It's been so long since I've mused over cyberspace. I've heard that people write on their blogs and then tell people to read them because they have some sort of need for attention. I disagree. I don't need attention. I just like being recognized for what I do. And having people like me. That's not attention, is it?
Sometimes I feel sorry for precipitation that isn't snow. Other than snow, no other forms of stuff that falls from the sky gets the same kind of admiration and respect, with a possible exception to rain and sunshine. I mean, snow seems to have this kind of magical quality that people have been brainwashed with that makes them look out the window when it starts to sprinkle down from the heavens and ice the world in it's "wonderfulness", scream to every person in the house that it's snowing, waking them up at what is usually an obscenely early hour, and then going outside in their pyjamas to roll around in this frostbite inducing substance against their better reasoning!
No other piece of precipitation has this power over minds! Rain can be nice at times, like when you hear it on the roof as you're going to sleep, but it doesn't cause kids to wake up in the morning and jump on mom and dad's bed saying, "Looklookmommydaddy! Rainrainitsraining!" and then proceed to go outside, catch hypothermia from wearing no boots while splashing in freezeing puddles and have to stay home watching reruns of Seinfield for the rest of the week. Which isn't that bad, considering that I haven't seen many episodes of Seinfield, but for many people that could be terrible. But no, rain isn't this evil. A typical reaction to rain is, "....unngh." or, "Hm", or, "Why didn't I remember my umberella!", or, "Shoot, now I have to drag in the furniture off of the deck!". No magic, no brainwashing, just rational, reasoned reactions. (And yes, I realize that rational and reasonable mean the same things)
Think about all the other kinds of things that come from the sky! Why don't they have any kind of brainwashing powers! There should be equal brainwashing power rights for all races of precipitation. Sunshine has been lobbying heavily with some success to gain more power over people over the last few years, and as a result it has become cool to go outside to suntan, but the rising costs of skin cancer have retaliated with a campaign against UV rays, while those people who have gotten cancer as a result of too much sun launched the extremely popular global warming doctrine to villainize the yellow giant that we circle.
Acid rain went through a particularly tough time a couple decades ago, with environmentalists segregating it from regular rain, calling it dangerous and harmful. This was obviously simply a case of hatred that stemmed from ignorance, as acid rain doesn't really have destructive properties, it's simply different from regular rain.
And if you think about snow, it's really not all that great, it kills grass and prevents the growing of any other plants. It has to be shovelled out of the way constantly, and it suffocates people in their homes while their children go beserk with their requests to go outside and build snowmen out of it. It blocks traffic, shuts down cities, and makes Canada unattractive as a tourist destination, except for those loonies who like skiing at Whistler!
I say that snow be exposed for what it really is, and that the other stuff that comes from the sky receive the same kind of crazy, brain-washed reaction from small children. Because while snow kills green things, rain gives them water, sun helps them make sugar, and acid rain turns them into compost and fertilizer.
So the next time you see acid rain falling outside, yell, scream, and run outside with your arms wide and your mouth open to receive the another kind of magic from the sky. The magic of that tingling feeling in your mouth, throat, and stomach that comes with granting a subjugated minority group of precipitation equal rights.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Canada Votes 2008
Or rather, 59% of eligible voters (13.59 million) in Canada vote for the other 32 million of us. We really have to work on that.
On October 14th, 2008, Canadians decided on another minority, Conservative government, but not necessarily in that order.
The end result was 143 seats for the Conservatives, 76 for the Liberals, 50 for the Bloc Quebecois, 37 for the NDP, 2 Independents and no Green Part seats.
Not quite the majority that Stephen Harper craved, but more seats than he had before anyways. Why didn't he get the majority? Well, it's been said that Harper's campaign had only two weaknesses that kept the majority out of his grasp; failure to capture more seats in Quebec, and the stunning success of Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams' Anything But Conservative campaign in Newfoundland and Labrador. Why was Harper unable to win seats in these two regions? For Newfoundland the answer seems obvious; the charisma of Premiers Williams and his influence on the decisions of voters on election day cannot be by any means underestimated. But in Québec, why did Harper's once strong numbers fall through?
