robinson@ubc-ean.CDN (Jim Robinson) (10/29/84)
> > The main problem with initiatives is that their effects are seldom thought > through beyond the immediate impact. Of course people will support > an initiative that at the same time declares (i) taxes will be reduced, > (ii) the civil service will be cut, (iii) government services will > be improved. Please give the electorate some credit. It doesn't take a university degree to realize that items (i) and (ii) will conflict with item (iii). > Unfortunately, though the initiative would probably pass, > the effects would not occur: somebody broke the new law. Who is responsible? > Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction when an initiative results > in a conflict between human law and natural law? What happens when > the result is the opposite of what the original pressure group promised? If the initiative passed then taxes would go down and the civil service would be cut. Thus, at least 2 of the three effects are *guaranteed* to occur. Note that I consider items (i) and (ii) to be effects, whereas for some reason you appear to consider them to be means of achieving item (iii). What, pray tell, law is being broken? There is one heck of a difference between a desired result not being achieved and a law being broken. ( otherwise our fearless leaders in Ottawa, past and present, would be guilty of crimes too numerous to count ) If , for the sake of argument, I accept that items (i) and (ii) are the means of achieving item (iii), and if the initiative passed and item (iii) was not achieved I can't for the life of me understand how a law was broken! Please feel free to clarify this point if I'm missing something here. I am not sure what a natural law is, but if it is what I think it is then an argument can be made that there already exists conflicts between natural law and human law; even without the existence of initiatives. As for what happens when the result is the opposite of what the original "pressure" group promised: No problem. The electorate will realize they made a mistake and will vote accordingly next time around. And if indeed the result was opposite what was promised you can count on the other side getting the issue on ballot again. In fact, I would bet that the electorate would be much more likely to admit to having screwed up than your average politician, given that politicians' are notorious for being able to point a finger at any and every one except themselves. > In a referendum initiated by our representatives, at least there has > been a period of consideration, both about the wording and about what > some of the side effects may be. You can complain all you want about > "stupid" politicians, but I have yet to meet one who was as stupid as > the average person. They have to deal with a huge number of issues, > and that's why they have staffs and why we pay for research staffs for > both the government and the opposition. This period of consideration would also exist with initiatives. It would be called the campaign. I've never complained about stupid politicians and I don't recall anyone else doing so either. Like you, I believe that they are probably above average in intelligence. What I have complained about is self-serving politicians which, unfortunately, is what the majority of them are. > Referenda are appropriate on non-technical issues, where it is going > to be possible to implement the results whichever way the voting goes, > without damaging the objectives that the voters thought they were approving. > Referenda are not suitable on methods of achieving objectives. At the > moment the fashionable one is capital punishment for murder. The objective > is presumably reduced probability of being murdered; it is simply not > appropriate to ask people who do not understand the ins and outs of > the question to vote on methods of achieving this objective. The last > referendum was on independence for Quebec. That was an appropriate topic > for a referendum, since it defined the objective, not the means. If you are trying to imply that the policies our beloved politicians implement on our behalf *always* achieve their stated objective, then perhaps I can interest you in this *really* tall tower I've got for sale in Toronto. If you are not trying to imply this then there exist no differences between policies implemented via a referendum/initiative and those implemented by the politicians w.r.t. the likelihood of the policy achieving the desired goal. Appropriately run campaigns will point out the negative side effects, if any, of the the implementation of the opposing side's views. Using your example again, I suspect the opposition would have a field day with any group that claims it can reduce taxes, cut the civil service, and yet improve gov't services. If the electorate did indeed vote on that initiative and pass it, it would probably be because they thought they were paying too much in taxes and were willing to accept possibly *reduced* gov't services. I.e. as hard as it may be for some of you to believe the average person is not the uneducated and/or stupid slob that many university educated types think she/he is, and are, in fact, quite capable of recognising when they are being handed a line. And yes, they are also quite capable of differentiating between an end and a means, and, more importantly, of evaluating a given means to determine if it will achieve a given end. I would also like to point out that your choice of independence for Quebec as being an appropriate topic for a referendum because it defined the objective and not the means is, as far as I am concerned, flawed since it can be argued that independence for Quebec is a *means* of achieving the *objective* of preservation of national heritage, culture, and identity. > My vote: No on initiatives, occasionally yes on referenda. > > My suggestion: Pay more for research staff for both government and > opposition, and enforce a rule requiring disclosure of the findings > of both sides, before approval by the political masters. Your suggestion is the dinosaur approach that has been used for at least the last 20 years: If a problem exists then throw money at it ( and perhaps for good measure set up a Royal Commission ). This approach has resulted in the current deficit fiasco that this country faces and more of the same is merely throwing kerosine on the fire. It seems that basically all this boils down to the fact that you consider the average person much too stupid to be able to properly exercise some direct control over his/her life, thus necessitating that virtually all political power to be in the hands of a few; while I believe that Joe Blow off the street has every right *and* capability to make these decisions, and that too much power in the hands of too few people is not a good state of affairs. J.B. Robinson [It is rather interesting to note that judging by the sides we are taking on this issue Martin Taylor would make an excellent republican, whereas I would make a great democrat ( note the small d and small r )]
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/29/84)
===============
It seems that basically all this boils down to the fact that
you consider the average person much too stupid to be able to
properly exercise some direct control over his/her life,
thus necessitating that virtually all political power to be
in the hands of a few; while I believe that Joe Blow off the
street has every right *and* capability to make these decisions,
and that too much power in the hands of too few people is not
a good state of affairs.
