both the house and the senate. Instead of dealing with the economy he chose to ram through a health care act that even Democrats had trouble voting for and he basically had to buy the votes of his fellow democrats in congress to get it passed. If he had have dealt with the economy first and done something effective he would have been able to pass any legislation he wanted and would not have ended up with a split congress in 2010. He is an ideologue however and took advantage of the opportunity of a full majority government to accomplish something that in order to find out what it was had to be passed first. In the immortal words of Nancy Pelosi, "We have to pass the bill first so we can find out what's in it."

Obamacare is a devastating bill. Although Americans see the necessity for healthcare reform Obamacare is not the right choice for America. It has been passed and we now know what's in it. Skyrocketing costs, basically and the eventual elimination of private health care insurance, which may not be all that bad - but once a liberal program like healthcare gets passed at a national level it becomes very conservative and unable to be changed, as you are probably aware of from our Canadian health care system - the only acceptable change for us is an increase in resources.

So, besides the economy, he has ignored what America is and tried to "fundamentally transform" it into a European society.

Funny that every four years analysts say: “The nation has never been more divided.” I read that the USA was pretty divided in days of 'Nam too.

The draft provided most of the divide in the Viet Nam war era and on the social issues of the day that cried out for freedom from the draft and general freedom from government. It's why the Democrats lost to...ugh...Nixon.

It might wind up that WE will be saying that because of Obama the democrats lost to...ugh...Romney. But I think Romney has it together more than Nixon did. Nixon was a jerk of the highest order.

You are right is many ways - but you are not understanding what I mean by “equal opportunity”. It is impossible for me to define it precisely and, like you said, impossible to determine exactly. However it is still an admirable goal to work towards – and it is good for society.

It is impossible for man to implement for the simple reason you cannot elevate a man above where he desires to be. You do so at society's peril and at the expense of someone else. And it is always at the expense of someone else as determined by an authoritarian third party.

Are there people who wish to rise above the level of garbage man? They play a very important role in society and they would be the first to point that out but it is an unskilled job that anyone; and I'm guessing, even those with a Ph D, could probably do. But would they? If everyone goes to college and gets a degree they would want something better.

The service must be provided. Are you going to attempt to elevate everyone to being able to be President of the United States? If you are not, then you cannot say society must provide equal opportunity to everyone.

There are people who do not want any more responsibility than to do a job and go home with a paycheque.

It helps if we look at just one segment of the population: children, say 0-14ish. You said it yourself: “No [child] should have obstacles put in their way to hold them down…”. Think of all the obstacles many children face! There is clearly a great deal of improvement we can make in Canada and the USA.

No obstacles makes for an uneventful, unchallenging, dull existence.

It is difficult, but not impossible, to measure equal opportunity. One example is per capita spending on primary education. Do you agree that this should be more or less equal with a country/state or province?

No.

Also, I agree with you generally that we should not strive toward “equal outcomes” BUT grossly unequal outcomes are an indicator of unequal opportunities. For example, life expectancy, infant mortality and over-representation in the prison population of native vs. non-native Canadians.

They are not "Native" Canadians. They are Natives. The Indian act has deprived them of contributing to the evolution of Canadian society. If they are not allowed to contribute they feel no part of it.

Striving toward "equal opportunity" for children is not only morally just (no one gets to choose to where they are born) but it is also a benefit to society as investing in the care and education of children pays off economically in the long run.

What is the role of parents? If they cannot or will not attempt to provide at least an equal opportunity to their children they should not be having children. All they need to do is their very best and their children will do their very best. Unfortunately, the government tries to remove challenges from people's lives. No greatness or feeling of self-worth ever arose out of someone attempting to do it all for you.

Once again, obstacles that are not fair, like racism, should be removed, but under the law if all people are equal and have the same rights to the sanctity of their person and property what obstacles are there?

It took awhile for Blacks and women to be recognized as "persons" under the law but once that is gained what more rights should there be? Equal pay for equal work? All "persons" should have that right. A problem presents itself in that all persons do not necessarily work equally. For instance, teachers who have children with behavioral problems in their classrooms tend to be male as women are not physically able to manage them.

A fetus is not a person. Maybe someday it will win that right. If it ever does it must be treated equally under the law as any other "person" would be. Maybe the Dolphin or the grey mottled field mouse will be recognized as a "person" and gain the right to the sanctity of person and property - seems to be the objective of some environmentalists or animal rights activists.

Anyway, a person must be defined and the use of force and violence against them must be denied by law and that is the simplicity of equal opportunity.