The answer can be found in the examination of the policies pursued by the Prime Minister and how they were reacted to by la belle province. As anyone who lived through the referendum of 1995 knows, the Québecois are almost paranoid about protecting their language, rituals, and culture. The cuts to the arts in Québec of $45 million (a relatively pitiful amount by the standards of the federal budget) and bill C-10, which cut funding to films that were contrary to public policy, were highlighted by Bloc leader Gilles Ducceppe as a knife plunging towards Québec's heart. Because the sole purpose of the Bloc is to protect french culture; by separating if possible or a the very least keeping an eagle eye on the federalist parties; voters who may have chosen Conservative were persuaded to vote for the sepratists instead. This was in addition to the proposal by the Conservatives to allow youth aged 14 to be charged as adults for violent crimes, which was again highlighted by Ducceppe as an attempt to slice away the foundations of Québec.
The Liberal campaign was; in a word, disastrous. Leader Stephané Dion's choice of campaigning on the idea of a tax shift was risky at best, and although sound in reasoning failed to be explained to the public by Monsieur Dion. The tally of 76 seats is shocking, seeing as the Liberals are the naturally dominant party in the country, having recorded seats in recent elections in every province. The weakness of the leader and his inability to explain his platform resulted in the siphoning off of the red vote to the Conservatives and the NDP wherever swing ridings could be found, with a particular change noticeable in Ontario and British Columbia. The one plus to the Liberal campaign was the election of Justin Trudeau, son of the late Pierre of the same surname. With Dion stepping down as soon as Monday, party heavyweights such as Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae are sure to compete for the top red job, bringing new leadership and fresh ideas into a tired, struggling brand of politics.
Indeed it seems difficult to understand why the Liberals could possibly lose a campaign. Under Chretien, they handled the economy masterfully and eliminated an annual budget deficit of $43 billion, replacing it with surpluses that paid down our national debt and increased the amount of money that Canadians kept in their pockets. Dion himself was the dynamic author of the Clarity Act in 2001, having been appointed to cabinet by Chretien following the 1995 referendum to keep Canada unified. It was Chretien who gave a stirring address immediately following 9/11 to bolster morale and join the war on terror, and it was also Chretien who boldly stood up to be counted in defying the will of the United States in declaring war on Iraq.
Under the next Prime Minister, Paul Martin, John Gomery's uncovering of the corruption of the long-lived Liberal regime caused massive damage to the party's credibility in Québec, which was pounced on by the new leader of a bigger, better Conservative Party led by Stephen Harper. But when Harper was elected in 2006, he trimmed surpluses and spent more than any progressive Canadian government had ever before, so it is difficult to see why the Conservatives, who screwed the economy over in the 1980's and were working towards it again in the beginning of this millennium, were seen in this election as the better managers of our economy.
Again, it falls back on Dion and his failure to, for lack of a better and more cliché phrase, 'sell himself". Thus, the Liberals are reduced in seats nearly everywhere, The NDP increase seat count, and the only thing that prevents a Conservative majority is the agile politicking of Gilles Ducceppe and Danny Williams; who cashed in on Harper's insensitive image.
Enough griping about the Liberals. Lord only knows that they're getting plenty of that from...well, just about everyone.
Let's talk a little bit about the minor parties. I've already discussed Ducceppe's brilliant performance, but let's talk about the implications of it. Although this may be dampened by the economic downturn, the resurgence of the Bloc as a political force allows them the freedom to redefine their brand, and get back to their roots. Yes, I mean separatism. I will watch over the next decade or so with interest to see if the Québecois nation ruffles it's feathers again, or permanently morphs into a group that represents the interests of Québeckers as it has in the past few sittings of parliament. The future of the party is in question, but under Ducceppe faces a brighter future.
Then there's the NDP. Jack Layton is certainly the most dynamic leader, and perhaps the most radical of all the federal parties. His spending proposals smacked of classic socialism and the ideals of equalization, and he was able to sell himself far more effectively than any of the other leaders, essentially single-handedly strengthening a brand that has a far smaller traditional base than either of the other major national parties. Although cliché at times and too good at rhetoric at others, Layton is the best orator (in English at least), and most likely champion of the Canadian working class. He still faces the disadvantage of the crowded 'left-wing' of Canadian politics, and isn't nearly as dynamic or inspiring as we might like him to be.
