Posts
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Raw milk champion faces legal set back
Michael Schmidt is a diary farmer who established a business that allowed patrons to partially own a cow so that they could have a source of raw milk. The distribution of raw milk is illegal in Ontario and so Mr. Schmidt was arrested and charged. At first he defended himself in court but his case was later taken up by the Canadian Constitution Federation, the same organization that helped Peter Jaworski and his family.
Yesterday Mr. Schmidt’s case suffered a set back:
At this year’s Liberty Summer Seminar I had the opportunity to converse with Mr. Schmidt. He is an interesting and intelligent man to put it mildly and certainly the type who is willing to stand on principle. I have to say that I liked him.
But even if I didn’t like him, why the fuck can’t I buy raw milk if I wanted to?
Yesterday Mr. Schmidt’s case suffered a set back:
Newmarket, ON: Dairy farmer Michael Schmidt suffered a setback in his campaign to legalize raw milk today when the decision of Justice Peter Tetley of the Ontario Court of Justice reversed a lower court decision and found Schmidt guilty on 15 of the 19 charges.
Schmidt had been acquitted of all charges by Justice of the Peace Paul Kowarsky in January, 2010. The Ontario government and the Grey Bruce Health Unit appealed that decision. Justice Tetley allowed their appeal on some, but not all charges.
All claims that the legislation violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were dismissed.
The text of the decision has been posted on the website of the Canadian Constitution Foundation here.
Schmidt said: “This is just a temporary setback. We will continue to fight, both through the courts and through the legislature, for the rights of individuals to decide what they put into their bodies. The public supports us on this issue.
At this year’s Liberty Summer Seminar I had the opportunity to converse with Mr. Schmidt. He is an interesting and intelligent man to put it mildly and certainly the type who is willing to stand on principle. I have to say that I liked him.
But even if I didn’t like him, why the fuck can’t I buy raw milk if I wanted to?
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Ontario Leaders Debate 2011: fiddling while Ontario burns
To the credit of the three leaders of Ontario’s largest political parties, there was a great deal of talk about policy in last night’s leaders debate. That is always nice to see both from the perspective of a policy wonk and a voter. I found, however, that most of the policies that were being hotly debated were pretty irrelevant.
Ontario is in economic and financial trouble. This is the issue that should be dominating the election but by tacit agreement none of the major parties are really talking about it. There are two questions that were asked that should have brought this issue to the forefront but all three leaders allowed each other off the hook and gave incredibly weak answers.
The first question was how the budget is going to be balanced.
Dalton McGuinty responded by talking about how much spending he introduced and plans to introduce.
Tim Hudak responded by talking about how he will make sure that ¾ of the budget is defended from cuts (health and education).
Andrea Horwath responded by saying something about blank cheques to corporations which I think was referring to corporate tax cuts, but that doesn’t make any sense on a couple of levels.
The second question is closely related to the first question, although perhaps not many people realize it. The last question of the night asked if the party leaders would be open to more private participation in the health care system. With health care spending growing faster than government revenue and taking up about half of the budget this is an important question for deciding how to get Ontario out of deficits.
Dalton McGuinty responded by saying he will beg for more money from the federal government (forgetting it seams that there is only one taxpayer).
Tim Hudak responded with an anecdote about how it sucks to have a child that is sick (I have absolutely no doubt that it sucks a lot).
Andrea Horwath responded with a rant against the capitalist system (which to be fair is at least on message).
There was another question that asked why politicians aren’t bolder. Each tried to respond by saying that they are bold, but the answers described above makes a lie of these claims. Yet the solutions to Ontario’s problems will require boldness and none of the leaders last night showed that they have an ounce of it.
Ontario is in economic and financial trouble. This is the issue that should be dominating the election but by tacit agreement none of the major parties are really talking about it. There are two questions that were asked that should have brought this issue to the forefront but all three leaders allowed each other off the hook and gave incredibly weak answers.
The first question was how the budget is going to be balanced.
Dalton McGuinty responded by talking about how much spending he introduced and plans to introduce.
Tim Hudak responded by talking about how he will make sure that ¾ of the budget is defended from cuts (health and education).
Andrea Horwath responded by saying something about blank cheques to corporations which I think was referring to corporate tax cuts, but that doesn’t make any sense on a couple of levels.
The second question is closely related to the first question, although perhaps not many people realize it. The last question of the night asked if the party leaders would be open to more private participation in the health care system. With health care spending growing faster than government revenue and taking up about half of the budget this is an important question for deciding how to get Ontario out of deficits.
Dalton McGuinty responded by saying he will beg for more money from the federal government (forgetting it seams that there is only one taxpayer).
Tim Hudak responded with an anecdote about how it sucks to have a child that is sick (I have absolutely no doubt that it sucks a lot).
Andrea Horwath responded with a rant against the capitalist system (which to be fair is at least on message).
There was another question that asked why politicians aren’t bolder. Each tried to respond by saying that they are bold, but the answers described above makes a lie of these claims. Yet the solutions to Ontario’s problems will require boldness and none of the leaders last night showed that they have an ounce of it.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Freedom Party on speed limits
raising the speed limit to 120km/h is a good start but a better policy would be no speed limits at all.
Mandatory minimums and plea bargains
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the Conservative's crime bill is the unwillingness to learn from what has happened in the United States. Plenty of evidence regarding the negative consequence of mandatory minimums. Just two days ago the New York Times took a look at how mandatory minimums have influenced plea bargain negotiations.
The justice system should not be set up in a way that discourages people from trying to prove their innocence. It should be about finding the truth not locking up as many people for as long as possible.
Some experts say the process has become coercive in many state and federal jurisdictions, forcing defendants to weigh their options based on the relative risks of facing a judge and jury rather than simple matters of guilt or innocence. In effect, prosecutors are giving defendants more reasons to avoid having their day in court.