[Pliny]

Exactly. If you want to nip a lot of the cronyism and corruption in the bud you have to monitor the regulators, read; apply souveillance - not throughout the entire government mind you, just at the top and then sit back and watch the decency and virtue trickle down through the rest as naturally as wealth is said to trickle.

This might actually get the wealth trickling a little more naturally and quicker than we've been misled to disbelieve.

When government advocates for surveillance of the populace I always advocate they start in the offices of our public representatives.

Private surveillance should be enough, and if our politicians would like to see some recordings they can ask.

That's my opinion on the matter.

[carepov]

Obama basically could have passed any legislation he wanted to from 2009 to 2010.

GWB enjoyed the same power from 2003-2006. He was a worse f* up by much more than a factor of two. To continue this part of the discussion we would have to debate healthcare - let's save that for another day

It is impossible for man to implement for the simple reason you cannot elevate a man above where he desires to be. You do so at society's peril and at the expense of someone else. And it is always at the expense of someone else as determined by an authoritarian third party.

Are there people who wish to rise above the level of garbage man? They play a very important role in society and they would be the first to point that out but it is an unskilled job that anyone; and I'm guessing, even those with a Ph D, could probably do. But would they? If everyone goes to college and gets a degree they would want something better.

The service must be provided. Are you going to attempt to elevate everyone to being able to be President of the United States? If you are not, then you cannot say society must provide equal opportunity to everyone.

There are people who do not want any more responsibility than to do a job and go home with a paycheque.

You still don't get what I mean because we seem to be talking past one another. "Equal opportunity" is definitely not about elevating anyone at someone else's expense. Not everyone would go to college, just the those that want it the most and worked for it.

No obstacles makes for an uneventful, unchallenging, dull existence.

Again, I agree with your statement but I did not describe what I meant as well as I should. Examples of the obstacles facing children that I was referring to include: hunger and poor nutrition, father in jail and no positive role models... Surely you agree that children facing these obstacles are deserving of our help and that it is good for society to help children that face these obstacles, no?

[should per capita primary education be more or less equal with a country/state or province]

No.

hmmm... well I suppose that disadvantaged children should receive more resources to make up for all the challenges/obstacles they face. This is what you meant, right?

They are not "Native" Canadians. They are Natives. The Indian act has deprived them of contributing to the evolution of Canadian society. If they are not allowed to contribute they feel no part of it.

This idea is disproved by that fact that many Natives contribute a great deal to Canadian society. The Native population and contribution is also growing rapidly.

What is the role of parents? If they cannot or will not attempt to provide at least an equal opportunity to their children they should not be having children. All they need to do is their very best and their children will do their very best. Unfortunately, the government tries to remove challenges from people's lives. No greatness or feeling of self-worth ever arose out of someone attempting to do it all for you.

Once again, obstacles that are not fair, like racism, should be removed, but under the law if all people are equal and have the same rights to the sanctity of their person and property what obstacles are there?

Anyway, a person must be defined and the use of force and violence against them must be denied by law and that is the simplicity of equal opportunity.

Yes, parents should provide their children a chance to succeed. But when they fail it is the child that suffers - this is not fair. The child did nothing wrong besides be born into the wrong family. When this child grows up without help from society, it is much more likely to fail and this will end up costing society much more money in the long run. (By the way, I am talking about today's real society not some "utopian Libertarian" society that you seem to wish for.)

In conclusion, I agree with many things that you are saying but I am in no way suggesting that society should "do it all for you" or that everyone should be equal. I am surprised that you seem to disagree with me when I say:

No matter where a child is born in Canada he/she should have more or less an equal chance to succeed in life. This persons success should depend on merit not by their luck.

Again, I would not suggest taking any draconian measures or a revolution in order to achieve this admittedly impossible ideal. IMO, we in Canada and in the US already have one of the best societies in history in terms of equal opportunity. I would simply advocate policies that make gradual improvements.

[Pliny]

GWB enjoyed the same power from 2003-2006. He was a worse f* up by much more than a factor of two. To continue this part of the discussion we would have to debate healthcare - let's save that for another day

Granted Bush was a bad President. Obama is the most dangerously deceitful. Fast and Furious to erode the second amendment...backroom deals and waivers to get Obamacare passed. And the wonder of it all, passing the bill to find out what's in it, is a stain on the whole legislative process for something so fundamental to government's relation to society.

You still don't get what I mean because we seem to be talking past one another. "Equal opportunity" is definitely not about elevating anyone at someone else's expense. Not everyone would go to college, just the those that want it the most and worked for it.