Of course we can't forget Elizabeth May and the Green Party. With the best showing in history, the Green Party captured thousands more votes in a few ridings than it had in the party's entire history. One of those ridings happened to be the one that Elizabeth May was running in, where she garnered an astounding 12, 620 votes from the riding of Central Nova. Unfortunately, her chief rival Peter McKay, former leader of the Progressive Conservatives and popular minister of defense, got 18, 239, beating her by about 50 %. However, she did score a seat in the leader's debates in which she performed surprisingly well, and she managed to put forward her policies and topics in such a way that they stayed relevant throughout the campaign, particularly the issue of proportional representation, which was mentioned in CBC's coverage of election night several times.
Now you might be asking, what does this minority parliament mean for me, my family, and the economy?
Firstly, it means that when Harper summons the legislature, Canada will suffer terrible damage from the current economic downturn if the elected parties cannot work together to keep the ark that it our country afloat. It also means that any economic policies that are passed are more likely to represent the interests of a greater slice of the Canadian pie, because of the fact that any policy passed by this government must have the support of at least one other party. In my view, this is a very good thing, as it forces co-operation, discussion, and ultimately better governance. Slower governance maybe, but I would rather have a well thought out plan for the economy than a hastily constructed notion that I hope will work to save us from Bay Street.
Just before I close, I'd like to return to the idea that I expressed at the beginning of this post; the fact that Canada's 32 million people are being represented by 59 % of the people who can vote, about 13.5 million. Not only that, but the government, the Conservatives, received 36 % of that vote, about 4.3 million votes. That means that approximately one in every eight people decide how the rest of us are governed.
A little scary, isn't it? Now, seeing as membership in the political community of Canada is fairly mandatory, there's nothing one can really do about being ruled by the structure that's in place. But by voting, we can bring about a change in structure. If the Canadian people decide that they want proportional representation, they will elect a party that promises that in it's platform.
The only problem with this is that the society in which we live is pretty good, and no one sees any reason to change what we have. We're comfortable in buying the latest technology that the market has to offer, working in corporations for money so we can buy material goods, watching our favorite T.V. show on Wednesday nights (actually mine is on Tuesday - Rick Mercer is brilliant), and believing everything that the news tells us. We aren't being harmed, life is good, so why change it?
We just don't care. We see no reason why we should.
What's the solution? Ironically, our free market system might be creating one for us; crisis. If things do get bad and they need to be changed, then we'll conveniently remember our democratic right and exercise it promptly.
But until then?
Like Stephen Harper said: God Bless Canada.
On October 14th, 2008, Canadians decided on another minority, Conservative government, but not necessarily in that order.
The end result was 143 seats for the Conservatives, 76 for the Liberals, 50 for the Bloc Quebecois, 37 for the NDP, 2 Independents and no Green Part seats.
Not quite the majority that Stephen Harper craved, but more seats than he had before anyways. Why didn't he get the majority? Well, it's been said that Harper's campaign had only two weaknesses that kept the majority out of his grasp; failure to capture more seats in Quebec, and the stunning success of Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams' Anything But Conservative campaign in Newfoundland and Labrador. Why was Harper unable to win seats in these two regions? For Newfoundland the answer seems obvious; the charisma of Premiers Williams and his influence on the decisions of voters on election day cannot be by any means underestimated. But in Québec, why did Harper's once strong numbers fall through?
The answer can be found in the examination of the policies pursued by the Prime Minister and how they were reacted to by la belle province. As anyone who lived through the referendum of 1995 knows, the Québecois are almost paranoid about protecting their language, rituals, and culture. The cuts to the arts in Québec of $45 million (a relatively pitiful amount by the standards of the federal budget) and bill C-10, which cut funding to films that were contrary to public policy, were highlighted by Bloc leader Gilles Ducceppe as a knife plunging towards Québec's heart. Because the sole purpose of the Bloc is to protect french culture; by separating if possible or a the very least keeping an eagle eye on the federalist parties; voters who may have chosen Conservative were persuaded to vote for the sepratists instead. This was in addition to the proposal by the Conservatives to allow youth aged 14 to be charged as adults for violent crimes, which was again highlighted by Ducceppe as an attempt to slice away the foundations of Québec.