J.B. Robinson
===============
There is a difference between thinking of people as stupid and
recognizing that they are uninformed. All the political philosophies
that rely on individuals to look after themselves assume (i) that
the information can in principle be obtained by anyone, and (ii) that
people have both the will and time to get it.
Philosophies that go to the other extreme, and rely on a dictator
for everything assume that the dictator is smart enough to juggle
all the factors on all issues facing the country.
My philosophy is one of balance. I abhore the removal of liberty
from individuals in matters that have little impact outside the
immediate friendship/family circle of that individual. I equally
abhore the imposition on all individuals of the need to become expert
in every matter that concerns them. I believe in trust, in delegation
of responsibility and authority, and THAT is what responsible
government is about.
===============
> In a referendum initiated by our representatives, at least there has
> been a period of consideration, both about the wording and about what
> some of the side effects may be. You can complain all you want about
> "stupid" politicians, but I have yet to meet one who was as stupid as
> the average person. They have to deal with a huge number of issues,
> and that's why they have staffs and why we pay for research staffs for
> both the government and the opposition.
This period of consideration would also exist with initiatives. It
would be called the campaign.
I've never complained about stupid politicians and I don't recall
anyone else doing so either. Like you, I believe that they are
probably above average in intelligence. What I have complained
about is self-serving politicians which, unfortunately, is
what the majority of them are.
===============
By the time the campaign is going, the questions have been settled.
Do you think the framers of initiative questions will be any less
self-serving than politicians who have to answer to the electorate
for their failures?
* * * * * * * * *
You complained about my example of a referendum to (i) cut taxes,
(ii) reduce the civil service, and (iii) improve government services.
You say that any electorate handed that would know the wool was being
pulled over their eyes. But didn't California voters get exactly
that guff in the Proposition 13 campaign, and didn't they approve it?
Granted the three conditions were not all in the wording of the
proposal, but they sure voted their pocketbooks in violation of
common sense. Look at Ray Simard's ravings in net.politics
("fuzzy-headed liberals"). All he cares about is that he stands
to gain $50/week this year if Reagan wins, and to hell with whoever
has to pay for those deficits.
Some voters care, but few could possibly become experts in even one
of the complex sets of results from an initiative. As you say, those
we pay to be experts often aren't, but at least they are better than
most. They make mistakes, but not as many as we would if we were
ruled by referendum and especially by initiative.
Some time ago, the paper reported a blind tasting of Ontario beers.
IPA was voted the best by a wide margin, and most of the others were
hard to tell apart. But which beers are top sellers? Not IPA, for sure.
The top sellers are the ones our highly skilled advertisers work on.
Are matters any different in politics?
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmthenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (10/30/84)
> > The main problem with initiatives is that their effects are seldom thought > > through beyond the immediate impact. Of course people will support > > an initiative that at the same time declares (i) taxes will be reduced, > > (ii) the civil service will be cut, (iii) government services will > > be improved. > > Please give the electorate some credit. It doesn't take a university > degree to realize that items (i) and (ii) will conflict with item > (iii). Mmm, really? Then why do introductory economics courses find it so difficult to make students understand the basic principle that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch"? (I.e., no matter what you do, there is always somebody paying for it.) I'm sure that if you asked most people explicitly, they would agree that cutting revenue and increasing service are fundamentally incompatible. But most of them will still complain bitterly that their taxes should be cut and the service to them should be improved, and their standard response to reports of injustice or hardship will be "the government should *do* something about it". There is a difference between knowing something intellectually, and appreciating it thoroughly and deeply enough that you automatically apply the knowledge to any related issues, even when it hurts. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
robinson@ubc-ean.CDN (Jim Robinson) (10/31/84)
> > =============== > It seems that basically all this boils down to the fact that > you consider the average person much too stupid to be able to > properly ........... > J.B. Robinson > =============== > There is a difference between thinking of people as stupid and > recognizing that they are uninformed. True. However you said that "... I have yet to meet one [a politician] who was as stupid as the average person". This, to me, is an implication that you think that the average person is indeed stupid. > ...................................................... > My philosophy is one of balance. I abhore the removal of liberty > from individuals in matters that have little impact outside the > immediate friendship/family circle of that individual. I equally > abhore the imposition on all individuals of the need to become expert > in every matter that concerns them. I believe in trust, in delegation > of responsibility and authority, and THAT is what responsible > government is about. Does this mean that you do not abhor the removal of say the freedom of