“We now have an incredible concentration of power in the hands of prosecutors,” said Richard E. Myers II, a former assistant United States attorney who is now an associate professor of law at the University of North Carolina. He said that so much influence now resides with prosecutors that “in the wrong hands, the criminal justice system can be held hostage.”
The justice system should not be set up in a way that discourages people from trying to prove their innocence. It should be about finding the truth not locking up as many people for as long as possible.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Niall Ferguson: 6 killer apps for prosperity
Niall Ferguson lectures on the importance of certain ideas and institutions for prosperity.
I don't share Mr. Ferguson's optimism regarding the progress of some of the emerging countries in Asia. I get the impression that they are trying to download half the app and it won't work like that.
I don't share Mr. Ferguson's optimism regarding the progress of some of the emerging countries in Asia. I get the impression that they are trying to download half the app and it won't work like that.
The Conservatives thinks that growing pot is worst than raping a child
Of course my title isn’t true. I am willing to bet that 99.9% of all Conservatives, much like 99.9% of all sane decent human beings, would agree that raping a child is worst than growing pot. So it is incredibly puzzling to me why the Conservative government would want to create a justice system that views pot growers as being worst than child rapists. As Ethan Baron of the Province points out, the proposed sentencing guidelines for pot growers is harsher than for a pedophile:
As I suggested above, I don’t think that Conservatives take rape, especially pedophilia, lightly. But you do have to question why pot growers should be viewed even more harshly. Unlike a pedophile a drug dealer is not performing an act of aggression; a drug dealer does no violate the harm principle.
We can debate if not violating the harm principle is enough to say something should be legal, but surely we can agree that crimes that actively hurt people should be viewed as worst under the law?
Producing six to 200 pot plants nets an automatic six-month sentence, with an extra three months if it's done in a rental or is deemed a public-safety hazard. Growing 201 to 500 plants brings a one-year sentence, or 1½ years if it's in a rental or poses a safety risk.
The omnibus legislation imposes one-year mandatory minimums for sexually assaulting a child, luring a child via the Internet or involving a child in bestiality. All three of these offences carry lighter automatic sentences than those for people running medium-sized grow-ops in rental property or on someone else's land.
A pedophile who gets a child to watch pornography with him, or a pervert exposing himself to kids at a playground, would receive a minimum 90-day sentence, half the term of a man convicted of growing six pot plants in his own home.
The maximum sentence for growing marijuana would double from seven to 14 years, the same maximum applied to someone using a weapon during a child rape, and four years more than for someone sexually assaulting a kid without using a weapon.
As I suggested above, I don’t think that Conservatives take rape, especially pedophilia, lightly. But you do have to question why pot growers should be viewed even more harshly. Unlike a pedophile a drug dealer is not performing an act of aggression; a drug dealer does no violate the harm principle.
We can debate if not violating the harm principle is enough to say something should be legal, but surely we can agree that crimes that actively hurt people should be viewed as worst under the law?
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Gary Johnson to be included in GOP debate
This is fantastic news. All things considered Gary Johnson would likely be my pick for president. I am ecstatic that he is finally being included in the debate. He is a voice that needs to heard.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Government Spending Doesn't Create Jobs
Well it does create jobs, but it doesn't create wealth. And as the video points out wealth is what needs to be created for a more prosperous society.
Economic Freedom of the World Index shows decline in Canada
The Fraser Institute has released its new Economic Freedom of the World Index, and for the first time the United States ranks below Canada in terms of economic freedom. Not just below but significantly below. The United States ranks tenth in the world and Canada ranks a comfortable 6th. But before you get too smug you should take a moment to compare the scores of Canada this year to last year.
In the 2010 EFW Index (which is based on 2008 data) Canada scored 7.95 and came in 7th place. In the 2011 EFW Index (based on 2009 data) Canada scored 7.81 and came in 6th place. So we improved relative to the rest of the world but we declined relative to our past results. In fact all this really shows is that economic freedom is declining in Canada at a slightly slower rate.
Canada can’t even claim the prize for being the slowest to decline in the top ten. That prize goes to Singapore, which declined by only .02 points.
Australia deserves special mention as the only country to gain any points in economic freedom. They went from 7.90 to 7.98. The bulk of that gain came from increases in sound money and the freedom to trade internationally.
The bottom line is that when you look at Canada in isolation we are declining and when you compare Canada to our cadre of top economically free countries we aren’t doing that well either.
In the 2010 EFW Index (which is based on 2008 data) Canada scored 7.95 and came in 7th place. In the 2011 EFW Index (based on 2009 data) Canada scored 7.81 and came in 6th place. So we improved relative to the rest of the world but we declined relative to our past results. In fact all this really shows is that economic freedom is declining in Canada at a slightly slower rate.
Canada can’t even claim the prize for being the slowest to decline in the top ten. That prize goes to Singapore, which declined by only .02 points.
Australia deserves special mention as the only country to gain any points in economic freedom. They went from 7.90 to 7.98. The bulk of that gain came from increases in sound money and the freedom to trade internationally.
The bottom line is that when you look at Canada in isolation we are declining and when you compare Canada to our cadre of top economically free countries we aren’t doing that well either.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Reason TV: The CA Marijuana Movement after Prop 19
Prop 19 was a fascinating and very plausable attempt to end maurijuana prohibition. Why did it fail? What about 2012?
Friday, September 16, 2011
Rob Ford's move not to bid for Olympic Games was right
The best concrete thing that Rob Ford has done so far is to nix Toronto's bid for the Olympics. In most cases hosting the Olympics is ran on a huge lost and even the more successful model of private funding may be impossible with modern security concerns.
Steve Lafleur explains in this Huffington Post article:
Steve Lafleur explains in this Huffington Post article:
To determine the conditions under which a city can run a successful Olympics, Torontonians should look to the two large North American cities that have recently run Olympic Games and did not lose money: Los Angeles and Atlanta. Vancouver can hardly be considered a success. The Olympics cost the province $925 million, and the city is on the hook for $700 million from the Olympic Village debacle. This does not include roughly $3.5 billion in infrastructure spending, and $1 billion dollars in security costs. Hopefully repaying those debts will take less than the 30 years it took Montreal to retire its Olympic debt.