The Liberal campaign was; in a word, disastrous. Leader Stephané Dion's choice of campaigning on the idea of a tax shift was risky at best, and although sound in reasoning failed to be explained to the public by Monsieur Dion. The tally of 76 seats is shocking, seeing as the Liberals are the naturally dominant party in the country, having recorded seats in recent elections in every province. The weakness of the leader and his inability to explain his platform resulted in the siphoning off of the red vote to the Conservatives and the NDP wherever swing ridings could be found, with a particular change noticeable in Ontario and British Columbia. The one plus to the Liberal campaign was the election of Justin Trudeau, son of the late Pierre of the same surname. With Dion stepping down as soon as Monday, party heavyweights such as Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae are sure to compete for the top red job, bringing new leadership and fresh ideas into a tired, struggling brand of politics.
Indeed it seems difficult to understand why the Liberals could possibly lose a campaign. Under Chretien, they handled the economy masterfully and eliminated an annual budget deficit of $43 billion, replacing it with surpluses that paid down our national debt and increased the amount of money that Canadians kept in their pockets. Dion himself was the dynamic author of the Clarity Act in 2001, having been appointed to cabinet by Chretien following the 1995 referendum to keep Canada unified. It was Chretien who gave a stirring address immediately following 9/11 to bolster morale and join the war on terror, and it was also Chretien who boldly stood up to be counted in defying the will of the United States in declaring war on Iraq.
Under the next Prime Minister, Paul Martin, John Gomery's uncovering of the corruption of the long-lived Liberal regime caused massive damage to the party's credibility in Québec, which was pounced on by the new leader of a bigger, better Conservative Party led by Stephen Harper. But when Harper was elected in 2006, he trimmed surpluses and spent more than any progressive Canadian government had ever before, so it is difficult to see why the Conservatives, who screwed the economy over in the 1980's and were working towards it again in the beginning of this millennium, were seen in this election as the better managers of our economy.
Again, it falls back on Dion and his failure to, for lack of a better and more cliché phrase, 'sell himself". Thus, the Liberals are reduced in seats nearly everywhere, The NDP increase seat count, and the only thing that prevents a Conservative majority is the agile politicking of Gilles Ducceppe and Danny Williams; who cashed in on Harper's insensitive image.
Enough griping about the Liberals. Lord only knows that they're getting plenty of that from...well, just about everyone.
Let's talk a little bit about the minor parties. I've already discussed Ducceppe's brilliant performance, but let's talk about the implications of it. Although this may be dampened by the economic downturn, the resurgence of the Bloc as a political force allows them the freedom to redefine their brand, and get back to their roots. Yes, I mean separatism. I will watch over the next decade or so with interest to see if the Québecois nation ruffles it's feathers again, or permanently morphs into a group that represents the interests of Québeckers as it has in the past few sittings of parliament. The future of the party is in question, but under Ducceppe faces a brighter future.
Then there's the NDP. Jack Layton is certainly the most dynamic leader, and perhaps the most radical of all the federal parties. His spending proposals smacked of classic socialism and the ideals of equalization, and he was able to sell himself far more effectively than any of the other leaders, essentially single-handedly strengthening a brand that has a far smaller traditional base than either of the other major national parties. Although cliché at times and too good at rhetoric at others, Layton is the best orator (in English at least), and most likely champion of the Canadian working class. He still faces the disadvantage of the crowded 'left-wing' of Canadian politics, and isn't nearly as dynamic or inspiring as we might like him to be.
Of course we can't forget Elizabeth May and the Green Party. With the best showing in history, the Green Party captured thousands more votes in a few ridings than it had in the party's entire history. One of those ridings happened to be the one that Elizabeth May was running in, where she garnered an astounding 12, 620 votes from the riding of Central Nova. Unfortunately, her chief rival Peter McKay, former leader of the Progressive Conservatives and popular minister of defense, got 18, 239, beating her by about 50 %. However, she did score a seat in the leader's debates in which she performed surprisingly well, and she managed to put forward her policies and topics in such a way that they stayed relevant throughout the campaign, particularly the issue of proportional representation, which was mentioned in CBC's coverage of election night several times.
Now you might be asking, what does this minority parliament mean for me, my family, and the economy?
