The Rants of Issachar
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Where do I stand on the political spectrum and why am I there?
I'm on the right. I may be some kind of libertarian. Why?
The short answer is that I'm not there because I don't care about people. I'm there because I do care. Popular wisdom says that if you care about the poor, single mothers, drug addicts, the plight of native people in Canada, the third world, education, the environment etc. you should support the left. Like a good bulk of popular wisdom, I think this is rubbish. I do care about all those things, but the leftist answers to those problems don't work. They sound nice on the surface, but if you follow them through and see where they lead, they don't pass the only test that matters: efficacy. Bill Clinton said "I feel your pain". That's nice, but I'm sure people would rather that you also did something that actually alleviated that pain.
This isn't to say that the left hasn't done some very good work. They woke us up to many of those problems. Who was talking about the environment before Greenpeace starting pulling fire alarms? Who gave us the idea that essential medical care should come to everyone, not just the wealthy? The left. They did good work. So what went wrong?
Patrick Moore, one of the founding members of Greenpeace quit the organization some time ago and founded Greenspirit saying that they had abandoned science and were reflexively opposing everything that had any impact at all on the environment. According to Moore, Greenpeace woke everyone up but never realized that when they'd made everyone take the environment seriously, you had to come up with working solutions, not keeping pulling the fire alarm. To Moore that meant sustainable development in the forest industry rather than simply stopping as much logging as possible. Moore noticed that forest companies have a self-interest in healthy forests and that countries that use the most wood products reforest the most because forests then have an economic value. Moore concluded that we should encourage sustainable logging that is both ecologically and economically sound. In short, "more trees are the answer". Greenpeace by contrast continues to villify any logging as an attack on the environment. The facts back Moore not Greenpeace, so why is Greenpeace still seen as the best friend of the environment?
Let's talk health care. Government funded medical care. An incredible idea that has done wonders. Unfortunately, the system is about to break under increasing financial strain. What's the only solution that the left will tolerate? More money. The debate has become so unhealthy that most Canadians are unable to see the distinction between government provided health care and government funded health care. The important part that everyone has rapid access to necessary medical care. Since medical care is expensive that means that the only way to achieve that is with government funding. But does it matter how the care is delivered or who delivers it? No it doesn't. It only matters that it is delivered. But the left got in bed with organized labour and is busily destroying and villifying anyone who proposes solutions to the health care problem if that solution doesn't mesh with the demands of organized labour. "We're not interested in a solution that works unless it helps unions". How much sense does that make? As the health system collapses who do you think is going to get shoddy care? The wealthy? When waiting lists become so long that quality of care is seriously reduced is it the poor who simply trot down to the US to buy the life-saving care they need?
What about education? I favour school vouchers. (I know, big suprise, I work in an independent school). But wait a second... Why doesn't the left support school vouchers? Does the lack of school vouchers stop the rich from sending their children to the excellent school of their choice? It's just the poor that can't afford independent schools. So you get educational choice for your children if you're rich, but if you're poor, just forget about it. I thought this society was a meritocracy. Apparently not. The first thing determining if you can go to an elite school isn't your talent or if you work hard. It's your parents ability to write cheques every month.
What about the third world? Canadians are under the delusion that we spend a lot on foreign aid. It's a nice bit of propoganda, but it has all the reality of a potemkin village. I've forgotten the exact numbers, but according to Andrew Cohen's book, (read it), we spend less than 0.3% of our GDP on foreign aid. And much of that is so-called "tied-aid". (You can have the money if and only if you buy stuff from us with it). This is a bit less than the 0.7% target we've had since the days of Pearson and less than many other countries in the world including the USA. Why is that? The left's been in control of Canada's foreign policy throughout most of our history. The Liberal party is occaisionally referred to as the "natural governing party" after all. So why isn't foreign aid at a level that Pearson proposed? The answer is choices. The money available to the government isn't unlimited. If you spend something on one thing you're making a choice not to spend it on something else. This is why I'm against social programs that don't deliver maximum return. Because if we fund something that doesn't work or works badly because it sounds good, something else much more important can't get funded...
Well I just read back through what I wrote... It's pretty all over the place. Mostly because this is an all over the place set of ideas. I should probably be more coherent before I publish this, but this is my rants page so I'm going to publish it anyway. Also, I'm leaving for church, so I can't re-write this at the moment.
