The USSR had propaganda, but everyone knew it both inside and out of the country. Eventually the overlords were ousted and people reclaimed their country. But we in Canada have been indoctrinated so well that we don't even realize we are being ruled over. We've been brainwashed into believing that we are as free as the birds because of "democracy".
The government takes our money to pay for schools, and makes other schools illegal. In these schools, students are taught how the government makes everything good and that we all owe the government a lot. We are told this is "our" government and that we all have democracy which makes us free.
So we all fall for this propaganda. It's much smarter than Soviet propaganda because we feel like this is what we've chosen, it's democratic. If we don't like it, we can simply change it!
In reality though, it's only the dictatorship of the majority. 51% of people can vote against my freedom and because we're a democracy they win.
Do I get freedom of speech? Depends - does the democracy approve?
Do I get freedom of religion? Again, it depends on what everyone else decides.
But none of us is really free. Who likes paying double for their milk? Nobody. So why do we have a government-enforced monopoly on milk which keeps the prices high? Not because everyone wanted it. It's because we are forcibly taxed for thousands of things. We do not have the time, energy, or resources to fight every individual expenditure or law. But the milk producers have a huge interest in making their voices heard and having legislation passed in their favor. They then pay for advertising to convince us. They also pay off politicians to run on their platform. Everyone else barely notices.
This happens in a thousand ways. All political parties are beholden to the interests of companies and unions, not the people.
The USSR was obvious. People felt oppressed and eventually it backfired. What Canada did was much smarter. Satisfy people with the illusion of freedom then take power.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
Anti-discrimination laws
I'm opposed to all anti-discrimination laws. I believe in personal freedom. It's easy to advocate laws which you happen to agree with, to give the government the power to enforce them. But what happens when the government turns against you and violates your rights?
No one should be forced to serve anyone of any particular characteristic if they choose not to. It is their money and they can spend it however they like. Should I also be forced to be friends with people I don't want to associate with?
What gives you the right to force me to act or associate with anyone? Who are you? Are you my overlord? Must I bow down before you?
Having said that, I think a business would probably make a bad decision by discriminating against any particular group. They would probably lose a lot of business. But that's their choice to make.
People should be free to live how they see fit, without another group of people trying to reign over them.
Also, what one person calls unjust discrimination to another person is just discrimination. Catholics only want male priests. To an atheist, this may appear nonsensical, but Catholics have the right to do as they please. What right does an atheist have to dictate to the Catholic Church who it can or cannot hire. This is an example of something which may seem just to one group but unjust to another.
You see, when we try to be dictators, everything seems fine and dandy until the laws stop working in our favor. When we become dictated to, it's less pleasant.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Should education be free?
Some people nowadays say that education is a right and that it should be free. But I disagree with this point of view. First of all, statements like "education is extremely important" is too general and is effectively meaningless. A more meaningful statement would be something like "everyone should have free access to education up to grade 10" or whatever.
The next problem is: who pays. The primary beneficiary from an education is the educated person. So they should pay the bulk or all of the cost. This is only logical. Yes, interacting with someone with a certain level of education may also indirectly benefit me or society at large, but primarly education benefits the recipient of it.
Just because something is beneficial doesn't give "society" a carte-blanche to steal money and redistribute it for this cause. Many things have indirect benefit to society such as better nutrition or mobility. Does that mean the government should also take money to pay for cars and food for everyone?
The fact of the matter is that education has a cost. There is NO SUCH THING as free education. But when something is offered free, there is often misuse of it. If I could have any car and government would subsidize it by 80 or 90%, obviously I would pick a very expensive one because I am only paying for 10 or 20% of it. Underpricing any product or service causes exaggerated demand. I know so many people who have gone parts of degrees or done completely useless ones which they will not use. Is it even possible that instead of stealing money from citizens to pay for these misused classes, the citizens themselves could have used their own money to improve their lives? Perhaps buy better clothing, or better quality food.
There are always tradeoffs and as Milton Friedman says, no free lunch.
When it comes to accessibility, this is another interesting subject. Apparently 50% of students come from the top 25% wealthiest families while only 5% come from the bottom quarter. In provinces where tuition is higher, attendances, relative to population, is actually HIGHER than in places where tuition is lower.
The main proponents and backers of free education are people in the education system, and the unions. They are the ones who do all the promotion of low or no tuition. But the government is not Santa Claus that can grant every wish.
Let's stop making everyone else poorer to pay for people to either earn more themselves or to just fool around.
The next problem is: who pays. The primary beneficiary from an education is the educated person. So they should pay the bulk or all of the cost. This is only logical. Yes, interacting with someone with a certain level of education may also indirectly benefit me or society at large, but primarly education benefits the recipient of it.
Just because something is beneficial doesn't give "society" a carte-blanche to steal money and redistribute it for this cause. Many things have indirect benefit to society such as better nutrition or mobility. Does that mean the government should also take money to pay for cars and food for everyone?
The fact of the matter is that education has a cost. There is NO SUCH THING as free education. But when something is offered free, there is often misuse of it. If I could have any car and government would subsidize it by 80 or 90%, obviously I would pick a very expensive one because I am only paying for 10 or 20% of it. Underpricing any product or service causes exaggerated demand. I know so many people who have gone parts of degrees or done completely useless ones which they will not use. Is it even possible that instead of stealing money from citizens to pay for these misused classes, the citizens themselves could have used their own money to improve their lives? Perhaps buy better clothing, or better quality food.
