The One Party System (in Canada)

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Holy long. Cliff?

Would you consider making a youtube vid of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah a video would be nice for this.

[MrMon]

Okay, I don't have time to read it now, but a video?. Geez, how lazy are you guys? Are essays and books beyond you? It's no wonder we see some of the crap we do on this board if you can't be bothered to read something long and involved. And this is something you guys agree with. Heaven forbid you read something that challenges your belief system or is neutral.

For those who think the above paragraph is TLDR here are the Cliff's Notes:

Sheesh, kids today!

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]

IMO this is just fundamentally wrong. There is no barrier to the entry of a party preaching no taxes, or lower taxes. If there was a real demand for a zero tax government, such a party would emerge and be elected. When you say "Canadians oppose taxes", what you really mean is "Canadians want lower taxes and improved government services, too". Very, very few Canadians actually want small government. Of course when you poll them them say they want cheap and big government. Who wouldn't?

Claims that "the people really want such and such a government but the system doesn't offer it" sound the same to me as claims that "people don't want to be consuming product X but the big bad corporations make it the only option". I think both are fallacies assuming that people would act like you (i.e. "the right way") if they could just "see the light". The reality is that the "menu" of choices (either political choices in a democracy or consumer choices in a market) adapt to fill demand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a necessary semantic distinction of the word "want" that makes more sense to me than using it more glibly. It arises from that proverb, "Watch what people do rather than what they say."

What exactly do you mean by "want" in the first place? I'd rather think that people pay for what they want, rather than what they say they want. I don't think, on it's face, this is unreasonable - political scientists have demonstrated that some people assuage their hypocrisy by saying one thing but voting another. The problem with this progressive position that you espouse is that you don't anywhere acknowledge the needed recognitions of opportunity costs.

Of course people want cheap and good government. I too want a McMansion, a Gulfstream jet, and other playthings. Obviously what I want most, I should be willing to pay for. There are opportunity costs I must acknowledge in my decision to choose how good, or how cheap my personal brand of government is. Am I willing to tolerate a safer product, for a higher price? Do I want Thomas Jefferson or rather the Queen on my paper bills? Again, the entire problem with government isn't that people don't want its benefits - they just aren't allowed the freedom to pay (the opportunity cost) the required amount commensurate with its intended benefits, tailored to their individual preferences. That amount of "want" should be the metric Canadians judge their governments by. And the institution of government, probably not created or directed by any nefarious end, has similar self-emergent qualities like markets. Because those elected to administer its benefits have an interest in seeking its longevity, one such emergent behavior is disintermediating the cost of any given policy from its benefits, along with the principle tool of government, its rule by fiat. When you tell me that Canadians want "cheap and good" government, you can add that to the space of infinite wants that we still haven't satisfied in 10,000 years of economic growth. I'm more interested in what they'll pay for.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO this is just fundamentally wrong. There is no barrier to the entry of a party preaching no taxes, or lower taxes. If there was a real demand for a zero tax government, such a party would emerge and be elected.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this argument is that a result like that is decidedly not in the interests of the group that controls 33% of the country's GDP, so they would probably try to stop it from happening. The government and its firms have predatory pricing capabilities which actually are a barrier to entry. It happens with postal services and stuff like that, where the government can run a loss for a period of time to run a private competitor out of business, it can happen in other things.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this argument is that a result like that is decidedly not in the interests of the group that controls 33% of the country's GDP, so they would probably try to stop it from happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they would try, and they would fail. In the hypothetical scenario hypothesized by OP where there is massive demand for a libertarian no/low tax government, surely one of these latent libertarians would run for office, win, and install the system he/she and (apparently) everyone else wants. I don't see how one can espouse free-market economics one the one hand and hypothesis a total lack of response to demand on the other.

[ QUOTE ]
The government and its firms have predatory pricing capabilities which actually are a barrier to entry. It happens with postal services and stuff like that, where the government can run a loss for a period of time to run a private competitor out of business, it can happen in other things.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a totally separate issue. We are talking about governments allegedly crowding out opposing governments, not governments crowding out private competition.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

IMO this is just fundamentally wrong. There is no barrier to the entry of a party preaching no taxes, or lower taxes. If there was a real demand for a zero tax government, such a party would emerge and be elected. When you say "Canadians oppose taxes", what you really mean is "Canadians want lower taxes and improved government services, too". Very, very few Canadians actually want small government. Of course when you poll them them say they want cheap and big government. Who wouldn't?

Claims that "the people really want such and such a government but the system doesn't offer it" sound the same to me as claims that "people don't want to be consuming product X but the big bad corporations make it the only option". I think both are fallacies assuming that people would act like you (i.e. "the right way") if they could just "see the light". The reality is that the "menu" of choices (either political choices in a democracy or consumer choices in a market) adapt to fill demand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a necessary semantic distinction of the word "want" that makes more sense to me than using it more glibly. It arises from that proverb, "Watch what people do rather than what they say."

What exactly do you mean by "want" in the first place? I'd rather think that people pay for what they want, rather than what they say they want. I don't think, on it's face, this is unreasonable - political scientists have demonstrated that some people assuage their hypocrisy by saying one thing but voting another. The problem with this progressive position that you espouse is that you don't anywhere acknowledge the needed recognitions of opportunity costs.

Of course people want cheap and good government. I too want a McMansion, a Gulfstream jet, and other playthings. Obviously what I want most, I should be willing to pay for. There are opportunity costs I must acknowledge in my decision to choose how good, or how cheap my personal brand of government is. Am I willing to tolerate a safer product, for a higher price? Do I want Thomas Jefferson or rather the Queen on my paper bills? Again, the entire problem with government isn't that people don't want its benefits - they just aren't allowed the freedom to pay (the opportunity cost) the required amount commensurate with its intended benefits, tailored to their individual preferences. That amount of "want" should be the metric Canadians judge their governments by. And the institution of government, probably not created or directed by any nefarious end, has similar self-emergent qualities like markets. Because those elected to administer its benefits have an interest in seeking its longevity, one such emergent behavior is disintermediating the cost of any given policy from its benefits, along with the principle tool of government, its rule by fiat. When you tell me that Canadians want "cheap and good" government, you can add that to the space of infinite wants that we still haven't satisfied in 10,000 years of economic growth. I'm more interested in what they'll pay for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you are saying, and I think the conclusion runs against OPs assertion about the failure of democracy in Canada to represent what "Canadians want", and I think it comes from his reliance on what people say ("I don't like taxes") and what they do (support parties that tax heavily).

[Borodog]

This has to beat my record for long windedness by a factor or 2 or 3 (or more).

I am sad. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO this is just fundamentally wrong. There is no barrier to the entry of a party preaching no taxes, or lower taxes. If there was a real demand for a zero tax government, such a party would emerge and be elected. When you say "Canadians oppose taxes", what you really mean is "Canadians want lower taxes and improved government services, too". Very, very few Canadians actually want small government. Of course when you poll them them say they want cheap and big government. Who wouldn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a Libertarian Party in Canada, but just barely. The Marijuana Party does better in terms of fielding candidates and getting votes, though.

[Archon_Wing]

Interesting thoughts, OP.

Note to the tl;dr group: Increasing font size helps. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[UlidEyes]

About your part about regulating morality... don't be fooled that governments are simply deciding what's best for you just because they think it's morally optimal. There is always an economic reason behind any moral law or regulation.