Women in Politics

I was just listening to a CBC program about women in politics. As usual, the theme was we need more women in politics, but the question was how do we achieve that.

To start with, it doesn't matter if my overlord is a male or female. What I care about is the restriction of my economic and personal freedom. But assuming we need politicians, why do we need more women in politics? I don't see it as a necessary conclusion.

If there is a particular characteristic of women that people want in a politician, does this have more to do with their gender or their political belief system? For example, in our Canadian parliament 16.9% of Conservatives are women compared 17.6% of Liberals. Women are equally represented on both parties. Therefore, it does not seem clear that women represent more a certain ideology than men.

Plus, if you want a certain ideology represented, wouldn't it make more sense to vote for the party or candidate who represents it, rather than voting for a woman hoping she does?

Many will say that women are less divisive and more conciliatory and therefore must be represented more because some prefer this type of politic. I would repeat what I said earlier: if you want a conciliatory candidate, vote for one, don't vote for a gender hoping that's what you'll get.

In any event, look at some famous female politicians and tell me if they are less controversial and more conciliatory. Think of Sarah Palin, Margaret Thatcher, for example. These women had two things in common: they were not conciliatory, and they are/were either loved and hated. Any politicians, male or female, who is too "nice", is usually not very well known or successful.

But the one thing people rarely consider is: what do people actually want? We have a democratic system where we vote for our leaders. Women are free to run just like men. Yet often the electorate chooses more men. If one believes in the values of a democracy, then you cannot slap the collective public on the wrist for "making the wrong decision". Who are YOU do decide what the RIGHT decision is? This is not a dictatorship.

Many claim that women don't have the same access to becoming a politicians because of family issues. Once again, because I believe in human freedom, I hate to say it, but this is a personal choice. Families don't arise accidentally. They are a deliberate choice. Women can choose to have and raise a family, and this will limit their options. Hopefully they will recognize the benefit of having a family entails a cost, but also provides benefit. Some say men should do more. If a woman feels that way and wants a man to contribute 50% to housework, then she should seek out such a man.

It's unjust for a woman to steal money from me to provide her with free daycare simply because she made certain life choices. Would we have sympathy for a man who agrees to do 90% of the housework and then runs for politics? Would we say we must provide him with a free babysitter? If so, I suggest you go ahead and provide this service to politicians who need it.

Choices have consequences and I should not be forced to bear the cost against my will. Many people have many life situations they must deal with, but who should pay the price? Of course, they should, or their family or friends. It's about voluntary interaction. Especially when those choices are freely made.

Finally, I would think many women would not want any unfair advantages provided to them at others' expense. Where is the sense of accomplishment? If a woman makes it to a political career, but only because she was the recipient of all kinds of affirmative action and government handouts, does it carry the same level of pride as if she had accomplished it on her own? I doubt it.

Public schools

Unbeknownst to some, one of the main reasons for public schools was assimilation. This is especially true in the United States. Advocates of public schools wanted to create a homogenized public who shared the same values and the "American way". This movement became especially important when there was a large influx of Irish and German immigrants. They were concerned that these Irish Catholics and Germans could not assimilate into American Protestant culture.

In Oregon, the governor went so far as to try to ban parochial (Catholic) schools altogether. Fortunately, this case went to the Supreme Court where they ruled it was unconstitutional.

Low Cost Housing and Strict Zoning are not compatible

Dennis O'Keefe is once again running for the position of mayor of St. John's, Newfoundland. His only challenger is the nearly ideologically-identical Sheilagh O'Leary. If you go to her website, you'll find she never mentions her last name anywhere. I guess she is trying to turn her name into a sort of brand-name or something.

Anyway, Overlord O'Keefe has two desires - strict city planning, building height restrictions, minimal "urban sprawl", etc. and also affordable housing. Because he has no knowledge of economics, Dennis O'Keefe cannot see the contradiction in wanting these two things. Had he attended one economics 101 class, he would have discovered that as demand goes up, if supply stays the same, price will increase. It's the most basic economic lesson.

The fact is St. John's has some of the strictest building restrictions in a country which loves restrictions. Property values are at an all-time high. The natural desire of developers in such a context is to build skyward. The more property built on a space, the less cost per unit. Another option is to build outward, expanding the size of the city. Both of these options would decrease the price of housing. But of course, this is logical and therefore no one in city council will consider it.

One objection to unrestricted building is that the Harbour will lose its cozy fishing-village look. I mean what would happen to the enormous post-card industry if multi-colored houses weren't the only things you could see! How ugly would the harbour look with those skyscrapers. Better to keep St. John's 100 years behind everyone else. Those families who want affordable housing can live somewhere else! My nostalgia matters more!

Guess what St. John's, EVERY city in North America once looked quaint. And most cities have since embraced development and modernity.

But that's not the only thing. Buildings are subject to hundreds, if not thousands, of nit-picky regulations which stifles development. I have first-hand knowledge of a building proposal for a successful company. They complied with the height requirements, were going to build parking spaces, etc. The building design which was beautiful was not approved because it didn't look like it was from a hundred years ago. By the way, the building that currently occupied the lot was a 1960s monstrosity that was now a giant nest for birds and rodents.

I always find it strange how some people think they are so important that their "desire" to keep St. John's like a little bonsai tree is more important than people's ability to live here. How much bigger and how many more thousands of people would live here if it weren't for these control freaks.

You have a right to your own property, but not everyone else's. Many people complain about large buildings destroying the view. However, if large skyscrapers could occupy the harbourfront, many MORE people would get a spectacular view. Put it this way, if there is a height restriction of 50m and that is increased to 120m, then 140% more people will get a view of the harbour.

You can't have it both ways. You either allow people to own a home at an affordable price by increasing the supply of housing or you keep your subjective post-card worthy city going and keep the price of housing very high.