There are always tradeoffs and as Milton Friedman says, no free lunch.
When it comes to accessibility, this is another interesting subject. Apparently 50% of students come from the top 25% wealthiest families while only 5% come from the bottom quarter. In provinces where tuition is higher, attendances, relative to population, is actually HIGHER than in places where tuition is lower.
The main proponents and backers of free education are people in the education system, and the unions. They are the ones who do all the promotion of low or no tuition. But the government is not Santa Claus that can grant every wish.
Let's stop making everyone else poorer to pay for people to either earn more themselves or to just fool around.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Friday, March 16, 2012
The NL Fishery
I can't say I'm an expert in the fishery, but I see a lot of problems. Most are based on economic fallacies. First of all, there are all kinds of government regulation. One regulation ensures that the only people catching fish are so-called owner-operators. The logic is that this allows everyone to have a piece of the action and doesn't allow a large corporation to come in and get a "bigger piece of the pie". Problem is individual fishermen may not be as efficient as a large organization. Everyone pays for inefficiency, as prices go way up because of it. In a free market, what should happen is the more efficient processes ought to be used. This will increase profit, which will attract new investment. The new investment will attempt to undercut the price to share in the profit. This battle to offer the lowest price in order to gain more market share results in lower prices to consumers.
One of the big fallacies is to believe that if someone loses a job, they are permanently unemployed. But what ought to happen is that some people are laid off, but they move into other areas of the economy. So before it might have taken 1000 fisherman to meet the quotas, but now it takes only 500. Instead of seeing this as 500 people becoming unemployed, it's better to see them as transitioning into other areas of the economy. But where will they go?
Back to the consumer. Because the price of fish has dropped, consumers are saving money. Imagine it used to cost $9 a pound for fish, but now it costs $5 per pound and imagine the average Newfoundlander buys 20 pounds a year. That's a savings of $80 per year per Newfoundlander. They can now spend this money on other things. Maybe more visits to the restaurant, or on hockey games, or downtown, etc. The unemployed people will move in to fill those roles.
Why is this better? Quite simply, in the first example, with government regulation, there are 1000 people working in the fishery, and the average Newfoundlander's money has a certain value. By increasing the efficiency of the fishery, the average Newfoundlander's life improves because he can afford things he couldn't before, with the money he saves on buying fish. If nothing changes, the Newfoundlander remains the same, but if the free market is allowed to operate, the average Newfoundlander has more money in his pocket to spend and his quality of life increases.
The free market would work like this for every area. So many things we commonly buy are subject to tariffs, taxes, subsidies, price control, and quotas. This makes everyone poorer while helping out a few people here or there. Some countries dropped their heavy regulation of milk output. This resulted in milk that cost half as much for the same quality. If a person buys a carton of milk each week and the price goes from $4 to $2, that person will save $100 per year. I'm just giving individual products, but if this happened for all products and services, prices would continue to drop and people could use their productive output for better purposes.
One of the big fallacies is to believe that if someone loses a job, they are permanently unemployed. But what ought to happen is that some people are laid off, but they move into other areas of the economy. So before it might have taken 1000 fisherman to meet the quotas, but now it takes only 500. Instead of seeing this as 500 people becoming unemployed, it's better to see them as transitioning into other areas of the economy. But where will they go?
Back to the consumer. Because the price of fish has dropped, consumers are saving money. Imagine it used to cost $9 a pound for fish, but now it costs $5 per pound and imagine the average Newfoundlander buys 20 pounds a year. That's a savings of $80 per year per Newfoundlander. They can now spend this money on other things. Maybe more visits to the restaurant, or on hockey games, or downtown, etc. The unemployed people will move in to fill those roles.
Why is this better? Quite simply, in the first example, with government regulation, there are 1000 people working in the fishery, and the average Newfoundlander's money has a certain value. By increasing the efficiency of the fishery, the average Newfoundlander's life improves because he can afford things he couldn't before, with the money he saves on buying fish. If nothing changes, the Newfoundlander remains the same, but if the free market is allowed to operate, the average Newfoundlander has more money in his pocket to spend and his quality of life increases.
The free market would work like this for every area. So many things we commonly buy are subject to tariffs, taxes, subsidies, price control, and quotas. This makes everyone poorer while helping out a few people here or there. Some countries dropped their heavy regulation of milk output. This resulted in milk that cost half as much for the same quality. If a person buys a carton of milk each week and the price goes from $4 to $2, that person will save $100 per year. I'm just giving individual products, but if this happened for all products and services, prices would continue to drop and people could use their productive output for better purposes.
Friday, February 24, 2012
$10,000 for a comedy dvd?
I just found out the NL Gov gave wonderful grand band $10,000 to compile a DVD of their work. Who authorized this? If I want a DVD, I'll buy it, and WGB can make their money like everyone else. I didn't authorize my money to be spent this way!
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Tories poised to slash regulatory red tape
We need to see more of this type of thing in Newfoundland.
Tories poised to slash regulatory red tape:
'via Blog this'
Tories poised to slash regulatory red tape:
'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)