Firstly, it means that when Harper summons the legislature, Canada will suffer terrible damage from the current economic downturn if the elected parties cannot work together to keep the ark that it our country afloat. It also means that any economic policies that are passed are more likely to represent the interests of a greater slice of the Canadian pie, because of the fact that any policy passed by this government must have the support of at least one other party. In my view, this is a very good thing, as it forces co-operation, discussion, and ultimately better governance. Slower governance maybe, but I would rather have a well thought out plan for the economy than a hastily constructed notion that I hope will work to save us from Bay Street.
Just before I close, I'd like to return to the idea that I expressed at the beginning of this post; the fact that Canada's 32 million people are being represented by 59 % of the people who can vote, about 13.5 million. Not only that, but the government, the Conservatives, received 36 % of that vote, about 4.3 million votes. That means that approximately one in every eight people decide how the rest of us are governed.
A little scary, isn't it? Now, seeing as membership in the political community of Canada is fairly mandatory, there's nothing one can really do about being ruled by the structure that's in place. But by voting, we can bring about a change in structure. If the Canadian people decide that they want proportional representation, they will elect a party that promises that in it's platform.
The only problem with this is that the society in which we live is pretty good, and no one sees any reason to change what we have. We're comfortable in buying the latest technology that the market has to offer, working in corporations for money so we can buy material goods, watching our favorite T.V. show on Wednesday nights (actually mine is on Tuesday - Rick Mercer is brilliant), and believing everything that the news tells us. We aren't being harmed, life is good, so why change it?
We just don't care. We see no reason why we should.
What's the solution? Ironically, our free market system might be creating one for us; crisis. If things do get bad and they need to be changed, then we'll conveniently remember our democratic right and exercise it promptly.
But until then?
Like Stephen Harper said: God Bless Canada.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Philosophy Essay
This was an essay I wrote for Political Philosophy at Queen's. I haven't gotten it back yet, so I don't know how well I did. A couple disclaimers first though. This is a long post. I think it's just over 1600 words with the citations; which are by the way, in brackets like this (citation #) with a corresponding number footnoted at the end with the source. Also, this being philosophy, it involves being familiar with a few well known thinkers in the world of political philosophy, but I tired all the same to make it clear and understandable.
What kind of state protects individual freedoms best?
The Enforcement of Liberty and Redistribution of Opportunity:
Why a Welfare State is Best at Defending Individual Freedom
by Jordan Ray
(1) Mill, J.S.. "On Liberty" pp. 17-19 Political Ideologies & Political Philosophies 2nd Edition, ed. H.D. McCollough (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, 1995)
(2) Rawls, John. "Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical" pp. 32-35 Political Ideologies & Political Philosophies 2nd Edition, ed. H.D. McCollough (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, 1995)
(3) Nozick, Robert. "Distributive Justice" pp. 78-80 Political Ideologies & Political Philosophies 2nd Edition, ed. H.D. McCollough (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, 1995)
(4) Locke, John. "Of Property" pp. 2-5 Political Ideologies & Political Philosophies 2nd Edition, ed. H.D. McCollough (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, 1995)
(5) Beveridge, William H.. "Maintenance of Employment." pp. 115-117 Political Ideologies & Political Philosophies 2nd Edition, ed. H.D. McCollough (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, 1995)
What kind of state protects individual freedoms best?
The Enforcement of Liberty and Redistribution of Opportunity:
Why a Welfare State is Best at Defending Individual Freedom
by Jordan Ray
Many thinkers agree that some form of freedom is essential for any society to function, how that freedom is defined and what kind of state protects it best has for years been a point of contention. This author believes that a good definition of freedom should be universally applicable, and should afford every person the choice of maximum utility. In this paper, I will argue that the ideas of J.S. Mill, William H. Beveridge, and John Rawls define freedom the best and give compelling explanations as to why it is important. I will also briefly outline what Rawls’ idea of a welfare state is and how it protects individual freedoms the best.
Individual freedom means that everyone should have control over their own lives, giving them the ability to fulfill their maximum potential. J.S. Mill (1) referred to this concept of being master of one’s fate when outlining his liberty principle. He believed that liberty was attained through ensuring three essential freedoms. The first of these was freedom of thought and conscience. This freedom guarantees right to expression of one’s beliefs and values. The second was freedom of taste, essentially allowing for everyone to engage in whatever kind of strange practices or activities they wished. Finally, Mills iterated that freedom of association should be protected; allowing people to make friends whomever they wanted to or join whatever kinds of groups they wanted to.
