CalgaryLiberal

Archive for the ‘Policy’ Category

I have been mulling over the recent CBC article where Richard Fadden, CSIS head, stated that Canadian politicians and politicians-to-be are being influenced by foreign powers. Specifically, the following two lines caught my interest:

At least five countries are surreptitiously recruiting future political prospects in universities, he said. Middle East countries are also involved.

These countries are recruiting students in university, paying for their trips, and likely coughing up cash for tuition and the like. And there’s probably free ipods somewhere in the deal, too.

One big question that popped into my mind, and likely every other university student in Canada, is, well, where is my foreign backer?

Jeeze. I’m a up and coming young man. I’m in university. I like free trips, etcetera, and I am well acquainted with debate, public speaking, and strategising. I’m a tactical thinker. I can communicate fairly well, both in text and in person. I am fairly charming, or at least I’d like to think so. I don’t look that bad, either. I’ve also been elected to things, showing some talent in the political sphere. Also, I have this blog and, strangely enough, people choose to read it.

So where is my foreign backer? My bills are piling up and I have increased tuition to pay for in the fall (hurray for the deficits, the financial mismanagement, and anti-education folks in Edmonton and Ottawa). I also have to deal with rising costs of books and, well, I’ve never owned an Ipod (or any handheld audio device).

Err… Yeah. Small bit of resentment from this camp at the moment. Am I not good enough for tin-pot dictatorships, communist neocracies, and thuggish kleptocracies? And the Americans–who we trade to the tune of almost 75% of our foreign trade with and have a level of connections between persons and groups likely unseenbefore  in history–why aren’t they barking up my tree? Then all those states that are readily Canada’s allies, whomever is jumping into this exercise, why aren’t they prodding me?

Or, at the very least, setting up a relationship?

Personally, I can understand the Chinese being hesitant about me. I’m a bit of a rabble rouser in my spare time and, well, that’s a tad bit troublesome for a country who has tossed journalists and political threats into jail.

The Israelis probably think I smell funny. And the French think I enjoy too much Argentinian wine (mmmm… I love my malbecs) to be backed. Germany is out by virtue of my Czechslovakian heritage (invade me once, shame on you…).

But those other countries? I’d think Saudi Arabia or Iran would be knocking down my door. Brazil and Italy should be shipping me gold plated soccer balls by the dozen. And the Americans? Well, obviously, they’d be interested in me–probably be able to fund my education outright at one of their Ivy League schools.

Obviously I’m jesting about all of this. Of course I don’t want a spy agency backing me or other things. But, rather, how about a different twist on all of this? Rather than viewing and pushing such connections to a malevolent end.. we could make these connections face sunlight and be utilized by the greater society–we could make it so that these connections were encouraged, tempered by an even hand at the keel, and generate a sizable bit of connections across the world.

It would open up so much opportunity for me. And it’d open up so much opportunity for Canada at large.

Seriously. I’m seeing an upside to this, err, ‘network’ if every student, every Canadian, and every group had dozens of connections and lines to organizations, states or otherwise, outside of Canada. Imagine the support students would get on tuition, knowledge, experiences, heritage, finances, trade, business, and a multitude of other things? And wouldn’t it be a two-way street for influence–ei: couldn’t Canada lead the world by virtue of her connections and placement in it?

If anything, I think Canada should encourage its students to jump out of the crowd and take hold of gaining experience and connections outside of Canada. Imagine the benefits that could be accrued for us–free trade world ’round, businesses forming in Canada to wield an economic throne that stretches out like a web across the planet, and an invigorated public bursting at the seams with both people and ideas!

Of course in all things there are risks. A bad choice here, a misaligned policy there, or a failure in communication or a miss-allocation of resources, could spell a bit of trouble for Canada. But that is simply the rules of any game: for every venture ventured there is a risk that will either end in a reward or a rebuffing of that player. I say play the game and play the world to Canada’s increasingly global talent.

It is a talent, by the way. No other country can boast the group of people who call themselves Canadians. We’re some of the most education people on the planet, holders of resources that’ll be fundamental to prosperity in the 21st century, and, for all intents and purposes, the 21st century is Canada’s to guide.

Obviously you can tell I’ve been reading up on Ignatieff’s Global Network [PDF] policy book. Err, I suppose it wouldn’t be too obvious since only hardcore politicos read 30-page policy manuals on their free time. But here’s a key piece of what Ignatieff and the Liberal Party has put together:

Networks define how the world works today, as hierarchies did in the past. Influence is gained through connectedness, and by being at the centre of networks. That is good news for Canada, because we have a reputation for being able to work with others, we have shaped many multilateral organizations, and our population today reflects the diversity of the world Networks define how the world works today, as hierarchies did in the past. Influence is gained through connectedness, and by being at the centre of networks. That is good news for Canada, because we havea reputation for being able to work with others, we have shaped many multilateral organizations, and ourpopulation today reflects the diversity of the world

So rather than a foreign backer perhaps I can get a foreign friend? Mind you, it’ll mean I’ll likely not be receiving an Ipod but this arrangement, of connectedness around the world, might allot a greater benefit to Canada.

I enjoy thinking of things in alternative points of views. This is why I try to meet people of alternative view points and political bents to expand both my mind and my knowledge of other things. A part of this want of learning and expansion of my knowledge would be arguing for the things that one side wants through the eyes of “another” side.

Thus the bane of Libertarians and far right market-worshipers everywhere–public healthcare–can be argued for in their own ideology.

First of, definitions:

• Libertarianism is an ideology focused on the priority that an individual, mostly free of the state or other organizations, will strive for the most gain at his or her own ability/skills, with the compounding benefits of many individuals creating a better, more economically sound world. The minimization or removal of the state is sometimes thought up as a part of Libertarianism but this is only the case in certain strains of Libertarianism.