Affirmative action isn't at someone else's expense? Equal opportunity is about equal economic outcome. It is simply an example of how the redistribution of wealth process works. You may look at it as help but it does not make anyone more able in their pursuit of happiness. It makes them dependent on a system propping them up, destroying their self-esteem and self-respect. It fosters the perception that other people are just mean because they don't themselves tie one hand behind their back to provide them equal opportunity and government does this for them.

Again, I agree with your statement but I did not describe what I meant as well as I should. Examples of the obstacles facing children that I was referring to include: hunger and poor nutrition, father in jail and no positive role models... Surely you agree that children facing these obstacles are deserving of our help and that it is good for society to help children that face these obstacles, no?

hmmm... well I suppose that disadvantaged children should receive more resources to make up for all the challenges/obstacles they face. This is what you meant, right?

These are problems in society and are best dealt with by wealth creation. If there is little wealth then there are more of these social problems.

Essentially, what is a society? What is governments role? What is society's role? This seems to be the crux of the matter.

A society is about the interaction of individuals in aiding each other, including the division of labour, in their survival. It is only through voluntary co-operation that a society can prosper. When it prospers, when economic plenty is created it is because people are co-operative and respect themselves and each other and there is a high level of trust that force and violence will not be used against them unless they themselves illegitimately initiate the use force.

Government does not create this society. It is a device that society employs to ensure that the production of wealth can occur. It is not, especially for a national government, its role to redistribute it. Society will do that, and if it doesn't, it is an unhealthy society and not worthy of existing. You are witnessing an unworthy society where government has to use it's force to provide charity and favour and privilege to keep it afloat. Very corrupt.

This idea is disproved by that fact that many Natives contribute a great deal to Canadian society. The Native population and contribution is also growing rapidly.

Not due to any help from government. I see a bit of resentment towards Canadian society and there is a willingness to take as much as possible from it. Quebec is similar. There is no love of Canada per se.

Both Natives and Quebec are creating their own culture. Where does that leave Canada? It is not a voluntary co-operative effort. It is government redistributing wealth. Buying appeasement. It is forcefully taking form some to give to others who of course have their reasons for feeling they deserve it. Transfer payments have nothing to do with voluntary co-operation. Natives, due to the Indian act, have never been included in creating a Canadian society or culture. The French in Quebec are too busy being French to think about being Canadian.

Yes, parents should provide their children a chance to succeed. But when they fail it is the child that suffers - this is not fair. The child did nothing wrong besides be born into the wrong family. When this child grows up without help from society, it is much more likely to fail and this will end up costing society much more money in the long run. (By the way, I am talking about today's real society not some "utopian Libertarian" society that you seem to wish for.)

In conclusion, I agree with many things that you are saying but I am in no way suggesting that society should "do it all for you" or that everyone should be equal. I am surprised that you seem to disagree with me when I say:

No matter where a child is born in Canada he/she should have more or less an equal chance to succeed in life. This persons success should depend on merit not by their luck.

Again, I would not suggest taking any draconian measures or a revolution in order to achieve this admittedly impossible ideal. IMO, we in Canada and in the US already have one of the best societies in history in terms of equal opportunity. I would simply advocate policies that make gradual improvements.

If you wish to see a failing society just take a look around. This is it. You could have looked at the USSR or any other failed society since Rome and seen that as soon as government starts providing bread and circuses for its citizens the society is on its last legs.

We won't need a revolution it will collapse on it's own weight. The test of a good society is how it treats its poor and if they are foisted off on government entitlements then the individuals in that society have washed their hands of responsibility for them.

As for a Libertarian utopia there isn't one. There is only the mutual voluntary co-operation of individuals and whatever that can create out of what exists.

[carepov]

Affirmative action isn't at someone else's expense?

I said nothing of affirmative action – strawman warning.

Equal opportunity is about equal economic outcome.

Strawman alert! I specifically stated that I am not arguing for “equal outcome” and tried to explain the differences.

…

Your post took a wrong turn right at the start and then just kept on going. Some of what you say is true but it is not at all what we were talking about.

Here are some concrete examples of “equal opportunity” policies that I support or would advocate:

-Free pre-natal education for pregnant women and partners with emphasis on nutrition and FAS and include free food stamps and bus tickets if necessary

-Free primary medical care for pregnant women and all children

-Free basic dental care for children

-Hot breakfast and lunch programs for daycares and schools

-More or less equal educational resources, for example schools in poor neighbourhoods should have decent teachers, computers, books, infrastructure, etc…

-Free/subsidized sports and recreation programs for children including teens

I cannot believe that anyone would be against such programs. These types of programs are win-win, they are at no-one’s expense as society as whole will benefit from the investments.