The first, freedom of thought and conscience, is one of the most basic and universally recognized rights. If we refer to the concept of liberty described previously, we can see that an inability to communicate our thought and beliefs to others would not mesh well with the notion of being in command of our own affairs. To take an example, if a person is forbidden by society to say that they believe that we should have more doctors and their goal is to become a politician elected on this platform, they are clearly not the masters of their own fates.
We can also reason that freedom of taste and association are essential aspects of liberty. On the subject of taste, if a person is publicly ridiculed because of a choice of hairstyle or clothing and as a result feels pressured to change, they are not in control of their own lives. To relate this to the freedom of association, if a person was ridiculed in the same way for simply congregating with a particular group of people, they cannot attest to being responsible for their own affairs.
Crucial to Mill’s idea of liberty was also the harm principle. He worried that if too many people shared a belief that was negative for another group of people; a tyrannical majority could overwhelm a smaller group and cause them harm. Because of this, freedom should be granted only as long as it does not harm others.
Defining liberty is fine, but what about its importance? If we must define a state that defends liberty, we should ensure it is worth defending. Returning to Mill, he suggested that allowing freedom encourages diversity and a market of thoughts, which allows everyone to explore the world and find an area in which they can maximize their potential. Because of so many competing thoughts, beliefs, tastes, and groups to choose from, the subject matter most suitable for us is constantly improving. By creating an environment of ideas and groupings that continuously challenge each other, diversity benefits us all. Finding what is best for us to pursue allows us to increase our utility, or personal well being, which is why Mill’s argues that utility should be the goal of everyone. This author would add that having and using the ability to discover something that maximizes our utility also multiplies our self worth and happiness with a sense of empowerment and achievement.
Utility and happiness being our goal and freedom being our vehicle, the shield that we use to protect it comes in the form of the welfare state as defended by John Rawls (2). But before we can get into the details of the welfare state, we must address another principle on which Rawls bases the welfare state, equality of opportunity.
Equality of opportunity establishes that to achieve utility, certain primary goods; such as education, minimum income, food, shelter, good health, etc., are required to pave the road. Let us take a homeless person, Joe, for example. If Joe lives on the streets, has no money or job, little food or clothing, no shelter, and no education, there is little he can do to achieve something that grants him maximum utility. However, if the state provides him with education, shelter and food, he can eventually get a job and pursue more advanced education. More advanced education leads to better jobs, and as he continues to learn and work, he moves from being dependant on the state to achieving his maximum utility. In short, with the provision of equal opportunity, Joe has the choice of becoming a doctor, lawyer, scientist, or engineer, or whatever occupation fulfills his potential best. Without the support of the state, Joe is still free to believe whatever he wants, but he can never climb out of destitution to lead a full and satisfying life. Equality of opportunity, along with the provisions outlined by Mill’s principle of liberty is what constitutes true freedom.
To ensure individual freedom, we need a state that enforces the liberty principle and guarantees equality of opportunity. In order to provide these, the state must be capable of redistributing the primary goods necessary to achieve utility, and it must also be capable of enforcing the liberty principle. Re-distributing primary goods generally comes in the form of taxes on individuals and corporations, which the government then uses to finance the providing of services, such as; education; low-income housing; and health care, and also finance the monetary support of the “Joes” of society. The importance of primary goods has already been established within the principle of equality of opportunity, whereas they allow even those on the bottom-most rung of society to lead a fulfilling life. Enforcing liberty usually entails the establishment of a legal system to write, enforce, and interpret rules to protect that liberty. In Canada, our elected parliament writes our laws, the cabinet and police force ensure the laws are followed, and our judicial system determines how those who break the laws should be punished. The combination of government involvement in the imposition of liberty and equality of opportunity results in something that Rawls calls the welfare state.’
With the state’s involvement not only in the question of liberty, but also in the question of equal opportunity, the role of the state is more than some rightwing thinkers might like, and less than some left wing thinkers may desire. Right wing advocates such as the late Robert Nozick (3) would say that a state such as this would infringe on a person’s liberty. However, Nozick takes his definition of liberty to include the right to property as described by the father of classical liberalism, John Locke (4). William H. Beveridge (5) would counter that although owning property is fine, the right to accumulate property result in some individuals controlling the means of production of essential goods. As a result of this, the controller of the means of production has far more power over individuals that he or she should, and the ability to protect individual liberty is lost. In other words under the welfare state, owning property is fine and people should have their property protected, but it is not a fundamental right, especially when it leads to control of essential means of production.