Los Angeles succeeded because the games were privately funded (including venue construction), and the city shielded itself from financial liability. Atlanta followed a similar model, but was later criticized for over-commercializing the games. Given post-9/11 security concerns, it is questionable whether that model would even be viable. After all, $1 billion is a lot of advertising.
Clint Eastwood on gay marriage
No one has ever articulated my own position on gay marriage as well as Clint Eastwood has:
Also, I hope that the Ron Paul campaign team is in touch with Mr. Eastwood for a possible Paul/Eastwood ticket:
"These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage?" Eastwood opined. "I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of."
"They go on and on with all this bullshit about 'sanctity' -- don't give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."
Also, I hope that the Ron Paul campaign team is in touch with Mr. Eastwood for a possible Paul/Eastwood ticket:
"I was an Eisenhower Republican when I started out at 21, because he promised to get us out of the Korean War," he told GQ. "And over the years, I realized there was a Republican philosophy that I liked. And then they lost it. And libertarians had more of it. Because what I really believe is, let's spend a little more time leaving everybody alone."
Obama's buy America plan not Harper's fault
It is part of the job of the opposition parties in Parliament to criticize the government. To do so effectively they need credibility and you don’t help your credibility when you blame the government for something that is clearly not its fault. A good example of this has come up recently with the Obama administration’s plan to introduce a “buy American” provision with its “jobs” plan. The Liberals and NDP seem to be blaming the Conservatives for this protectionist move.
The claim is that if the Conservative government had a stronger and better relationship with the US government then Canada would automatically be exempted.
The problem is that no matter how friendly Mr. Harper is to Mr. Obama, domestic politics will trump foreign relations every single time. This is an almost universal truth. It is most certainly true in Canada. Domestic politics kept Canada out of the joining the US in a joint anti-ballistic defense system even though it made sense from a foreign affairs perspective.
If the domestic mood in America is in support of a policy, there isn’t much that Canada can do to prevent it.
Basically the “buy America” provisions don’t mean that Stephen Harper sucks at managing Canada’s relationship with the United States. It means that the United States has a protectionist President that is damaging to Canadian trade.
The Liberals and NDP should reserve all their ire on this issue for Barrack Obama.
The claim is that if the Conservative government had a stronger and better relationship with the US government then Canada would automatically be exempted.
The problem is that no matter how friendly Mr. Harper is to Mr. Obama, domestic politics will trump foreign relations every single time. This is an almost universal truth. It is most certainly true in Canada. Domestic politics kept Canada out of the joining the US in a joint anti-ballistic defense system even though it made sense from a foreign affairs perspective.
If the domestic mood in America is in support of a policy, there isn’t much that Canada can do to prevent it.
Basically the “buy America” provisions don’t mean that Stephen Harper sucks at managing Canada’s relationship with the United States. It means that the United States has a protectionist President that is damaging to Canadian trade.
The Liberals and NDP should reserve all their ire on this issue for Barrack Obama.
Is the Premier Office too powerful?
With the debate in the provincial election mostly focused on the leaders, I think this is a good opportunity to take a moment and consider if the Premier of Ontario has too much power compared to the other political institutions.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
According to the NDP, being a responsible adult is a punishment
Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath has announced that if she was Premier of Ontario students wouldn’t have to pay interest on their government loans. She defends this position by saying:
Punishing people? In what way is demanding an interest payment on a loan punishing someone? Interest is what you pay to compensate a lender for losing the opportunity to do something else with the money they are lending you. Without such compensation this “loan” basically turns into a gift and the borrower turns into a charity case.
The distinction is important.
When a student is considering his/her course of study she/he must decide the best way to invest the money that he/she has borrowed. If he/she makes an unwise investment and has difficulty paying the interest then it is the fault of the student. To put it another way, the student is responsible.
If the student does not have to worry about paying interest then there is less of an incentive to invest wisely with what is essentially free money. Again, to put it another way, the student is not responsible.
In the NDP’s mind making someone responsible for their own actions is a punishment. To force someone to pay for the cost of their decision is somehow unfair.
In NDPverse no one should be responsible for themselves because then tough choices might have to be made and that is just too darn hard.
“We have to stop punishing people for investing in their future. It doesn’t help any of us when people graduate buried under a mountain of debt,” she said, flanked by Ryerson students and Trinity-Spadina candidate Rosario Marchese.
Punishing people? In what way is demanding an interest payment on a loan punishing someone? Interest is what you pay to compensate a lender for losing the opportunity to do something else with the money they are lending you. Without such compensation this “loan” basically turns into a gift and the borrower turns into a charity case.
The distinction is important.
When a student is considering his/her course of study she/he must decide the best way to invest the money that he/she has borrowed. If he/she makes an unwise investment and has difficulty paying the interest then it is the fault of the student. To put it another way, the student is responsible.
If the student does not have to worry about paying interest then there is less of an incentive to invest wisely with what is essentially free money. Again, to put it another way, the student is not responsible.
In the NDP’s mind making someone responsible for their own actions is a punishment. To force someone to pay for the cost of their decision is somehow unfair.
In NDPverse no one should be responsible for themselves because then tough choices might have to be made and that is just too darn hard.
Stand firm Rob Ford
Rob Ford is a man under siege. In an effort to fix the City of Toronto’s financial situation he has insisted on finding “efficiencies” and not raising taxes. At this point it is pretty clear that “efficiencies” has to mean program cuts, but still this should not deter Mr. Ford. Government finances, despite the mythology of socialists, do not run on magic. Tough decisions have to be made and I am glad that we have a mayor that appears willing to make them.
I doubt that the results will be perfect.
