The Town Hall Archives

Jared · Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:16 pm Post subject:

To make any judgment of a country, one must first determine what services and function a proper governmental system must provide.

In my opinion, the ideal system is one of minimal involvement in the day-to-day lives of the citizenry. Government should provide those things which cannot reasonably be supplied within the market economy: national defense, a code of laws and system of legal redress, etc. It also seems logical, in my opinion, for the government to provide such things as are to the general welfare of the country by providing infrastructure, coining / printing money and the like. Above all, the government should safeguard the rights of the governed.

Since our world is not ideal and it is not likely that private charitable giving would cover every need (although a good case can be argued for this), many would suggest that some limited system of assistance should be put in place to help the truly disadvantaged, with the hopes of getting them into the workforce, if possible. I cannot support, however, a large welfare state such as the one we have now, and favor continued reforms, though not abolition.

Given this, it should be immediately obvious that the United States of America does not live up to my ideals of government. If the question is, however, one of comparison, I prefer the American system to the Canadian one, as while we have seen an influx of social programs in this nation in the wake of the populist and progressive movements, postulated in the New Nationalism, applied in the New Freedom, expanded in the New Deal, perpetuated in the Fair Deal, solidified under Eisenhower, widened in the Great Society and amplified by Nixon, the United States has never adopted a mixed economy to the extent that Canada has.

Canada's system is democratic socialism, while America's remains marginally republican in form. Because we have a large Canadian presence here, the United States vs. Canada debate often comes up, but it is really a matter of a federal republic versus a social democracy. Canada is hardly alone among mostly free nations in choosing such a form -- Britain is worse. Germany's system is disastrous. I shan't mention France, since it isn't an entirely democratic socialist construct.

I could go into a long exposition on the perils of socialism even on a limited scale. I could speak of how much of the blame it bears for the ills of both American and Canadian society. Canada is significantly less free than its neighbor to the south. I refer not only to matters of individual rights that we commonly think of in such terms (speech, press, religion, bearing arms, association, property, etc.), although it should be noted that fewer freedoms are granted Canadians than Americans, but also in matters to which we sometimes give less consideration.

Since so much in Canada -- and other social democracies -- has been nationalized, the system flounders. That which could be provided in greater quantity and quality and at lower cost on the market is denied. This is not to say that nothing works at all, as economic calculation can be made by way of comparison with more free market oriented nations. Nonetheless, the system is far from ideal, as is evidenced by the behemoth of Canadian health care, an experiment in disaster. The nationalization of health services has failed wherever it is tried: Great Britain, France, Canada, Mexico, etc.

That is not to say that the system never works in any matter. It may be true that certain services are provided in a reasonable fashion; however, the simple, if terrible, fact is that socialized medicine is directly responsible for an untold number of preventable deaths.

Medicine is far from a perfect science, and the sad truth is that people whose lives might have been spared will continue to die due to mistakes, delayed diagnosis and other tragic and seemingly preventable mishaps. Unfortunately, the Canadian system -- and indeed, the system that is becoming prevalent in developed nations the world over -- aggravates the system. In the United States, we speak of the survival rates of patients undergoing certain procedures. In respect to Canada, there is an additional percentage, that of how many will survive the interminable delays as one waits for the operation to begin. It can be months.

The socialized systems so pervasive in Canada do not reward talent, ability or hard work, and as such, the system retards ingenuity, discourages sacrifice and disincentives entrepreneurial spirit. I do not say this to accuse Canada of being a purely democratic socialist nation; it is, in fact, a "mixed economy," although some would question the nature of such a label, questioning whether a free market with significant restraints is truly a free market.

They have a good semantic point, but suffice it to say that the Canadian way is not the socialism of Ferdinand Lassalle, of Leon Trotsky, or of Karl Popper, Frederick Engels or William Patterson. Nor is it fully the socialism preached by Upton Sinclair or Eric Blair. It is the more genteel manner of socialism, if you will, the sort of social construct which guided men like Clement Attlee, David Ben-Gurion, Gerhard Schroder and Francois Mitterrand. What pervades Canadian government is the belief that anything which can be done in the market can be done better by the government.

This belief is hardly new. American Progressives argued that the government does not seek profit, and thus would not "cheat" the consumers, and would not search after the perceived evils of businesses concerned only for the "bottom line," thus making government the ideal source of vital services. The same idea has been put into practice in a myriad of socialist, nationalist and communist countries, and each time, the result is predictably bad.