assembly, of free speech, of political dissent? These are all liberties/freedoms that do not impact "the immediate friendship/family circle of the individual", yet are just a few of the liberties that separate us from the Guatamalas and Russias of the world. Trust! Trust? The Canadian people trusted the Liberals when they said "NO" to wage and price controls and they trusted them when they said "NO" to a gas tax hike. We all know what happened there. Trudeau *blatantly* betrayed that same trust with his 200+ patronage appointments. And it looks like Mulroney may just betray the trust put in him when he said that there will be no cuts to social programs. I do not believe in mindlessly transferring my trust to whatever group is presently controlling the country/province/city. To me, trust is something that is to be **earned**, and not something that automatically comes with the job . > =============== > By the time the campaign is going, the questions have been settled. > Do you think the framers of initiative questions will be any less > self-serving than politicians who have to answer to the electorate > for their failures? > MT Sure, the question will have been settled, but that still leaves the answers to be worked on. At least the framer's of initiative questions do not have to worry about winning a popularity contest every 4 or 5 years. If the initiative is silly then it won't be able to get enough signatures to make it to the ballot. If it does make it, then at least we know that the outcome will be decided by factors other than political expediency or because our MPs are kowtowing to the whims of the PM from whom they hope to get a patronage appointment. > * * * * * * * * * > You complained about my example of a referendum to (i) cut taxes, > (ii) reduce the civil service, and (iii) improve government services. > You say that any electorate handed that would know the wool was being > pulled over their eyes. But didn't California voters get exactly > that guff in the Proposition 13 campaign, and didn't they approve it? > Granted the three conditions were not all in the wording of the > proposal, but they sure voted their pocketbooks in violation of > common sense. Look at Ray Simard's ravings in net.politics > ("fuzzy-headed liberals"). All he cares about is that he stands > to gain $50/week this year if Reagan wins, and to hell with whoever > has to pay for those deficits. First off, how about a little tolerance towards people who don't think like you do. Isn't that what you were saying in your net.politics article that questioned why the US seemed to think that it is always right and any other country that didn't agree with it wrong. Yet, that is precisely what you are doing now by saying that the people of California voted in "violation of common sense". And yes, you're right, the three conditions were not all in prop 13. I lived in Southern California from the summer of 1981 to the summer of 1983 and from my conversations with the "natives" it sounds like the only thing prop 13 was supposed to do was *lower property taxes*. The lowering of property taxes got on ballot because at that time California's property taxes were just about the highest in the country. What aggravated the situation even more was that California also was running quite a large surplus. The citizens had apparently been asking their politicians for some kind of relief for years, but to no avail. The rest is history. I would also like to point out that California has had numerous opportunities to reverse prop 13 in other election years, but hasn't. Conclusion: the majority of the citizens are happy with the results. Also, I believe that Howard Jarvis, the original instigator of prop 13, sponsored another initiative subsequent to prop 13 which wanted to cut state income taxes in half. It *failed*. Conclusion: Californians were happy with the level of social services they were receiving and did not want to see them cut. ( They sure didn't vote their pocketbooks in that one ) Let's try and put Ray Simard's ravings into perspective. $50/week is $2600/year. That is not a small amount. That is $900 *more* than I paid for my 2nd hand Dodge Dart 3 years ago. It also helps to realize that the Federal Gov't of the US relies more on income tax for its revenues than its Canadian counterpart. There is *no* federal sales tax in the US, and the top *marginal* tax rate is 50%, and kicks in about where Canada's does, in the $50,000 range. ( Canada's *combined* top federal *and* provincial income tax rate is 50% ) When I was working in the US, I was making less than $30,000, yet my *marginal* tax rates were - federal: 34%, state: 11% . Add to that social security deductions which were a flat 6.?% and voila, I was paying over 50 cents of each additional dollar I was earning to the gov't. And you wonder why Ray Simard is mad that Mondale wants to raise *income* taxes? ( Note that the standard deduction in the US is $1000, not the almost $4000 it is in Canada, and at present there is no indexation for inflation. Indexation is supposed to start next year, but I believe Fritz said he'd axe that if he got in. Also note that all US tax rates given are for 1983, i.e. **after** Reagan's 25% across-the-board federal tax cut had fully come into effect. ) Yes, the US has to raise taxes in 1985. But not income taxes on "high" income earners ( >$25,000/year ) , as Fritz desires. I've got a lot more I could say, but since this is already too long I'll leave you with one last thought. Many states in US presently hold referendums and initiatives; California, Oregon, Washington, and Massachusetts are four that immediately come to mind. These states seem to be none the worse for this, and are, in my opinion, benefiting from this experience. Surely Canadians, who generally tend to think of themselves as more sophisticated and caring than Americans ( and thus by implication more likely to make the "right" decisions ), would also benefit. J.B. Robinson