I guarantee you I could find something to not like about Rob Ford’s administration.
But if Rob Ford’s legacy is a balanced budget without higher taxes then I will be glad that he was Mayor of Toronto.
I doubt that the results will be perfect.
I guarantee you I could find something to not like about Rob Ford’s administration.
But if Rob Ford’s legacy is a balanced budget without higher taxes then I will be glad that he was Mayor of Toronto.
Ontario NDP using Jack Layton's name (ii)
Yesterday I wrote that NDP leader Andrea Horwath was deserving of respect for telling local campaigns not to use the death of Jack Layton to win sympathy. She said that the NDP campaign will be focused on people, which I assume means on public policy.
Today it has come out that the central campaign has also used Jack Layton’s name to raise money. I don’t know if Ms. Horwath approved the fundraising letter or not, but either way I find it pretty disappointing.
It is disappointing because it appears from this article that Ms. Horwath has no intention of enforcing her directive not to employ Mr. Layton’s corpse as a political prop.
Today it has come out that the central campaign has also used Jack Layton’s name to raise money. I don’t know if Ms. Horwath approved the fundraising letter or not, but either way I find it pretty disappointing.
It is disappointing because it appears from this article that Ms. Horwath has no intention of enforcing her directive not to employ Mr. Layton’s corpse as a political prop.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Making sex offender registry public is a bad idea for public safety
The PC Party’s idea of a website of registered sex offenders makes no sense as a public safety proposal. I can understand the concept behind a registration for sex offenders and I can certainly understand restrictions on where someone convicted of specific sex crimes can live, but I don’t understand how a website would do anything for “a law-abiding family’s right to safety.”
No other policy would be as certain to turn a complying registered sex offender into a noncompliant convict running from the law. A sex offender that is known by his/her neighbours is certain to be driven out wherever she/he goes. Eventually any individual is bound to start ignoring the rules and refusing to cooperate with authorities.
Since there are 14,000 registered sex offenders in Ontario, it would be an impossible task to hunt them all down if they all or most decide to become noncompliant. So then you won’t know if your neighbour is a convicted sex offender and neither would the police.
Furthermore vigilantes are not uncommon where this policy has been introduced in the States. I can definitely understand the desire to beat your neighbour to a pulp if you discovered that your neighbour had once sexually assaulted a child (I actually got a little angry just typing the words “sexually assaulted a child). But that natural human emotion is not conducive to public safety and it does great injustice to sex offenders who were convicted of more minor crimes.
If anything it is likely that publishing the names of sex offenders would be bad for public safety.
No other policy would be as certain to turn a complying registered sex offender into a noncompliant convict running from the law. A sex offender that is known by his/her neighbours is certain to be driven out wherever she/he goes. Eventually any individual is bound to start ignoring the rules and refusing to cooperate with authorities.
Since there are 14,000 registered sex offenders in Ontario, it would be an impossible task to hunt them all down if they all or most decide to become noncompliant. So then you won’t know if your neighbour is a convicted sex offender and neither would the police.
Furthermore vigilantes are not uncommon where this policy has been introduced in the States. I can definitely understand the desire to beat your neighbour to a pulp if you discovered that your neighbour had once sexually assaulted a child (I actually got a little angry just typing the words “sexually assaulted a child). But that natural human emotion is not conducive to public safety and it does great injustice to sex offenders who were convicted of more minor crimes.
If anything it is likely that publishing the names of sex offenders would be bad for public safety.
In politics money isn't everything
The importance of money in politics is usually exaggerated. Consider the recent Republican victory in New York.
Money raised:
Bob Turner (R) $200,000
David Weprin (D) $500,000
Having more money is an advantage certainly, but you can't buy an election.
Money raised:
Bob Turner (R) $200,000
David Weprin (D) $500,000
Having more money is an advantage certainly, but you can't buy an election.
Ontario NDP using Jack Layton's name
Yesterday the local NDP candidate was canvassing my building. I didn’t get a chance to talk to him because my life partner was the one that answered the door and she gave him a curt no thanks. I thought this was unfortunate because I dearly wanted to ask him about something on his biographical blurb (what the hell is a Ph.D in corporate responsibility and economics?). I did however get my hand on his pamphlet (by stealing it from a neighbour) and I noted a reference to Jack Layton.
It was pretty blatant. The reference was a quote from Jack Layton’s death bed press release and that odd outline shape of Mr. Layton that has become popular among certain union activists. There was no claim that Mr. Layton endorsed the candidate, but it did serve as a reminder of the emotions that many felt after they heard of the federal leader’s death. It was obvious that the designer of the pamphlet thought that this would help the candidate’s chances.
I’m not surprised that the Ontario NDP is trying to use the death of Jack Layton for electoral gain. I was, however, disgusted that they would be so overt about it. It seemed indecent and made me wish more that I could have talked to the candidate to ask him why he felt it was appropriate.
In a move that is even more inappropriate, some NDP candidates have been using Jack Layton’s name in automatic phone calls. The scripts of the calls basically suggest that people should vote for the provincial NDP’s in memory of Mr. Layton.
I was happy to read today that the NDP leader Andrea Horwath has told the local candidates to stop this nonsense. She has gained some respect in my eyes.
It was pretty blatant. The reference was a quote from Jack Layton’s death bed press release and that odd outline shape of Mr. Layton that has become popular among certain union activists. There was no claim that Mr. Layton endorsed the candidate, but it did serve as a reminder of the emotions that many felt after they heard of the federal leader’s death. It was obvious that the designer of the pamphlet thought that this would help the candidate’s chances.
I’m not surprised that the Ontario NDP is trying to use the death of Jack Layton for electoral gain. I was, however, disgusted that they would be so overt about it. It seemed indecent and made me wish more that I could have talked to the candidate to ask him why he felt it was appropriate.