The social democracy is not evident only in terms of health care. In Canada, government plays far too large a role in everyday life and there are substantial restrictions on the market economy.

Let us be clear: Canada is a reasonably prosperous nation, is largely democratic, is a free nation (although Freedom House and others do not consider Canada top tier in terms of safeguarding rights). It just isn't as free as it could be, nor is it as economically sane as one might like.

Neither is the U.S. We're headed in the same direction here, although the downward shift has been halted on a few fronts. Nonetheless, even many of our moderate to conservative politicians choose to offer an echo rather than a choice (to loosely paraphrase the Barry Goldwater line). If nations like Great Britain and Canada offer socialism lite, the U.S. offers "socialism lite" lite. But we're well on our way, and have been for some time.

In that the United States has more economic freedom than Canada, places a stronger emphasis on concrete rights (Canada is notoriously weak on protecting the fundamental right of property and has more exceptions than I would prefer to free speech and similar essentials, although again, it is vastly superior to most nations) and has a slightly stronger moral undergirding, as evidenced in the laws of the respective nations.

At least we still have a mostly conservative party left in the United States. One gets the feeling that most of Canada's merged Conservative Party would feel more comfortable with a center-left Democrat in the United States than with an actual conservative. The political landscape there is somewhat different than in America; the political parties would mostly fit into one party here, and the compelling differences between them is more like the differences between a DLCer and a Feingold type. With a whole, rather active party of Bernie Sanderses thrown in for good measure. Also a bunch of liberal, purely socialist separatists.

I enter this thread late, so I cannot possibly hope to respond to every point made previously, but I would like to address a few briefly.

I'll have to set aside the question of European-style environmentalism, for the sake of time, space and not getting us hopelessly off topic, but perhaps we should one day address the question of why we should spend around $7 trillion to possibly lower earth's temperature by ~0.07 °C by 2050. (And this can never be substantiated even if done, since we can't even measure the earth's average surface temperature to that level of accuracy.)

And I suppose I can't fully address the question of whether or not it makes sense to flee the U.S. for any other country because of the diminishing liberties here (it doesn't, since it's hard to think of a nation with more liberties even as ours erode to some very small extent), nor can I give much comment on the matter of whether proselytizing is legal in Israel (it is, but there are a number of laws which make it possible for overzealous and uncooperative law enforcement officers to find some way of discouraging it through legal means).

(If those sound like paraleiptical comments, I plead no contest.)

It was stated, earlier, that "I think that other countries are verry [sic] nice places, it is just the liberal media that makes it seem like they are all bad places to live with people who hate us ( America)." I'm sorry, but I can see no logic in this whatsoever. Since when did the "liberal media" become excessively nationalistic and pro-American? Of all the charges usually leveled at the media, flag-waving is rarely one of them these days, with the possible exceptions of Fox News and the Washington Times.

The media elite seem to value European-style "sophistication" and practically fawn over some of the most abhorrent dictators out there with fluff pieces about literacy rates in Cuba (yeah, they can all read communist, cult-of-Castro propaganda; let's conveniently ignore the fact that it is illegal to own, borrow or read books not officially sanctioned by the government), "equality" in Venezuela (it would be too depressing to note that equality means that the members of the upper and middle classes have had property stolen from them and the new equality is an equality of misery presided over by a democratically elected figure who is nonetheless a tin-pot dictator) or the like. So I can't make any sense of that comment...

It is mentioned in passing that "we are losing our rights as a church." I'd like to hear a few examples of this, since nothing is coming to mind...

Our venerable founder comments, "I would say that being in Israel brings up a whole bunch of other objections and issues to think over deeply, like how they treat the Arab populations surrounding them, how the governments run the country, why the country exists at all, and stuff like that."

Israel treats the surrounding population way too leniently, in my opinion. While perhaps a new tone can be struck under Abbas, the truth is that they are surrounded by terrorist-sponsoring nations which have forfeited any right to be permitted to remain in peace. Israel's response has been measured and limited. They are well within their rights to take much stronger action; there has been ample provocation. Their neighbors have committed acts of war against them. Now, it may not be expedient or wise for Israel to respond by leveling the Gaza Strip, but to suggest that they mistreat the surrounding Arab population is absurd. I humbly submit that the wrong here lies with the pure evil found in those who would detonate explosives in public places. If you think that response to this is the problem, then we have a major disagreement.