Did you even think that your idealistic thinking is getting in the way of good judgement? That’s what it seems like to me.

[Bonam]

Your post took a wrong turn right at the start and then just kept on going. Some of what you say is true but it is not at all what we were talking about.

Here are some concrete examples of “equal opportunity” policies that I support or would advocate:

-Free pre-natal education for pregnant women and partners with emphasis on nutrition and FAS and include free food stamps and bus tickets if necessary

-Free primary medical care for pregnant women and all children

-Free basic dental care for children

-Hot breakfast and lunch programs for daycares and schools

-More or less equal educational resources, for example schools in poor neighbourhoods should have decent teachers, computers, books, infrastructure, etc…

-Free/subsidized sports and recreation programs for children including teens

I cannot believe that anyone would be against such programs. These types of programs are win-win, they are at no-one’s expense as society as whole will benefit from the investments.

The investments may be worthwhile, but they are not at "no-one's expense". All such programs cost money, and one has to choose wisely where money is spent. A nation cannot afford to fund every single well-intentioned idea someone may come up with. The argument is clear, one can tax people enough to fund all those things, or one can tax people less, and let them pay for the services they want. The amount of money in the system is the same either way. In one case, the government chooses what more of it gets spent on, in the other case, individuals do. Of course, for those that don't have a job, not having "free" programs means they might not be able to afford those things. On the other hand, for those that do have a job, paying more taxes to support these "free" programs means they might not be able to afford other things that they may want. While I can certainly understand the desire to care for the poor, I don't think the case for all those programs is as air-tight as you may believe.

[Pliny]

I said nothing of affirmative action – strawman warning.

Is affirmative action an equal opportunity program?

Strawman alert! I specifically stated that I am not arguing for “equal outcome” and tried to explain the differences.

But it seems the purpose of equal opportunity is equal "economic" outcome.

Your post took a wrong turn right at the start and then just kept on going. Some of what you say is true but it is not at all what we were talking about.

Here are some concrete examples of “equal opportunity” policies that I support or would advocate:

-Free pre-natal education for pregnant women and partners with emphasis on nutrition and FAS and include free food stamps and bus tickets if necessary

Well, let me take each point - Nothing is free someone is paying for prenatal education, etc., so eliminate the word free in all of your references. Second, is this really the responsibility of a national government? I understand it better as maybe a provincial or municipal or community responsibility or maybe even a societal responsibility - but not on a national scale.

Economically speaking, it certainly may appear that nationally we can pool more resources and thus it is less costly per capita to run these types of programs. The problem with this centralized approach is that it is inefficient and a national law granting privilege becomes ensconced in cement, very conservative, meaning beyond change. On a national level, benefits and entitlements once granted, are met with a public outcry against any change that does not involve increased funding. Essentially, they are almost impossible to improve upon or if entirely unable to accomplish their objective impossible to eliminate. As long as a few benefit they will hold the rest of the country hostage against any move to reduce or perhaps if totally redundant, eliminate a program.

-Free primary medical care for pregnant women and all children

Not free, someone must cover the cost, unless you expect Doctors and nurses to work for free plus pay the costs of delivering the service.

A national government that is doing its job will allow the economy to grow and prosper enough so these costs can be covered by the individuals themselves or on a community or provincial level.

-Free basic dental care for children.

Never free. Once again, there has to be enough wealth creation to provide for this. Governments must leave the private sector alone to create the wealth necessary for this type of service. On a national level it is should not be their responsibility. It should not be a part of their mandate. It is inefficient and if the national government is not concentrating on fostering a safe environment for economic growth it is hampering, through excessive taxation and regulation what prosperity could provide this service.

-Hot breakfast and lunch programs for daycares and schools

Free ones, no doubt. Whatever happened to parental responsibility? Parents became too stupid to provide these things,I guess!

-More or less equal educational resources, for example schools in poor neighbourhoods should have decent teachers, computers, books, infrastructure, etc…

What are equal educational resources? It is not true that the best funded region has the highest SAT scores or the highest graduation percentage.

-Free/subsidized sports and recreation programs for children including teens

Definitely not a national mandate and, once again, is never free.

I cannot believe that anyone would be against such programs. These types of programs are win-win, they are at no-one’s expense as society as whole will benefit from the investments.

On a national level I am against them. The closer these programs are to the community the better they might be. The national governments responsibility in this is to foster economic growth so the programs can be funded locally.

Did you even think that your idealistic thinking is getting in the way of good judgement? That’s what it seems like to me.

I don't have any idealistic thinking to get in the way of good judgement. Whatever works best. Unfortunately, having a federal or national government engineer the whole of society has not proven to be workable or even remotely successful.