The welfare state also comes under fire from the left side of the political spectrum. In one particularly prominent accusation, egalitarian thinkers believe that even though the worst off benefit in the welfare state, some only slightly better off groups do not benefit at all. The general premise of the argument is that while some equality has been achieved, more must be done by the state to make the society truly fair. A counter argument to this, although it takes a cynical outlook on human nature, defends the welfare state from this attack. If one is able to achieve personal utility it states, then that person is more likely to use their talents to provide global utility through innovation or entrepreneurship. For example, if Canadian CEO of Research in Motion, Jim Balsillie, refuses to develop the Blackberry unless he can become fabulously rich, then, in an egalitarian society, the whole world goes without the popular smartphone. In other words, if there is no personal incentive to improve everyone’s well being, then no advancements are ever made, and prosperity for everyone suffers.
While not libertarian enough for the right-wingers, nor socialist enough for the left-wingers, the welfare state does its job of protecting individual freedoms well. By legislating and enforcing the rules of liberty and redistributing primary goods to provide equality of opportunity, the welfare state is the type of government that most effectively protects individual freedoms.
Individual freedom means that everyone should have control over their own lives, giving them the ability to fulfill their maximum potential. J.S. Mill (1) referred to this concept of being master of one’s fate when outlining his liberty principle. He believed that liberty was attained through ensuring three essential freedoms. The first of these was freedom of thought and conscience. This freedom guarantees right to expression of one’s beliefs and values. The second was freedom of taste, essentially allowing for everyone to engage in whatever kind of strange practices or activities they wished. Finally, Mills iterated that freedom of association should be protected; allowing people to make friends whomever they wanted to or join whatever kinds of groups they wanted to.
The first, freedom of thought and conscience, is one of the most basic and universally recognized rights. If we refer to the concept of liberty described previously, we can see that an inability to communicate our thought and beliefs to others would not mesh well with the notion of being in command of our own affairs. To take an example, if a person is forbidden by society to say that they believe that we should have more doctors and their goal is to become a politician elected on this platform, they are clearly not the masters of their own fates.
We can also reason that freedom of taste and association are essential aspects of liberty. On the subject of taste, if a person is publicly ridiculed because of a choice of hairstyle or clothing and as a result feels pressured to change, they are not in control of their own lives. To relate this to the freedom of association, if a person was ridiculed in the same way for simply congregating with a particular group of people, they cannot attest to being responsible for their own affairs.
Crucial to Mill’s idea of liberty was also the harm principle. He worried that if too many people shared a belief that was negative for another group of people; a tyrannical majority could overwhelm a smaller group and cause them harm. Because of this, freedom should be granted only as long as it does not harm others.
Defining liberty is fine, but what about its importance? If we must define a state that defends liberty, we should ensure it is worth defending. Returning to Mill, he suggested that allowing freedom encourages diversity and a market of thoughts, which allows everyone to explore the world and find an area in which they can maximize their potential. Because of so many competing thoughts, beliefs, tastes, and groups to choose from, the subject matter most suitable for us is constantly improving. By creating an environment of ideas and groupings that continuously challenge each other, diversity benefits us all. Finding what is best for us to pursue allows us to increase our utility, or personal well being, which is why Mill’s argues that utility should be the goal of everyone. This author would add that having and using the ability to discover something that maximizes our utility also multiplies our self worth and happiness with a sense of empowerment and achievement.
Utility and happiness being our goal and freedom being our vehicle, the shield that we use to protect it comes in the form of the welfare state as defended by John Rawls (2). But before we can get into the details of the welfare state, we must address another principle on which Rawls bases the welfare state, equality of opportunity.