Call me a Zionist, if you will. The label doesn't bother me. I believe in Israel's right to exist and to defend itself, and I believe any other position morally unjustifiable.

Another statement to which I'd like to respond: "I would rather live in Canada than US any day. Partially because there money is worth more!" It's already been addressed, but this just doesn't work. Yes, your Federal Reserve note will yield you a higher number of Canadian dollars, but the value is roughly equal. That is, after all, the idea of exchange rates. Of course, speculators play exchange rates like the stock market (George Soros famously sold the English pound short and practically plunged the nation into crisis while netting himself $1 billion USD in a single day), but this doesn't mean that anyone is getting cheaper goods.

Fiat paper money is, after all, just a means of exchange. If you get more of one currency against the U.S. dollar, then you'll quickly find that they have less value. This only stands to reason. Take a look at the jacket of any book. The book will "cost more" in Canada. But of course it doesn't; it's just an exchange rate issue.

Regarding the quoted commentary on the Canadian Charter of Rights, which reads thusly: "Even though these freedoms are very important, governments can sometimes limit them. For example, laws against pornography and hate propaganda are reasonable limits on freedom of expression because they prevent harm to individuals and groups."

Does no one see a problem here? In the United States, we have reasonable restrictions on free speech, of course. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in Schenk v. United States, formulated the "clear and present danger" exemption. It was in this opinion that he wrote the infamous line, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic," which is popularly modified to "You can't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater."

Even this was too much restriction on freedom of speech, though, and the Court later modified the position (in Brandenburg v. Ohio) to a test of "imminent lawless action."

For if you criminalize hate speech, who is to say what is and is not hate speech? Disparaging someone's beliefs, views, lifestyle and choices ought to be protected, right? Even if you are in favor of that which is being disparaged.

Additionally, while the commentary terms it "hate propaganda," the truth is that in Canada, statements deemed clearly inaccurate are potentially illegal. While America has "truth-in-advertising laws," these are rather limited and require actual proof of intentional falsehood. Canada's laws here are broad in scope and could potentially be turned on political or religious factions considered too "out of the mainstream." This opens the door to criminalizing unpopular assertions. Political incorrectness could be -- and to a limited extent, has been -- prosecuted.

Even the most despicable of speech should be protected. Sure, one must act within reason; certain speech can be banned from the public square by decency and obscenity laws, for example. But forbidden outright? No. To infringe on so basic a liberty is fraught with danger.

Given time constraints, and since no one wants to read any further rambling on this subject, I believe I shall end with that for the present.

Melka · Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:44 pm Post subject:

Do you really think that I am going to sit here and read that wole thing?

Guest · Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:58 pm Post subject:

I read it all. You made some good points.

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
That is socialism.

Well, Canada has Socialistic medicine.
I'm not going to dig up more at this time.
But I know there is more.

GusDeHaan · Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 1:03 pm Post subject:

While Jared has some points, I think he is wrong on his views of Socialism in Canada. And his failure to properly understand "Canada common." He has a majority of correct views on Canada as "Canada Proper"

Free market - Doesn't reward the hard working. It rewards the lucky ones .

Free market isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Just look at your poor , look at your people who cannot even afford a decent place to live.

Canada has them too, for sure, but it isn't allways because the system doesnt work - It starts with the people...

Canada is reasonably profitable - Keep in mind that we have 32 million people and we produce consitently 80 % GDP per Capita as compaired to The states...

I'll take 20 % any day over paying for medicare.

Canada - far from perfect, God knows that it isn't what it should be. But So help me - I know I'll be spending the rest of my days , here - In CANADA. The true North Strong and Free, [ unless your Jared, then it's not actualy free, it's all a myth. ]

The Canadian Dream.

Went out on the street today
The Canadian Dream was as far away as it’s ever been
As it’s ever been
S.O.C.I.A.L.I.S.M.is here to stay
S.O.C.I.A.L.I.S.M. is the only way
Frozen land, frozen minds
Frozen hands and frozen time
‘Cause everything moves real slow when it’s forty below

Jared · Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 1:37 pm Post subject:

I guess we're going to strongly disagree on this, Gus, and it doesn't seem that our differences are on what Canada is as much as the foundations of economics. You write, "Free market - Doesn't reward the hard working. It rewards the lucky ones." That is a highly troubling and deeply flawed statement.