Libertarianism is scary to most folk as it evokes a vision of anarchy. That is not true. Rules must exist and criminality must be defined but the importance of freedom and liberty must always be a concern over security.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Pliny

[carepov]

Is affirmative action an equal opportunity program?

Yes good point. I would rather not discuss affirmative action at this time.

But it seems the purpose of equal opportunity is equal "economic" outcome.

In one word “no”.

IMO, increasing equal opportunity means moving more towards a meritocracy where individual success is based primarily on how hard one works and less on how lucky you are to be born into the right family.

I do not favour equal economic outcome. However grossly unequal outcomes are a sign of unequal opportunities.

Well, let me take each point - Nothing is free someone is paying for prenatal education, etc., so eliminate the word free in all of your references.

Yes, the programs I advocate would be free to the users and funded by government revenues. Government spending on health and education of would be a wise investment – “an ounce of prevention…”

Second, is this really the responsibility of a national government? I understand it better as maybe a provincial or municipal or community responsibility or maybe even a societal responsibility - but not on a national scale.

I don’t care much which government funds or administers the programs – whichever is most efficient, in Canada typically provincial or municipal for the examples I gave. Federal for native reserves I guess.

[re: hot breakfast/lunch] Free ones, no doubt. Whatever happened to parental responsibility? Parents became too stupid to provide these things,I guess!

Who cares what happened to parental responsibility or who’s to blame! We can all agree that:

1. It is not an 8-year old child’s fault that they are hungry and do not have proper nutrition
   
2. Hunger and poor nutrition are huge barriers to learning and development
   
3. It’s not that expensive, and certainly cheaper than dealing with problems 10-20-50 years later.
   

Let’s just do it!

On a national level I am against them. The closer these programs are to the community the better they might be. The national governments responsibility in this is to foster economic growth so the programs can be funded locally.

I don't have any idealistic thinking to get in the way of good judgement. Whatever works best. Unfortunately, having a federal or national government engineer the whole of society has not proven to be workable or even remotely successful.

Well, if I understand you correctly you are in favour of providing these types of services for children at no cost to them or their parents. (I know nothing is free). I am pleasantly surprised that we are not that far apart on the issue of “equal opportunity” for children. I think that most of our disagreements were misunderstandings:

1. I am not taking about “equal economic outcomes”
   
2. I am not advocating national programs
   

Like you I say” whatever works best”. With hungry kids not getting a proper education – something is not working at its best. Again I don’t care who is to blame, as a community/municipal/provincial/federal government let’s invest in their well-being and I am sure that our society will be better off.

[Pliny]

Yes good point. I would rather not discuss affirmative action at this time.

If you are going to discuss equal opportunity it seems natural to look at what the government is doing to achieve that.

In one word “no”.

IMO, increasing equal opportunity means moving more towards a meritocracy where individual success is based primarily on how hard one works and less on how lucky you are to be born into the right family.

Success is what is ultimately important. We all strive to succeed in our endeavours and objectives. The proudest and notable individuals are those who overcome the greatest obstacles. This is what fills biographical history books. And that is meritocracy.

Government programs when it comes to leveling the playing field or creating equal opportunity can accomplish that by only two means, taking away obstacles and inserting obstacles. It can try and boost those with less opportunity by removing obstacles. But first, there must be a perception of less opportunity, and second, a determination of what obstacles are to be removed.

What arises out of government equal opportunity programs is things like a person in a wheel chair, unable to focus attention for more than a few seconds, still wearing diapers and sitting in a grade six classroom. This occurs. This opportunity will probably not improve the chances of this person having a successful independent life. He is probably more bored with sitting there than his classmates.

This is a very expensive "opportunity". Not only is it not an opportunity but other people in the class now have a distraction from their education the teacher has to spend extra time with this student and there is a teacher's aide or special aide that must sit in.

Government has no resources of its own so it must tax to fund these types of equal opportunity programs, that's money out of the economy and there is no gain in society with this type of expenditure.

If the government is going to give opportunity to one it seems only fair that it must give the same opportunity to all - so nuttiness creeps in and costs rise. And as costs rise the taxpayer gets more and more disgruntled.

Yes, the programs I advocate would be free to the users and funded by government revenues. Government spending on health and education of would be a wise investment – “an ounce of prevention…”

Here is our fundamental disagreement. I believe the higher the level of government the more narrow it's mandate should be because. In order for a national government to be fair, it's laws must apply to the general public and not just to a few people or special interests. If it creates an opportunity for one it should be an opportunity available for all.

