robinson@ubc-ean.CDN (Jim Robinson) (09/30/84)
> We had that "freedom of choice" for many years in the U.S. Still > people starved, went homeless and died from exposure. > > Sounds nice. Doesn't work. Next idea. I personally do not object to the government using some of my money to ensure that people do not starve, die from exposure, or sleep under bridges. BUT, I do object to the government wasting my money! Included in the waste category, as far as I am concerned, are: - paying unemployment insurance to people who *quit* their jobs - continued funding of boondoggles like De Havilland - using government planes to fly around the country even when Air Canada (or some other air line ) offers frequent service on the desired route - paying welfare to people who are neither attempting to upgrade themselves by learning a trade, ( and hence get off of welfare) nor doing any community work in return for that payment - creating multi-million dollar commissions whose benefits tend to approach nil ( e.g. MacDonald Commission ) - attempting to buy votes, ( be it from a riding or a special interest group, or whoever ) - misuse of patronage ( e.g. Eugene Whelan and the job created especially for him ) - the Senate ( I can buy a rubber stamp in a store for a lot less than what those guys are paid ) The libertarian philosophy may be somewhat extreme, but when I consider the way the previous federal government seemed to think that the taxpayer was an infinite money source it becomes easier to see how someone could adopt said philosophy. The basic problem with *most* governments is that they believe they can solve any problem by throwing money at it; and the more money, the better. Trudeau thought he could cure all social ills this way, and Reagan thinks he can "keep the free world free" this way. ( I expect most of you have heard the horror stories of the US military paying outrageous sums for everyday items like wrenches and diodes ) However, what they tend to end up doing is treating the symptom and *not* the cause. Building bigger and better bombs is treating the symptom; reaching an understanding of some kind with the USSR is treating the cause. Adopting "equal pay for work of equal value" legislation is treating the symptom; encouraging high school students to go into non-traditional fields ( e.g. encouraging females to go into engineering ) is treating the cause. Admittedly, treating the symptom would be more attractive to a politician since there is usually a larger *short* term return in doing so ,( e.g. adopting EPFWOEV legislation would increase women's wages today, and not 5 or 10 years down the road ) and your average politician is motivated by short term results. But, I believe that there is something intuitively wrong in this approach and can only result in more problems later on. J.B. Robinson