Taxes

[Riverwind]

Performance reviews done by who? Another government beurocrat I suppose.

By voters at election time. If the bureaucrats are not doing their job right we have the power to fire their ultimate bosses.

[BHS]

Water and sewage could be too, except the city actually does a pretty good job of providing those services. I'm not complaining.

A for profit company has no incentive to reduce consumption because more consumption means more 'sales'. Fresh water will be a incredibly valuable resource in the future which, unlike oil, cannot be replaced by alternate sources so it makes sense to have it managed by a non-profit organization which can make decisions based on what is good for society as a whole instead of what is good for stock holders

This is one of the most shockingly ignorant things I've ever read on this forum. Water is them most easily renewable resource on Earth. Fresh water literally falls from the skies. The amount of water on Earth stays relatively constant over time. It isn't destroyed by it's consumption, but merely recycles back into it's own self sustaining system. In Canada we make use of a fraction of one percent of the amount of fresh water that is available to us. The only thing that adds value to it at all is the treatment required for safe consumption of water that contains natural and man-made pollution. People who live on untreated well water get it for free. It would be a million times more difficult to replace oil as an energy source than it would be to replace the Great Lakes as a source of fresh water for Southern Ontario where the bulk of the population currently gets it's water from the Lakes exclusively.

[BHS]

Performance reviews done by who? Another government beurocrat I suppose.

By voters at election time. If the bureaucrats are not doing their job right we have the power to fire their ultimate bosses.

Two words: Stan Koebel. Good luck with that.

[Riverwind]

This is one of the most shockingly ignorant things I've ever read on this forum.

No. I think your response qualifies for that honour. Supplies of fresh water suitable for drinking are declining. Vancouver on the 'wet coast' has water shortages some years and the planners expect it to get worse. Some communities in the US are at risk of becoming ghost towns because their underground supplies of water have been polluted by argricultural run off. The great lakes represent 'fossilized' water much like oil and they cannot replaced if used up. Fortunately, the states and provinces surrounding the great lakes know this and have been co-operating to ensure the resource will last into the future. This kind of co-operation would have never happened if private for profit companies were involved.

[ClearWest]

Performance reviews done by who? Another government beurocrat I suppose.

By voters at election time. If the bureaucrats are not doing their job right we have the power to fire their ultimate bosses.

On one hand you're saying that you don't have time to "micromanage them [specialists] and second guess everything they do." And on the other hand you're saying that people at voting time will know how to rate the beurocrats and know when to vote them out if they aren't doing a good job. I think I'm getting a mixed signal here.

Here's my philosophy on the issue. Individuals aren't stupid. They generally know what's best for themselves and for their families. But groups of people can be ridiculously stupid, and a lot of people find themselves supporting a decision because they're just going along with the crowd. It's like mob psychology. Look at any campaign or party convention; full of hype and group enthusiasm for whatever the leader feeds them. Under the right circumstances, a group will vote whatever way a person wants them to vote--and voila, democracy has produced an example of tyranny. Majority rules afterall...

What I'm trying to get at is this: No, I don't think it's fair to get a beurocrat (selected by a majority, not necessarily you) to run your life. We only have the 'power to fire' when the power is actually given back to the individual--The freedom to decide where his/her money goes. The freedom to decide which services to receive, and which products to buy.

I propose that we should not collectively give power to any person or group to make decisions that affect our lives. This should be an individual decision, so that if you're not happy with a service someone is giving, you can choose to withdraw your support for them--rather than relying on the democratic process which takes a majority to decide whether or not you have to support something that you may or may not like.

[ClearWest]

A for profit company has no incentive to reduce consumption because more consumption means more 'sales'.

Okay, now reverse that. Will a consumer be more likely to be wasteful if he has to pay for the water per litre? Or will he be more likely to be wasteful if it is provided "free" by the government?

It seems to me that the socialist system proves to be more wasteful in reference to things like water consumption.

[Riverwind]

Okay, now reverse that. Will a consumer be more likely to be wasteful if he has to pay for the water per litre? Or will he be more likely to be wasteful if it is provided "free" by the government?

I did not say that gov't should provide water for 'free'. Charging for water is one tool that the govt can use to encourage conservation. However, a private company wants to maximize profits which means encouraging conservation would reduce profits.

[Renegade]

Okay, now reverse that. Will a consumer be more likely to be wasteful if he has to pay for the water per litre? Or will he be more likely to be wasteful if it is provided "free" by the government?

I did not say that gov't should provide water for 'free'. Charging for water is one tool that the govt can use to encourage conservation. However, a private company wants to maximize profits which means encouraging conservation would reduce profits.

The government is not involved in the sales or distribution of many non-renewable resources. Oil, natural gas, are but some examples. It has many levers to control consumption including taxes (as it does with oil) and regulation.

If government thought water consumption was an issue, it certainly is not reflected in the price of water today. I'm failing to see that it is necessary for the government to own and be sole supplier in order to encourage (or mandate) conservation.

[Hicksey]

HRDC, at least a billion. Gun registry, over a billion and growing daily. Aboriginal Affairs, 7 billion. Yup, but a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money as the man said.

$7 billion/$300 billion = 2.3% = chickenfeed.

You are exagerrating the significance of wasteful spending. BTW - I agree with you that all of those programs are a waste and should never have happened. I just try to put things in their proper perspective.

First, it was actaully 9.3 billion, not 7 if you do the math.

$9.3 Billion / $33 million people = $281.82/person

If there's four people in your household that is equivalent to the government just taking $1200 out of your bank account to waste for no reason. I'm sure you would notice $1200 missing from your chequing account. I don't think you would call that "chickenfeed."

If that's what they're going to so with it they should just send us each a cheque for it back and offer their resignation.

If you investment councillor wasted that much of your retirement savings would you be so flippant? The government is really nothing more than an investment councillor we trust to invest our monies in ways that benefit us.