On a Provincial or State level, Government is closer to the actual needs of its citizens and I think it can have a wider mandate but once again its laws must be applied equally to all.

On a community or municipal level government the people should have free reign to decide what the mandate should be and it probably will be discriminatory on an economic basis and socialistic in nature.

The higher the level of government the less flexible it is in being able to change laws that have passed especially if they have granted an entitlement or privilege to a special interest.

Who cares what happened to parental responsibility or who’s to blame! We can all agree that:

1. It is not an 8-year old child’s fault that they are hungry and do not have proper nutrition
   
2. Hunger and poor nutrition are huge barriers to learning and development
   
3. It’s not that expensive, and certainly cheaper than dealing with problems 10-20-50 years later.
   

Let’s just do it!

Let's just be a responsible society. But it is easy to say, "let's just do it" in a prosperous economy. It isn't so easy in a poor economy. The economy must produce in excess to be able to provide such entitlements. It seems Government's have faith that the economy will always be strong enough to support its expenditures and it can borrow to keep them going in a rough economy.

Well, if I understand you correctly you are in favour of providing these types of services for children at no cost to them or their parents. (I know nothing is free). I am pleasantly surprised that we are not that far apart on the issue of “equal opportunity” for children. I think that most of our disagreements were misunderstandings:

1. I am not taking about “equal economic outcomes”
   
2. I am not advocating national programs
   

Like you I say” whatever works best”. With hungry kids not getting a proper education – something is not working at its best. Again I don’t care who is to blame, as a community/municipal/provincial/federal government let’s invest in their well-being and I am sure that our society will be better off.

We agree that basically we must look after each other the best we can. There is no other reason for existence.

If you have ever tried to help someone you will find it is a very difficult thing, especially if you haven't been asked. The panhandler on the street doesn't want advice he wants your money. The drug addict doesn't want advice he wants another fix. You can give them all the opportunity you want but until they are willing to take some responsibility for their own future you might as well just bang your head on the wall.

If you give someone an opportunity today they may be suspicious of why or ask what's the catch. They know nothing is free unless you take it and don't tell anyone.

There is also a danger in giving someone an opportunity they feel they don't deserve. It's a price of self-respect and self-esteem. They will always feel out of place, like they don't belong.

Government programs aren't what works best.

Hungry kids is a problem. It seems obesity is too but we can't take a pound of flesh from one and give it to the other. We shouldn't have hungry kids in Canada. But we do and we have countless government programs that must be funded to keep them going - not that the service is that great because the programs never get rid of the problem. Maybe those programs are part of the problem as it seems to get worse.

It seems all societies will have a small percentage of those who will not or cannot participate in the creation of a society. Government in saying they will eliminate a problem cannot possibly do it. Once the bureaucracy is established to do so it ensures itself its own future by creating the problem. It is not human nature to do otherwise than attempt to sustain one's self.

[carepov]

Success is what is ultimately important. We all strive to succeed in our endeavours and objectives. The proudest and notable individuals are those who overcome the greatest obstacles. This is what fills biographical history books. And that is meritocracy.

We’re on the same page – we want success and we believe in meritocracy. I am also against the idea of giving people a free ride – yes, people need to overcome obstacles to succeed.

The devil is in the details – would the great individuals have succeeded without overcoming some obstacles in their childhood? Probably not, we would both agree. BUT, would these individuals have succeeded if they were born with FAS? If they were malnourished? If they were abused or neglected? If they were surrounded by other similar obstacles as children?

Government programs when it comes to leveling the playing field or creating equal opportunity can accomplish that by only two means, taking away obstacles and inserting obstacles. It can try and boost those with less opportunity by removing obstacles. But first, there must be a perception of less opportunity, and second, a determination of what obstacles are to be removed.

Yes, again surely we agree that governments should not be inserting obstacles to level the playing field. Again the devil is in the details – this time we need to ask: what obstacles should be taken away?

Government has no resources of its own so it must tax to fund these types of equal opportunity programs, that's money out of the economy and there is no gain in society with this type of expenditure.

If the government is going to give opportunity to one it seems only fair that it must give the same opportunity to all - so nuttiness creeps in and costs rise. And as costs rise the taxpayer gets more and more disgruntled.

…

But it is easy to say, "let's just do it" in a prosperous economy. It isn't so easy in a poor economy. The economy must produce in excess to be able to provide such entitlements. It seems Government's have faith that the economy will always be strong enough to support its expenditures and it can borrow to keep them going in a rough economy.

First of all, government/community programs are not an all or nothing proposition. Just because we decide to help children in one neighbourhood overcome the obstacles of gangs or hunger, does not mean we need to hire one TA for every retarded kid a wheelchair. Nuttiness and ballooning costs are not inevitable – I do however agree that often common sense is sometimes lacking in government.