• Public Healthcare is a form of delivery for health care provided by the state, and is paid for by the greater society (businesses, individuals, corporations, and otherwise). It is a system in place to deliver health care to as many people as possible, regardless of the serviced person’s wealth, social status, or location.

Then my argument:

I would argue that “mostly free of the state or other organizations” should also have the caveat that persons should be free of fate, chance, or non-economic factors on their ability to sustain themselves and be productive. In other words, when someone is struck by lightning and put into the hospital that hospital should do everything in its power to save that person, forgetting about either profit or any other consideration (such as economic output or social status).

• This creates an increased level of opportunity for individuals since they are free from the constraints of devastating, unforeseen catastrophe and can therefor operate more effectively and efficiently. With the understanding that if a person comes down with cancer, loses a limb, or is inextricably harmed, that person can avoid bankruptcy if public health care can be provided, lending financial solvency to individuals when the unforeseen occurs. This is an impetus for innovation, risk taking, and a protection against service-/product-unrelated catastrophes.

• Concurrently with this equalization of individuals good products and services–and future good products and services–can be protected if the holders of those goods/services can be sustained through periods of upheavals where those individuals are pulled from providing those goods/services. This provides a long term stability that is fundamental to engendering a stronger economy and work capital.

Essentially what these two points lightly touch around is the idea that we can remove a variable–of chance–from the equation of individuals succeeding and contributing to the greater economy by providing public health care. Removal of this barrier to innovation and productivity can thereby be a good thing for other markets, as costs associated with people, businesses, and organizations can be reduced so that they may focus on the business of, well, business.

Public healthcare provides stability and efficiency for markets and for people. It removes a variable–of chance–from the equation of the success of people/products/services, allowing for greater competition and success for the general economy. And there we go–a Libertarian argument for public healthcare.

We don’t trust judges so we put in place mandatory minimums.

We don’t trust pardon boards so we go to the 11th hour to deny a pardon to someone who likely wouldn’t have gotten one anyway.

We don’t trust politicians so we demand that they spend more time accounting their endeavors than governing.

We don’t trust politicians so we pull them in front of tribunals, commissions, and everything else.

The governing party doesn’t trust Canadians so they lock them away for a narcotic that is less addictive and less harmful than cigarettes.

The governing party doesn’t trust Canadians so they put more and more legislation limiting their rights.

Gerrymandering is a mainstay of politicians and bureaucrats unwilling to trust the people.

The governing party doesn’t trust Canadians to make the right choice on their television choices so they subsidize an ideological channel.

The governing party doesn’t trust bureaucrats, Canadians, or its own politicians so it churns out MEPs (Message Event Proposals) to shut down any changes, any accountability, or any semblance of openness.

The governing party doesn’t trust reporters and Canadians so they shut down freedom of information requests.

There is a low estimate of the human spirit and of humanity in Ottawa. The Liberals over the last few months call it the “Culture of Deceit” and the “Cult of Fear”. The NDP say it’s the same old politics by the same old people. The Conservative continue on with their triumphalist pandering. The same can be said of Edmonton.

But where’s the trust?

The Conservatives have always spoken about local government in their past elections, but they’ve done the opposite. The NDP want equality for all, but their rhetoric has turned to political pandering and, in all seriousness, they have undermined every position they’ve ever taken with Jack Layton’s leadership. There’s no trust there by Canadians for these guys.

There’s no trust for judges, for people, for politicians, or for neighbors.

This is broken. This is wrong.

We need to trust. Although trust will be abused, it will be challenged, and it will be sometimes irrevocably destroyed, we need to trust. We need to trust people to make the right decision most  of the time and live accordingly.

In the field of law this would be realizing that we shouldn’t persecute based on punishment but on righting the wrongs of the abused trust we put into people. Allow for the expectation that we are our brother’s keeper, that we are supposed to protect one another, and that society expects that we be kind to one another. And when this trust is abused? Seek to heal the broken trust and make right what was wronged. Have the criminal re-earn the trust that he or she has broken.

Allow for pardons. Allow for pleas. Allow for justice not based on arbitrary feel good rules and mandatory minimums. And recognize that justice is not formed on the basis of writing laws against specific groups or specific individuals but the considerations of how such laws would protect and serve the entirety of the nation.

In gaming and in entertainment this means not punishing loyal customers who chose to play their paid for media on all their tools, whatever they may be. Allow for the expectation that people will not abuse what they treasure–but at the same time coming down hard on those who notoriously abuse this trust, like mass pirates or bootleggers.

In politics it’s to assume that people are doing good or trying to do good–and expecting that politicians, of whatever stripe or creed, should be held to a standard above that of what they now currently wallow in.

And when politicians break that trust? Have them re-earn it. Force them into an election, test their mettle, and make them decide whether or not they are worthy of Canadians’ trust.

Allow for reasonableness. Allow for common sense (the little of it we have). Allow for leeway and judgment. That’s trust. And we need more of it. We are shutting down our humanity otherwise.

The expectation of trust, of reasonableness, and of good judgment is a harrowing thing, too. To feel that trust is both at the same time rewarding as it is a frightening experience–something that tends to overwhelm the few that have rarely been touched by it. It binds people together, it brings peace to the hearts of many, and reinforces upon itself over time… while, at the same time, the pressure of feeling trusted can bring out the best in people.

If at every turn some is expected to steal, and is acted against; is expected to kill, and is acted against; is expected to lie, and is acted against; and is expected to cheat, and is acted against, we reinforce a terrible, terrible crime on peoples’ minds.  Where we expect terrible acts people assume it’s a common occurrence and that it is the norm. It isn’t.

Humanity is good.

It should be treated as such, and by that treatment and expectation we’ll engender something better. Let’s ditch the culture of deceit.