In a move that is even more inappropriate, some NDP candidates have been using Jack Layton’s name in automatic phone calls. The scripts of the calls basically suggest that people should vote for the provincial NDP’s in memory of Mr. Layton.
I was happy to read today that the NDP leader Andrea Horwath has told the local candidates to stop this nonsense. She has gained some respect in my eyes.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
The Politics of Xenophobia: the 2007 and 2011 Ontario elections
There is emerging an interesting similarity between the 2007 and the 2011 Ontario elections. In both elections one of the worst human reflexes, xenophobia, has been used to turn a relatively minor policy proposal into a central point of the electoral debate. In 2007 the Liberals argued that religious school funding would mean funding Muslim schools, which they subtly and not so subtly suggested would be the same as funding radical Muslims and possibly terrorists. In the 2011 election the PC Party is arguing that a proposal to subsidize the hiring of recent immigrants is screwing over locals in favour of “foreign workers.”
I have often argued that the school funding issue was not the reason that the PC Party lost the 2007 election. It was a symptom of a deeper problem with the strategy and platform of the party. Still it is undeniable that the issue had an impact on the outcome.
It was interesting watching the Liberal Party, who have traditionally accused Conservatives of being racist, get away with a fundamentally racist argument. As I suggested above their argument came down to, “we don’t want to fund more religious schools because then we would have to fund Muslim schools. And Muslims are nasty radical terrorists.” It tapped into the worst element of human nature, the fear of the other. It was a disgusting strategy that seemed to have worked.
The PC strategy in 2011 is not quite as racist, but still cultivates the same xenophobic fear of the other. Many if not most people have a sneaking suspicion that other people are taking up resources that they could be using. If someone does not belong to what that person sees as their group, then often that suspicion becomes outright paranoia. In policy debates this emerges as an assertion that immigrants “take” the jobs away from locals.
By using phrases like “Ontarians need not apply,” and “foreign workers” to discuss the Liberal Party’s proposed subsidy the PC Party is pretty blatantly appealing to anti-immigrant sentiment. To be fair this policy does represent the taking of resources from one group and giving it to another, but that also describes almost every other government policy that has ever existed. You have to wonder why this particular redistribution is worse than any other.
Two more similarities between the debates around the religious school funding and immigrant job subsidy policies strike me.
First, they are both pretty minor policies. The spending being proposed in both policies, when taken as part of the total government expenditure, is about the equivalent of someone forgetting to round correctly. Also the number of people directly affected by these policies would be pretty underwhelming. Furthermore neither policy represents a major shift in government philosophy, but are both a natural extension of a principle already inherent in current government practice. This is hardly what you would expect parties to fight elections over.
Second, they are both bad policies that could be easily criticized without having to resort to racist or anti-immigrant sentiment. It would not take much effort to poke holes into either policy, especially the job subsidy idea. This suggests to me that the point isn’t to criticize the policies. The point appears to be to actually utilize people’s xenophobia for electoral gain. The proposed policies in of themselves are not important, but they do open the door to allowing politicians to use certain rhetoric.
In a province that prides itself for being cosmopolitan, it strikes me odd that xenophobia is playing such a prominent role in two elections in a role.
I have often argued that the school funding issue was not the reason that the PC Party lost the 2007 election. It was a symptom of a deeper problem with the strategy and platform of the party. Still it is undeniable that the issue had an impact on the outcome.
It was interesting watching the Liberal Party, who have traditionally accused Conservatives of being racist, get away with a fundamentally racist argument. As I suggested above their argument came down to, “we don’t want to fund more religious schools because then we would have to fund Muslim schools. And Muslims are nasty radical terrorists.” It tapped into the worst element of human nature, the fear of the other. It was a disgusting strategy that seemed to have worked.
The PC strategy in 2011 is not quite as racist, but still cultivates the same xenophobic fear of the other. Many if not most people have a sneaking suspicion that other people are taking up resources that they could be using. If someone does not belong to what that person sees as their group, then often that suspicion becomes outright paranoia. In policy debates this emerges as an assertion that immigrants “take” the jobs away from locals.
By using phrases like “Ontarians need not apply,” and “foreign workers” to discuss the Liberal Party’s proposed subsidy the PC Party is pretty blatantly appealing to anti-immigrant sentiment. To be fair this policy does represent the taking of resources from one group and giving it to another, but that also describes almost every other government policy that has ever existed. You have to wonder why this particular redistribution is worse than any other.
Two more similarities between the debates around the religious school funding and immigrant job subsidy policies strike me.
First, they are both pretty minor policies. The spending being proposed in both policies, when taken as part of the total government expenditure, is about the equivalent of someone forgetting to round correctly. Also the number of people directly affected by these policies would be pretty underwhelming. Furthermore neither policy represents a major shift in government philosophy, but are both a natural extension of a principle already inherent in current government practice. This is hardly what you would expect parties to fight elections over.
Second, they are both bad policies that could be easily criticized without having to resort to racist or anti-immigrant sentiment. It would not take much effort to poke holes into either policy, especially the job subsidy idea. This suggests to me that the point isn’t to criticize the policies. The point appears to be to actually utilize people’s xenophobia for electoral gain. The proposed policies in of themselves are not important, but they do open the door to allowing politicians to use certain rhetoric.
In a province that prides itself for being cosmopolitan, it strikes me odd that xenophobia is playing such a prominent role in two elections in a role.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Conservatives should be libertarians
A moral code held up by force rather than conviction is not a benefit to social conservative ideas.
Obama's job plan won't work
Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute has written a nice summary of the bad ideas that can be found in Obama's new spending plan.
- A temporary payroll tax cut. This is not a tax cut at all because the president would “pay for it” with tax hikes later on. And if it’s temporary, it won’t encourage businesses to hire additional workers anyway.
- More federal infrastructure. When the federal government spends on infrastructure, it often misallocates the funds. The list of federal infrastructure boondoggles and cost overruns is endless — in public housing, dam-building, Corps of Engineers projects, bridges to nowhere, high-speed rail, etc. Instead, what we need is higher-quality infrastructure spending financed and built by the private sector. We need private airports, private air-traffic control, and private toll highways.