Second of all it is nutty not to prevent future problems when the costs of prevention are a small fraction of the costs of the future problems! Ensuring that kids are healthy and educated is the best example. Here are two more examples of this principle of pay now and save later or win-win government programs:

1. Some cities (Portland, Oregon, I think, Winnipeg, too) have asked – what would be a more effective method of managing our problem of homelessness – the status quo or a new “housing first” program that gives people a place to live, more or less unconditionally. The studies are conclusive, when done right, the “housing first” program is CHEAPER because it saves ambulance and police and other resources.

2. Ontario asked should we pay for a limited number of fertility treatments for couples? My first reaction was “no way this is elective medicine!” BUT it turns out that when couples receive “free” fertility treatments they tend to be less aggressive (fewer eggs inserted, I think) and therefore there is a huge decrease in multiple births. Therefore it is actually CHEAPER to pay for fertility treatments up front and save later on neo-natal care.

When looking at a win-win program, it makes no difference if we are in a prosperous or poor economy as it is a good investment for the economy.

Here is our fundamental disagreement. I believe the higher the level of government the more narrow it's mandate should be because. In order for a national government to be fair, it's laws must apply to the general public and not just to a few people or special interests. If it creates an opportunity for one it should be an opportunity available for all.

On a Provincial or State level, Government is closer to the actual needs of its citizens and I think it can have a wider mandate but once again its laws must be applied equally to all.

On a community or municipal level government the people should have free reign to decide what the mandate should be and it probably will be discriminatory on an economic basis and socialistic in nature.

The higher the level of government the less flexible it is in being able to change laws that have passed especially if they have granted an entitlement or privilege to a special interest.

My only fundamental disagreement here is with your claim that this is a fundamental disagreement. Again, I am not advocating national programs.

Let's just be a responsible society.

We agree that basically we must look after each other the best we can. There is no other reason for existence.

Hungry kids is a problem… We shouldn't have hungry kids in Canada.

Yes. What changes would you make today to address these issues/goals that we agree on?

If you have ever tried to help someone you will find it is a very difficult thing, especially if you haven't been asked. The panhandler on the street doesn't want advice he wants your money. The drug addict doesn't want advice he wants another fix. You can give them all the opportunity you want but until they are willing to take some responsibility for their own future you might as well just bang your head on the wall.

If you give someone an opportunity today they may be suspicious of why or ask what's the catch. They know nothing is free unless you take it and don't tell anyone.

There is also a danger in giving someone an opportunity they feel they don't deserve. It's a price of self-respect and self-esteem. They will always feel out of place, like they don't belong.

Yes it is tricky and you are right, sometimes, despite our best intentions, our “help” can backfire. That is why we should focus on the “no-brainers” first, for example – programs to eliminate FAS and others that help children, and even these should be studied carefully to ensure maximum efficiency.

Government programs aren't what works best.

It depends, sometimes government programs are the only thing that works.

But we do and we have countless government programs that must be funded to keep them going - not that the service is that great because the programs never get rid of the problem. Maybe those programs are part of the problem as it seems to get worse.

Again it depends, often “it seems” like problems are getting worse, but we often do not realize how much things are improving.

It seems all societies will have a small percentage of those who will not or cannot participate in the creation of a society. Government in saying they will eliminate a problem cannot possibly do it. Once the bureaucracy is established to do so it ensures itself its own future by creating the problem. It is not human nature to do otherwise than attempt to sustain one's self.

Again, it depends, however I am quite sure that hospitals are not intentionally causing accidents and illness in order to create more demand on hospitals. I am sure that Child and Family Services are not trying to ruin kids’ lives to justify and expand their work. I am confident that Corrections Canada is not intentionally making people more likely to commit crimes so that we can expand prisons. I do however have some doubts about privately-run US prisons…

[Pliny]

We’re on the same page – we want success and we believe in meritocracy. I am also against the idea of giving people a free ride – yes, people need to overcome obstacles to succeed.

The devil is in the details – would the great individuals have succeeded without overcoming some obstacles in their childhood? Probably not, we would both agree. BUT, would these individuals have succeeded if they were born with FAS? If they were malnourished? If they were abused or neglected? If they were surrounded by other similar obstacles as children?

It sounds like FAS, malnourishment, abuse and neglect are the problems. I'm all for removing those obstacles. Only they can do it. If you try and help them what are you going to do? Give them food, clothing and shelter. First, you have to get them to realize they have a problem. You are on the outside looking in and you see a problem. They don't. To them it's what life is. You aren't doing anything less than the Catholic Residential schools telling them how to live, what their education should consist of and that they should behave themselves.

