Guys, I know I am quite late to this debate but this is a topic that really interest me and I don't see the point of starting a new topic.
I read through the whole thread and I had a question to ask. I have just really started to get interested in politics, and the philosophy around it. So I have been doing some reading and have basically come the conclusion that I think I am somewhere around a Left-Libertarian. However, I am not sure if I really anywhere in that area.
The thing is I have been having a hard time grasping an economic policy that would fit my views. I started reading up on views such as those as economic egalitarianism. However, it seems as though that system is its purest form takes it way too far. Maybe I can explain my view and if there is another name for it then just tell me. The thing is that if you take a company that pays taxes, then in theory that goes to say ACOA, to pay for start-up of a company that is their competitor. It is like shooting themselves in the foot, or well handing someone the gun and saying, ""Hey you don't mind shooting my foot do you?" It seems so stupid in principle, but to me, it gives everyone the equal the opportunity to their own choice. I mean, without things like ACOA, some people may not have the opportunity to start a business. I know some people will say go to a bank or what not, but this institutions have shown their worth in my opinion. Now, I have heard of some cases where people simply went to ACOA to just get a cheap loan for a new boat, truck, or what have you, with no intentions of starting a business, but as I say, to me these things, when run properly have their worth. They breed competitions, which is good for the market.
The thing is without competition you get monopolies. Now in this thread there were references to windows, wal-mart, and some Atlantic Canadian companies, such as those of the Irvings to name a few. The thing is, I think that people look at the market too quickly, I can still remember the many small mom and pop stores here and there. Then the big box stores came in and everyone was like, "oh no", they basically destroyed a lot of these smaller stores. The thing is I have seen a resurgence in a lot of these smaller stores lately. I will take a small ski shop that I know well. A couple big box sports stores came in the man city in the region, say about 50,000 in the area, and everyone thought it would kill the little store. I am sure at first everyone enjoyed the cheap prices, but the big stores lacked customer service and high quality products, choosing to stock the more cheap products that sold much better. However the small ski shop started to pick up on this and started increasing their sales by adding excellent customer service and quality products. You take windows for example, the market is starting to go towards Mac now finally. Wal-mart has had some easy times, but the internet is just getting started and will cut into there sales. Logistics are so much better then they were before that companies can get products to your door for almost the same cost as sending a truck pack to the top with 10,000 of the same thing. My point is the market has been changing ever since the industrial revolution at a ridiculous pace. Nobody really knows where it is going, I think the government should still be the grand overseer of the market and adjust interest rates and what not to control the market. Free trade is another area that countries don't play fair with each other, so the government must protect its citizen in making sure that trade deals will not cause a drain of jobs away and leave the economy in shambles. However, when it comes to the individual local markets, let supply and demand run the show.
Then there is the foreign affairs. My thoughts are simple on this, obviously, in the World we live in there are countries much poorer then ours. I feel that foreign aid is very important to help these countries out. Though, I think were possible we should not just hand money out as a giveaway but as a way for country to grow. For example, you give a man a $1 and he spends it on food, then he has been fed for a day. If he takes it and grows it into a profitable business, you fed him for a lifetime. We shouldn't be running all around the world doing this though. It should be cases where we are asked, and want to go into. Then there is the issue of the military. Obviously for self protection of the nation, this to me includes such things as Afghanistan, as we went there with the intention to protect our nation. Oh how some have forgot that. What we shouldn't being doing is running around the world playing police man, unless as with the aid issue, if we are called in and wish to go in on our own accord.
Anyway, after reading through the posts in this topic, I really thought I could relate to what was said in the post below.
Tango2Bravo said:
I do believe that people should be the master of their own destiny and that government does not know best. I believe that people should be responsible for their actions. I also believe that unfettered self-interest can lead to a break-down of the society in which individuals live, especially as those societies grow larger and become impersonal. It can be argued that the West (read English speaking countries) avoided revolutions because of a compromise between free-will/free trade and some form of socialism. The welfare state annoys me, but I also don't like the idea of a family being sunk if the bread-winner loses his job. I don't come from a rich family, but my knee got fixed by the same guy that fixes NHL players and my folks didn't have to go into debt. I don't want the governent to tell my how to raise my kids or decide what movies they can watch, but I do appreciate them checking on the safety of the foods that I eat and the hygiene of restaurants I eat in.
Now, I do think that we've gone a little too far down the welfare state road.
As I said earlier with foreign aid, "you give a man a $1 and he spends it on food, then he has been fed for a day. If he takes it and grows it into a profitable business, you fed him for a lifetime." I think our state, and even the organizations such as the UN have decided the way to go is with hand outs. It only benefits people in the short run. Welfare should only be there for worst case scenarios, leaving in Newfoundland, I can tell you this is by no means the case.
I have to say that all-in-all, I like the way
most of the government is structured in theory. From what I have seen, many of the social programs are good in principle and should stay in place. My thought of the whole situation is that if you have more then enough, then you should be taxed to spread some of the wealth and give the poor a fair shake at things. Obviously everyone should pay something to the nation for the cost of infrastructure, police, military and any required government services. I don't think health care should be touched, it would be absolutely crazy at this point in history for anyone to touch, in fact I think we pay too much for it as it is now. For example, I had to pay for physiotherapy recently, it is crazy to think that without insurance I would have never received this. My thoughts are also, that education should be free in trade school and university. Again, as I say, it gives everyone a fair shake at things in the end.
Then there are the touchy subjects such as homosexuality, which I have a liberal view on, abortion, I like the libertarians for life view on this. I see no point for the government to be dealing with killing people as is the case with the death penalty. However, there should be a jail system that rehabilitates those who will eventually rejoin society and keeps those locked away who are deemed a threat to public safety and cannot be rehabilitated. I don't feel the need to regulate such things as drugs (to a certain extent), prostitution and other issues such as this which are crimes that do not hurt anyone, other then possibly the parties involved, but who do this on their own accord. These are the things that waste valuable government agencies time and resources.
I guess to sum things up, I feel as though as long as the government takes a little off the top of those that have a lot to give to those who do not, then all my other views are somewhat libertarian in nature. Then again, some might be all over the place. Remember, I am still just figuring things out and I found this thread very interesting to read, expect for one poster who seemed to want to start a war.
Again, sorry for digging this up but I noticed that most of the main posters, still post regularly on this form and might be able to give me some insight into what I have said and set me straight on anything that I have said that is out of place, or out their in left-field.