- A federal infrastructure bank. Such a financial scheme would reduce transparency in federal spending, which would go directly against a key Obama promise of increased budget transparency.
- Federal jobs training programs. Since the 1960s, federal jobs-training programs simply haven’t worked.
- New business tax credits. New tax credits for hiring will distort business decisionmaking and, by making the tax code more complicated, such credits would encourage more tax cheating. They would be the exact sort of tax loophole that Obama claims to hate.
- Crony capitalism. When Obama talks about “government and business working side-by-side,” it sounds to me like an invitation to corruption.
- Extending unemployment insurance. Such subsidies would help keep the unemployment rate high.
How will the Conservatives say no to new spending?
Three weeks ago I wrote a post that argued that the Conservative Party will have trouble resisting the calls for more “stimulus” spending because they have lost the credibility to offer an alternative (i.e. conservative) perspective. It has become the accepted wisdom of Canada’s political class that deficit spending can improve the economy. This is despite the lack of credible evidence proving this wisdom to be right. In fact there is considerable evidence that deficits are harmful in the long run and that government debt can cripple an economy. The Conservative Party can’t make these points, however, because it has publicly declared its faith in Keynes’ folly.
Yesterday Stephen Harper made a speech saying that the federal government will be “flexible” about its financial plan. This, more than any other statement thus far made, has opened the door to the possibility of more spending. Once that door has cracked open the pressure will be enormous for the Conservative Party to commit themselves to more years of deficit.
Lacking any credible intellectual defenses against this inevitable pressure, the Conservative Party will certainly succumb. The Conservatives’ only hope would be if the economy improves before they have to put forth an economic update in the late fall. It is only by arguing that it is not needed, as oppose to arguing that it is not useful, will the Conservatives be able to resist and keep to their already flawed plan to return to surplus.
As I said three weeks ago:
We are screwed.
Yesterday Stephen Harper made a speech saying that the federal government will be “flexible” about its financial plan. This, more than any other statement thus far made, has opened the door to the possibility of more spending. Once that door has cracked open the pressure will be enormous for the Conservative Party to commit themselves to more years of deficit.
Lacking any credible intellectual defenses against this inevitable pressure, the Conservative Party will certainly succumb. The Conservatives’ only hope would be if the economy improves before they have to put forth an economic update in the late fall. It is only by arguing that it is not needed, as oppose to arguing that it is not useful, will the Conservatives be able to resist and keep to their already flawed plan to return to surplus.
As I said three weeks ago:
We are screwed.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Dalton McGuinty picking emotion over logic
Dalton McGuinty has “dared” Tim Hudak to go to London and “look the people in the eye” and tell them that he will cancel the government’s deal with Samsung to “create 16,000 solar and clean energy jobs.” The London mayor joined in on the taunt pointing out that London has an unemployment rate of 9.1%. It is this sort of appeal to emotion argument that makes me despair of politicians.
Having a job and keeping a job is an emotional issue for everybody. It is the way that you support yourself and any family that you may have. Without a job people often feel humiliated and degraded (plus you can’t afford stuff). I went nearly a year without employment after I graduated university, and so I have a taste of what the unemployed suffer through.
This is not a good argument for public policy.
If Dalton McGuinty wants to argue that solar power is the greatest benefit for the cost, fine because then we can have a fruitful discussion.
Instead Mr. McGuinty wants to paint the PC Party as being callous. Instead of having an honest debate the Liberals want to pull on people’s heart strings.
All political parties do this to one degree or another, but I fine this case to be particularly irritating. It must be hard to look someone in the eye and say that they have to find a new job, but if keeping that person employed is costing more than it is worth then it is the rest of us that are hurting.
At the same time if the market was allowed to distribute resources without government interference, it is more than likely that these people would be able to find a job producing something that people actually want to pay for. Thus they will the benefit the rest of us rather than hurt us.
But no, such a logical argument cannot be allowed to be heard.
Having a job and keeping a job is an emotional issue for everybody. It is the way that you support yourself and any family that you may have. Without a job people often feel humiliated and degraded (plus you can’t afford stuff). I went nearly a year without employment after I graduated university, and so I have a taste of what the unemployed suffer through.
This is not a good argument for public policy.
If Dalton McGuinty wants to argue that solar power is the greatest benefit for the cost, fine because then we can have a fruitful discussion.
Instead Mr. McGuinty wants to paint the PC Party as being callous. Instead of having an honest debate the Liberals want to pull on people’s heart strings.
All political parties do this to one degree or another, but I fine this case to be particularly irritating. It must be hard to look someone in the eye and say that they have to find a new job, but if keeping that person employed is costing more than it is worth then it is the rest of us that are hurting.
At the same time if the market was allowed to distribute resources without government interference, it is more than likely that these people would be able to find a job producing something that people actually want to pay for. Thus they will the benefit the rest of us rather than hurt us.
But no, such a logical argument cannot be allowed to be heard.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Ron Paul vs Rick Perry
Yesterday I posted a video by Ron Paul's campaign pointing out that Rick Perry is an Al Gore liberal. Rick Perry's team pointed out that Ron Paul is too conservative for Reagan. Ron Paul's team responded that Rick Perry is too liberal for what is good for the country.
Should be an interesting debate tonight.
Should be an interesting debate tonight.
Dalton McGuinty's new post-secondary student subsidy is a bad idea
Dalton McGuinty has announced that if re-elected he will introduce yet another subsidy for people who want a post-secondary education. This is a bad idea. Even if the province was not drowning in red and could actually afford the cost of this program, it would still be a bad idea. It either endangers the very worth of Ontario’s post secondary education system or it simply wastes money.