You do not seem to argue that Canada does not have a large amount of social programs and restrictions on free market activity; rather, you suggest that the unhampered free market is undesirable. If I may be blunt, this notion is dangerous nonsense.

To be sure, it's widespread, the very foundation of Keynesian economic theory. That does not mean, however, that it even remotely sensible as an economic system. Those systems that are thoroughly socialized have no means of economic calculation; they survive at their current level only because they can compare pricing with those of more free markets.

Unfortunately, America is far from having an unhampered free market as well, but Canada is much farther along the social democratic path, and you seem to like that. I cannot imagine why.

Free markets reward those who are willing to participate. Only in the free market can the factors of production be channeled into their most effective use, thus profiting all of society. Democratic socialism attempts to emulate free markets by bureaucratic control, but doesn't quite succeed -- and cannot. Obviously, there are those who are "underprivileged" in any system, and charity remains important. Many -- even most conservatives -- are even willing to allow limited government involvement toward ensuring that basic provision be made for those who cannot otherwise subsist. But to suggest that free markets reward the "lucky ones" shows an extremely limited understanding of how markets work and denies the efficacy of the only system that truly works.

In socialism, you get equality of misery. In capitalism, you get inequality -- and why this is a problem, I cannot imagine. Liberal economies reward entrepreneurship, innovation, etc. Those who provide a more valuable service or provide something more efficiently become wealthier, but they're not alone. In a free market, a rising tide really does lift all ships. Sure, you have some who are enormously wealthy, but you have none who are too poor to survive.

"Living wages" are absolute nonsense, incidentally, and the chief causes of poverty are excessive regulation, a not well enough filtered welfare system -- although in the U.S., it improved significantly in 1996 -- and the sloth it encourages, counterproductive minimum wage laws, etc. Now, I do want to emphasize that not all people on welfare are there because they're not willing to work. What I am saying, though, is that the current welfare system tends to keep people on the rolls too long because it is counterproductive to get into the workforce, and that regulations and other government interventionism exacerbate the problem.

And that's about America. Sadly, it's much worse in Canada.

The "[f]ree market isn't all it's cracked up to be"? I'm sorry, but that is extremely misguided and such thinking, common in so many places, is the single largest cause of economic deprivation in developed nations.

I do not say that Canada is not free. It is, mostly. And the United States is, mostly. Currently, the U.S. is more free than Canada, both economically and in terms of basic rights, but they're both mostly free. I simply don't like the trend in either, and dislike the widespread acceptance of democratic socialism in Canada.

I regard socialism as a great evil and a real travesty. It is unfortunate that it is so widely accepted.

GusDeHaan · Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:08 pm Post subject:

It's unfourtunate that you fail to see the good in socialism. And even more unfourtunate that you have such a dark opinion of regulated economies, Artificial does not = "gonna flop".

I would like to think of myself as an individual who understands economical theory more than the average person, I assume that you think liberalism in it's fifth form is the best, but it appears that our economy is slipping backwards towards the regulatory state, Obviously I am applying "American" terms to a Canadian issue.

Dangerous thinking is deciding to send people in a rocket with solid state fuel.. not claming that free markets are not as good as we think they are.

Free markets do reward the lucky ones - To suggest that I give economic prosperity over to luck shows a complete and miserable understanding of sarcasm.. hahahaha. This point ties in with hard working not = profits... I agree that it can give profits , but it doesn't = them.

I have a few misclanious questions with some validity to this discussion - You are in no way obligated to answer them all, but if you would dwell on them it would be appreciated.

Is a higher standard of living a better thing ?
Is a quota system for food, industry etc. a bad thing ?
If the market has used all of its factors that it requires, isn't the problem then the lack of production , not the lack of labour, or factors. [perhaps you were more taking issue with the actual channeling of the factor market, in which case - forgive my ignorance.]
What makes hard working = profits ? [Specifically I'm thinking lets say you work your arms down to nothing, but you only make [take home] 8 bucks an hour, and you never are over the "poverty line".]
Is the redistribution of wealth an issue ?
Canada rewards it's sucessful companies - its true it taxes them, but that is part of any country within any useful system.
Perhaps I read a bit of your piece wrong, but - Minimum wage a bad thing ? I can see if it is set too high, but I see to much good in it to declare it counter productive, maybe I am missing something.

Uh, yeah, Im bored with this allready, Macro economics, isn't for another 2 semesters yet Razz