You cannot go to a foreign land and start telling them how good things are where you're from and they need to shape up and you're there to help them get the ball rolling.

Yes, again surely we agree that governments should not be inserting obstacles to level the playing field. Again the devil is in the details – this time we need to ask: what obstacles should be taken away?

First of all, government/community programs are not an all or nothing proposition. Just because we decide to help children in one neighbourhood overcome the obstacles of gangs or hunger, does not mean we need to hire one TA for every retarded kid a wheelchair. Nuttiness and ballooning costs are not inevitable – I do however agree that often common sense is sometimes lacking in government.

Government never is about common sense. It is about force.

Why do you think gangs are a problem? Gangs don't think they are a problem. They think they are dangerous. Once again you are looking in from the outside and wanting to impose your world on them. While it might seem like the right thing to do it doesn't accomplish anything. They don't particularly want to live your life but you want them to have that opportunity.

The war on poverty started in 1965 with Lyndon B. Johnson the poverty rate was about 14%. After spending about 2 trillion dollars from then til now the poverty rate is still about 14%. Nothing has been gained.

There is a UN program called Education for All and it operates mostly in third world countries. It tries to get young people to attend school but they often have to bribe the students or the parents to get them to go. They don't see a need for "school". It is "school" and not an education. We in the west confuse school with education. An education is what occurs when someone learns something that helps him be more able to sustain himself in his life. In the west we prize the diploma it helps us live a better life. It isn't worth a dungpile in some third world villages.

The UN wants happy people to support the UN and its programs. It isn't too concerned with education.

Things have to evolve. But if there is one thing that is easy to understand it is respect for the sanctity of life. If you can get across to someone that the security of person and property is a right then you will have made some progress. That is a wide sweeping concept and many qualifiers will be attached to it which must be removed before it is understood for its simplicity. It means that no dictator has more rights than anyone else and your station in life is no guarantee of privilege or immunity from not respecting that right for everyone.

Second of all it is nutty not to prevent future problems when the costs of prevention are a small fraction of the costs of the future problems! Ensuring that kids are healthy and educated is the best example. Here are two more examples of this principle of pay now and save later or win-win government programs:

1. Some cities (Portland, Oregon, I think, Winnipeg, too) have asked – what would be a more effective method of managing our problem of homelessness – the status quo or a new “housing first” program that gives people a place to live, more or less unconditionally. The studies are conclusive, when done right, the “housing first” program is CHEAPER because it saves ambulance and police and other resources.

I don't think the studies are conclusive. How does it save ambulance and police and other resources? By having the problems centralized? Have you seen what happens to housing on reserves? It gets pretty expensive.

These people have no friends and if they have any family they have been abandoned by them.

2. Ontario asked should we pay for a limited number of fertility treatments for couples? My first reaction was “no way this is elective medicine!” BUT it turns out that when couples receive “free” fertility treatments they tend to be less aggressive (fewer eggs inserted, I think) and therefore there is a huge decrease in multiple births. Therefore it is actually CHEAPER to pay for fertility treatments up front and save later on neo-natal care.

I don't think either of these things are great ideas.

Yes it is tricky and you are right, sometimes, despite our best intentions, our “help” can backfire. That is why we should focus on the “no-brainers” first, for example – programs to eliminate FAS and others that help children, and even these should be studied carefully to ensure maximum efficiency.

It depends, sometimes government programs are the only thing that works.

They relieve society of the responsibility and we citizens can feel good about it.

Again, it depends, however I am quite sure that hospitals are not intentionally causing accidents and illness in order to create more demand on hospitals.

No need for that. They don't want more customers just more pay.

I am sure that Child and Family Services are not trying to ruin kids’ lives to justify and expand their work.

They don't try but they still do ruin kids'lives. Today they have the added tool of pharmaceuticals that the kids will be on the rest of their short lives.

I am confident that Corrections Canada is not intentionally making people more likely to commit crimes so that we can expand prisons.

We just need to make more laws and regulations so that when convenient we can.

I do however have some doubts about privately-run US prisons…

They indeed offer a different set of problems. But the taxpayer still funds them.

Is having government decide what opportunity should be available to who, what you are advocating? I mean deciding what's best for everyone, society and the nation?

It seems to me that you like our society and it should be a certain way. We have a few social problems that are simply a lack of opportunity for some of our citizens and that needs to be corrected.

Thinking that correcting them by throwing money at them and trying to get people to live the same life as everyone else is not the solution.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Pliny