The core concept behind a post-secondary student subsidy is fundamentally flawed to begin with. The idea is that: we can observe that people with degrees make more money, thus if more people have a degree then more people will make more money. This reasoning completely ignores why people with degrees do have higher incomes.
At least part of the reason why people with degrees make more money is that they tend to be more motivated people. An individual that is willing to invest in himself/herself is likely the same sort of individual that will work hard and advance her/his career. At the same time the reason why such a person would go to university in the first place is because employers find value in a degree or a college diploma.
So there is a demand for workers with a post-secondary education, but like everything else there is not an unlimited demand. Government subsidies can increase the supply of educated workers but the demand is reliant on market forces, thus supply outpaces demand. Anyone who has taken grade 11 economics knows (no university required) that if supply is greater than demand then the value of the supply decreases. This means that all those people who got degrees won’t be making as much as the government thought.
There is an old adage that people only value what they pay for. This popular wisdom is supported by evidence when it comes to post-secondary education. A study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that where there is a high subsidy for education students tend to be less motivated. If it isn’t a struggle for a student to afford school then they are more likely to take it less seriously.
This has an effect of furthering the devaluation of post-secondary education. Since students get the same degree or diploma regardless of grades, employers don’t know if they spent a few years learning to think critically or perfecting the art of beer pong. Some employers ask for transcripts but that it not always practical.
The end result is that Mr. McGuinty’s plan would likely strip Ontario’s post-secondary education of its value. This is, however, the worst case scenario.
The best case scenario is that it will turn out that pretty much everyone who is going to go to university or college are already going. Then there wouldn’t be a drastically increased supply to devalue degrees and diplomas. The only result is that government would have wasted yet another few million dollars.
Another scenario is that universities and colleges say thank you very much for the extra money and increase tuition by exactly the same as the subsidy (which would screw over the 1 in 6 that don’t qualify for the subsidy). The net result would be pretty much nil except that the government would have wasted even more of tax payer’s money.
So this program will either be a waste of money or destroy Ontario’s post-secondary education system. I’ll say it again, this is a bad idea.
The core concept behind a post-secondary student subsidy is fundamentally flawed to begin with. The idea is that: we can observe that people with degrees make more money, thus if more people have a degree then more people will make more money. This reasoning completely ignores why people with degrees do have higher incomes.
At least part of the reason why people with degrees make more money is that they tend to be more motivated people. An individual that is willing to invest in himself/herself is likely the same sort of individual that will work hard and advance her/his career. At the same time the reason why such a person would go to university in the first place is because employers find value in a degree or a college diploma.
So there is a demand for workers with a post-secondary education, but like everything else there is not an unlimited demand. Government subsidies can increase the supply of educated workers but the demand is reliant on market forces, thus supply outpaces demand. Anyone who has taken grade 11 economics knows (no university required) that if supply is greater than demand then the value of the supply decreases. This means that all those people who got degrees won’t be making as much as the government thought.
There is an old adage that people only value what they pay for. This popular wisdom is supported by evidence when it comes to post-secondary education. A study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that where there is a high subsidy for education students tend to be less motivated. If it isn’t a struggle for a student to afford school then they are more likely to take it less seriously.
This has an effect of furthering the devaluation of post-secondary education. Since students get the same degree or diploma regardless of grades, employers don’t know if they spent a few years learning to think critically or perfecting the art of beer pong. Some employers ask for transcripts but that it not always practical.
The end result is that Mr. McGuinty’s plan would likely strip Ontario’s post-secondary education of its value. This is, however, the worst case scenario.
The best case scenario is that it will turn out that pretty much everyone who is going to go to university or college are already going. Then there wouldn’t be a drastically increased supply to devalue degrees and diplomas. The only result is that government would have wasted yet another few million dollars.
Another scenario is that universities and colleges say thank you very much for the extra money and increase tuition by exactly the same as the subsidy (which would screw over the 1 in 6 that don’t qualify for the subsidy). The net result would be pretty much nil except that the government would have wasted even more of tax payer’s money.
So this program will either be a waste of money or destroy Ontario’s post-secondary education system. I’ll say it again, this is a bad idea.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Ron Paul: Rick Perry is an Al Gore supporter
This is by far the best advert I've seen from Ron Paul this year. They finally do away with that silly movie motif.
This is a great advert because it is an attack ad with a positive message. Rick Perry is a liberal cheerleader and small government mavericks can win an election.
(The Reagan worship in the GOP has reached silly heights the last couple of years, but I guess it makes sense for Ron Paul to try and cash in on it.)
This is a great advert because it is an attack ad with a positive message. Rick Perry is a liberal cheerleader and small government mavericks can win an election.
(The Reagan worship in the GOP has reached silly heights the last couple of years, but I guess it makes sense for Ron Paul to try and cash in on it.)
Increase in private health care spending not necessarily bad
The Centre for Living Standards has released a report warning that Canadians are at great financial risk because of the large increase in private health care spending. They argue that since health care spending is using up a greater share of an individual’s disposable income Canadians are at financial risk if they become sick or unemployed. Fortunately this conclusion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how individuals make spending choices.
It is important to note that the Centre for Living Standards has also found that “there has been a dramatic increase in per-capita consumption and wealth across the country.” Which means that we are all, for the most part, better off and we own more stuff. Since we already have all this stuff we can then use our left over disposable income to do something that use to be a luxury: take care of our health.
The concept is similar to Maslow’s hierarchy of need but it focuses more on economic choices. Once one desire has been satisfied we humans move on to the next desire and then the next and so on. Once I have bought a beer my desire for beer depreciates and is replaced by something else, perhaps a desire for a steak sandwich. Every individual has a different hierarchy of desires based on their own preferences and so it is difficult to generalize, but we can observe patterns in the choices that people are making.
It is likely that the Centre for Living Standards has simply observed one of these patterns. People may be more willing to spend a greater portion of their income on health care because they can afford it and because they have already taken care of their other desires. If this is the case then this is a sign not of Canadians being worse off but of being better off because they are able to satisfy more of their desires.