Feel free to comment or make suggestions.
I'm on the right. I may be some kind of libertarian. Why?
The short answer is that I'm not there because I don't care about people. I'm there because I do care. Popular wisdom says that if you care about the poor, single mothers, drug addicts, the plight of native people in Canada, the third world, education, the environment etc. you should support the left. Like a good bulk of popular wisdom, I think this is rubbish. I do care about all those things, but the leftist answers to those problems don't work. They sound nice on the surface, but if you follow them through and see where they lead, they don't pass the only test that matters: efficacy. Bill Clinton said "I feel your pain". That's nice, but I'm sure people would rather that you also did something that actually alleviated that pain.
This isn't to say that the left hasn't done some very good work. They woke us up to many of those problems. Who was talking about the environment before Greenpeace starting pulling fire alarms? Who gave us the idea that essential medical care should come to everyone, not just the wealthy? The left. They did good work. So what went wrong?
Patrick Moore, one of the founding members of Greenpeace quit the organization some time ago and founded Greenspirit saying that they had abandoned science and were reflexively opposing everything that had any impact at all on the environment. According to Moore, Greenpeace woke everyone up but never realized that when they'd made everyone take the environment seriously, you had to come up with working solutions, not keeping pulling the fire alarm. To Moore that meant sustainable development in the forest industry rather than simply stopping as much logging as possible. Moore noticed that forest companies have a self-interest in healthy forests and that countries that use the most wood products reforest the most because forests then have an economic value. Moore concluded that we should encourage sustainable logging that is both ecologically and economically sound. In short, "more trees are the answer". Greenpeace by contrast continues to villify any logging as an attack on the environment. The facts back Moore not Greenpeace, so why is Greenpeace still seen as the best friend of the environment?
Let's talk health care. Government funded medical care. An incredible idea that has done wonders. Unfortunately, the system is about to break under increasing financial strain. What's the only solution that the left will tolerate? More money. The debate has become so unhealthy that most Canadians are unable to see the distinction between government provided health care and government funded health care. The important part that everyone has rapid access to necessary medical care. Since medical care is expensive that means that the only way to achieve that is with government funding. But does it matter how the care is delivered or who delivers it? No it doesn't. It only matters that it is delivered. But the left got in bed with organized labour and is busily destroying and villifying anyone who proposes solutions to the health care problem if that solution doesn't mesh with the demands of organized labour. "We're not interested in a solution that works unless it helps unions". How much sense does that make? As the health system collapses who do you think is going to get shoddy care? The wealthy? When waiting lists become so long that quality of care is seriously reduced is it the poor who simply trot down to the US to buy the life-saving care they need?
What about education? I favour school vouchers. (I know, big suprise, I work in an independent school). But wait a second... Why doesn't the left support school vouchers? Does the lack of school vouchers stop the rich from sending their children to the excellent school of their choice? It's just the poor that can't afford independent schools. So you get educational choice for your children if you're rich, but if you're poor, just forget about it. I thought this society was a meritocracy. Apparently not. The first thing determining if you can go to an elite school isn't your talent or if you work hard. It's your parents ability to write cheques every month.
What about the third world? Canadians are under the delusion that we spend a lot on foreign aid. It's a nice bit of propoganda, but it has all the reality of a potemkin village. I've forgotten the exact numbers, but according to Andrew Cohen's book, (read it), we spend less than 0.3% of our GDP on foreign aid. And much of that is so-called "tied-aid". (You can have the money if and only if you buy stuff from us with it). This is a bit less than the 0.7% target we've had since the days of Pearson and less than many other countries in the world including the USA. Why is that? The left's been in control of Canada's foreign policy throughout most of our history. The Liberal party is occaisionally referred to as the "natural governing party" after all. So why isn't foreign aid at a level that Pearson proposed? The answer is choices. The money available to the government isn't unlimited. If you spend something on one thing you're making a choice not to spend it on something else. This is why I'm against social programs that don't deliver maximum return. Because if we fund something that doesn't work or works badly because it sounds good, something else much more important can't get funded...
Well I just read back through what I wrote... It's pretty all over the place. Mostly because this is an all over the place set of ideas. I should probably be more coherent before I publish this, but this is my rants page so I'm going to publish it anyway. Also, I'm leaving for church, so I can't re-write this at the moment.
Feel free to comment or make suggestions.