Equality of opportunity establishes that to achieve utility, certain primary goods; such as education, minimum income, food, shelter, good health, etc., are required to pave the road. Let us take a homeless person, Joe, for example. If Joe lives on the streets, has no money or job, little food or clothing, no shelter, and no education, there is little he can do to achieve something that grants him maximum utility. However, if the state provides him with education, shelter and food, he can eventually get a job and pursue more advanced education. More advanced education leads to better jobs, and as he continues to learn and work, he moves from being dependant on the state to achieving his maximum utility. In short, with the provision of equal opportunity, Joe has the choice of becoming a doctor, lawyer, scientist, or engineer, or whatever occupation fulfills his potential best. Without the support of the state, Joe is still free to believe whatever he wants, but he can never climb out of destitution to lead a full and satisfying life. Equality of opportunity, along with the provisions outlined by Mill’s principle of liberty is what constitutes true freedom.
To ensure individual freedom, we need a state that enforces the liberty principle and guarantees equality of opportunity. In order to provide these, the state must be capable of redistributing the primary goods necessary to achieve utility, and it must also be capable of enforcing the liberty principle. Re-distributing primary goods generally comes in the form of taxes on individuals and corporations, which the government then uses to finance the providing of services, such as; education; low-income housing; and health care, and also finance the monetary support of the “Joes” of society. The importance of primary goods has already been established within the principle of equality of opportunity, whereas they allow even those on the bottom-most rung of society to lead a fulfilling life. Enforcing liberty usually entails the establishment of a legal system to write, enforce, and interpret rules to protect that liberty. In Canada, our elected parliament writes our laws, the cabinet and police force ensure the laws are followed, and our judicial system determines how those who break the laws should be punished. The combination of government involvement in the imposition of liberty and equality of opportunity results in something that Rawls calls the welfare state.’
With the state’s involvement not only in the question of liberty, but also in the question of equal opportunity, the role of the state is more than some rightwing thinkers might like, and less than some left wing thinkers may desire. Right wing advocates such as the late Robert Nozick (3) would say that a state such as this would infringe on a person’s liberty. However, Nozick takes his definition of liberty to include the right to property as described by the father of classical liberalism, John Locke (4). William H. Beveridge (5) would counter that although owning property is fine, the right to accumulate property result in some individuals controlling the means of production of essential goods. As a result of this, the controller of the means of production has far more power over individuals that he or she should, and the ability to protect individual liberty is lost. In other words under the welfare state, owning property is fine and people should have their property protected, but it is not a fundamental right, especially when it leads to control of essential means of production.
The welfare state also comes under fire from the left side of the political spectrum. In one particularly prominent accusation, egalitarian thinkers believe that even though the worst off benefit in the welfare state, some only slightly better off groups do not benefit at all. The general premise of the argument is that while some equality has been achieved, more must be done by the state to make the society truly fair. A counter argument to this, although it takes a cynical outlook on human nature, defends the welfare state from this attack. If one is able to achieve personal utility it states, then that person is more likely to use their talents to provide global utility through innovation or entrepreneurship. For example, if Canadian CEO of Research in Motion, Jim Balsillie, refuses to develop the Blackberry unless he can become fabulously rich, then, in an egalitarian society, the whole world goes without the popular smartphone. In other words, if there is no personal incentive to improve everyone’s well being, then no advancements are ever made, and prosperity for everyone suffers.
While not libertarian enough for the right-wingers, nor socialist enough for the left-wingers, the welfare state does its job of protecting individual freedoms well. By legislating and enforcing the rules of liberty and redistributing primary goods to provide equality of opportunity, the welfare state is the type of government that most effectively protects individual freedoms.
(1) Mill, J.S.. "On Liberty" pp. 17-19 Political Ideologies & Political Philosophies 2nd Edition, ed. H.D. McCollough (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, 1995)
(2) Rawls, John. "Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical" pp. 32-35 Political Ideologies & Political Philosophies 2nd Edition, ed. H.D. McCollough (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, 1995)
(3) Nozick, Robert. "Distributive Justice" pp. 78-80 Political Ideologies & Political Philosophies 2nd Edition, ed. H.D. McCollough (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, 1995)
(4) Locke, John. "Of Property" pp. 2-5 Political Ideologies & Political Philosophies 2nd Edition, ed. H.D. McCollough (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, 1995)
(5) Beveridge, William H.. "Maintenance of Employment." pp. 115-117 Political Ideologies & Political Philosophies 2nd Edition, ed. H.D. McCollough (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, 1995)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