Of course I could be wrong and it could be that people are sacrificing more of their desires to afford the rising cost of health care. In some individual’s cases this could very well be what is happening, but considering the rarity of health related bankruptcies in Canada I am skeptical that there is an epidemic of financial risk due to health.
We shouldn’t overlook the fact that fundamentally the Centre for Living Standards has shown what should be obvious, we are all better off than we were 30 years ago. And that is good news
It is important to note that the Centre for Living Standards has also found that “there has been a dramatic increase in per-capita consumption and wealth across the country.” Which means that we are all, for the most part, better off and we own more stuff. Since we already have all this stuff we can then use our left over disposable income to do something that use to be a luxury: take care of our health.
The concept is similar to Maslow’s hierarchy of need but it focuses more on economic choices. Once one desire has been satisfied we humans move on to the next desire and then the next and so on. Once I have bought a beer my desire for beer depreciates and is replaced by something else, perhaps a desire for a steak sandwich. Every individual has a different hierarchy of desires based on their own preferences and so it is difficult to generalize, but we can observe patterns in the choices that people are making.
It is likely that the Centre for Living Standards has simply observed one of these patterns. People may be more willing to spend a greater portion of their income on health care because they can afford it and because they have already taken care of their other desires. If this is the case then this is a sign not of Canadians being worse off but of being better off because they are able to satisfy more of their desires.
Of course I could be wrong and it could be that people are sacrificing more of their desires to afford the rising cost of health care. In some individual’s cases this could very well be what is happening, but considering the rarity of health related bankruptcies in Canada I am skeptical that there is an epidemic of financial risk due to health.
We shouldn’t overlook the fact that fundamentally the Centre for Living Standards has shown what should be obvious, we are all better off than we were 30 years ago. And that is good news
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Ernie Eves says that he doesn't like democracy
Okay he didn’t exactly say that but that is what he meant.
Ernie Eves, the former Premier that confused Magna International with the legislator of Ontario, made some snarling comments about Norm Sterling being replaced by Jack MacLaren as PC candidate in that riding.
In case you aren’t familiar with the story: Mr. MacLaren and his friends felt that Mr. Sterling wasn’t representing their views. So they organized themselves and challenged Mr. Sterling in an election to choose the PC candidate. Due to the superior organizational abilities of Mr. MacLaren, and despite the interference of the outgoing association executive, he won.
This is how Mr. Eves characterized it:
Yes the horror and unfairness of a democratic vote. Clearly Mr. MacLaren didn’t understand that the point of internal party democracy is just to make people think that political parties are democratic institutions. You aren’t actually supposed to vote for someone that represents your views and aspirations. That would not be fair or compassionate!
I also think that the Tea Party comparison is hilarious. The Landowners Association is only superficially similar to the Tea Party activists. Unlike the Tea Party, the Landowners is a single advocacy group with a pretty clear political agenda. I’m not totally sure what the political agenda of the Tea Party is except “we are mad and we want you to do something about it.”
Really the thing that they most have in common is that they share a political strategy of being active within a political party; both organize and vote in internal party elections. That is to say, they both make use of grassroots democratic tools to make their opinions heard. Again it seems that Mr. Eves’ fundamental problem is that he doesn’t like democracy.
To PC leader Tim Hudak’s credit, his response was pretty good:
“It’s difficult to go through, no doubt about it,” he said. “But it’s democracy, and democracy can sometimes be messy.”
By messy I assume he means that you don’t always get the response that you want. By messy I think he means that sometimes you lose. Mr. MacLaren claimed that Mr. Sterling had become complacent, doesn’t the attitude that you shouldn’t be allowed to lose prove that?
I for one applaud the PC Party of Ontario for having the maturity and the sense to allow true democracy within its ranks.
Ernie Eves, the former Premier that confused Magna International with the legislator of Ontario, made some snarling comments about Norm Sterling being replaced by Jack MacLaren as PC candidate in that riding.
In case you aren’t familiar with the story: Mr. MacLaren and his friends felt that Mr. Sterling wasn’t representing their views. So they organized themselves and challenged Mr. Sterling in an election to choose the PC candidate. Due to the superior organizational abilities of Mr. MacLaren, and despite the interference of the outgoing association executive, he won.
This is how Mr. Eves characterized it:
“I don’t care who hears this,” Eves said at a recent tribute dinner for Sterling at a golf club outside Carleton Place. “The treatment that Norm got from his own party was not very polite, was not fair, it was not loyal, it was not compassionate, it was not even and it was not honest.”
Yes the horror and unfairness of a democratic vote. Clearly Mr. MacLaren didn’t understand that the point of internal party democracy is just to make people think that political parties are democratic institutions. You aren’t actually supposed to vote for someone that represents your views and aspirations. That would not be fair or compassionate!
I also think that the Tea Party comparison is hilarious. The Landowners Association is only superficially similar to the Tea Party activists. Unlike the Tea Party, the Landowners is a single advocacy group with a pretty clear political agenda. I’m not totally sure what the political agenda of the Tea Party is except “we are mad and we want you to do something about it.”
Really the thing that they most have in common is that they share a political strategy of being active within a political party; both organize and vote in internal party elections. That is to say, they both make use of grassroots democratic tools to make their opinions heard. Again it seems that Mr. Eves’ fundamental problem is that he doesn’t like democracy.
To PC leader Tim Hudak’s credit, his response was pretty good:
“It’s difficult to go through, no doubt about it,” he said. “But it’s democracy, and democracy can sometimes be messy.”
By messy I assume he means that you don’t always get the response that you want. By messy I think he means that sometimes you lose. Mr. MacLaren claimed that Mr. Sterling had become complacent, doesn’t the attitude that you shouldn’t be allowed to lose prove that?
I for one applaud the PC Party of Ontario for having the maturity and the sense to allow true democracy within its ranks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)