Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:19:06 EST
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Social programs (Was: Reform party platform)
 <92343.193806SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <1992Dec14.105026.11180@ee.ubc.ca>

In article <1992Dec14.105026.11180@ee.ubc.ca>, jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul
Morrison) says:
>
>In article <92343.193806SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge
><SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>>I hold the view that social programs should be universal, because
>>most social programs address needs that we all share.
>
>this is a moral statement, not a statement of economics.

I meant it as a statement about human nature, based on my experience.
Look, very few of the differences between the rich and poor really
matter. The rich get sick (and need medical care), as do the poor, the
children of the rich need education (and will respond to the same
teaching techniques), and so on.

As for you comment about morals versus economics, I suggest that
statements should go this way: moral principles should dictate
economic policy, even at the expense of efficiency.

>Universal should mean that everbody gets medical care and education.
>So as long as you achieve this in the most efficient way, 'universal'
>shouldn't restrict the way universality is achieved, as long as it IS
>achieved.

Assuming I read you correctly, I believe you dislike the idea of monopoly
provision of services. I don't entirely disagree with you. But I expect
consistency. For example, I will accept school choice, as long as no
school which gets vouchers can also take cash, gifts in kind, etc., from
parents (or anyone else). The basic concept of choice does not worry me;
but choice does mean that the visible cost of the school system will
rise. In the long run, if school choice works, the cost will drop,
because the hidden costs of the current system (20% illiteracy) will
drop.

>Unfortunately 'universal' seems to be tied to a lot of discredited, failed
>socialist economic policies. It doesn't have to be. There is more than one

Name the policies you consider a failure that you see as tied to
universality.

>The first step is to admit that 'social programs and policies' and
>'economic policies' do NOT go together. Why? because social programs
>and policies are a matter of people's consciences, how much they care for
>others etc. Economics policies on the other hand have been played with
>and there's been alot of misery as politicians and economists have
>run massive experiments with economies, and watched them fail (socialism,
>communism etc.) After all this, the general consensus is that politicians
>(and economists) are too incompetent (lack of knowledge, inadequate data)
>to push all the right buttons and pull the right levers to make the
>economy work perfectly.

First off, you misuse the word consensus. Consensus means an idea
everyone agrees with. Were your ideas a matter of consensus, this
thread would not exist. And a consensus among the people you agree
with amounts to a tautology.

I do not accept that industrial policies do not work; the jury
has certainly not returned on the Japanese experiment. The evidence
of my eyes tells me that condoning greed does not work; the results
for the US in the 1980s amount to a disaster of incredible proportions.

Consider the most massive government intervention in the economy over
the past two hundred years: the abolition of slavery. Politicians
decided, on strictly moral and political grounds, to abolish a form
of property and a mode of production that dated back to the beginning
of civilisation. Did our politicians just get lucky and make the right
decision by accident? Or do you accept that the right decision came
from morals, not economics, and that the politicians rightly accepted
the economic costs (if any) of doing the right thing?

>Your notion of universality assumes that the state must provide and manage
>all services to ensure that everyone is cared for. IN the process, this
>drags in inefficiency and intervention that distorts the market. This
>makes it work inefficiently (instead of lower cost, better quality, you
>get higher cost, poorer quality).

No. My notion of universality says that the best social programs accept
everyone, because most human needs do not relate to income. I believe in
basing the actual arrangements for doing this on the community's own
will to provide for its own people. This definitely means allowing for
experiments, individual initiative, etc. Universality simply means
making the results of those experiments as available to everyone as
possible; and, in the area of essential services, making them available
to everyone, period.

In practise, Canadian social services tend to work this way. Consider
hospitals (locally controlled), food banks (ditto), etc.. The government
sets standards and provides funding; and by providing the same level of
service to everyone, but taxing the wealthy, they also distribute
(appropriately) the wealth.

>My notion of universality recognizes that social policies are not FACT,
>but are desirable for other reasons (compassion, longer term benefit,
>morals etc.) and doesn't buy into the notion that socialist economics
>actually works. Instead, we willingly agree to subsidize the less fortunate,
>and we give them money (through government payouts, adjusted for income),
>and that's it.

Compassion and morals in a social context amount to values. Productivity,
wealth, and freedom have the same status; as values held by a large
number of people. Thus, our social policies have the same basis as our
economic freedom.

Of course, individuals have different values. As a Christian, I see
morals and compassion as the only source of freedom, and production
and wealth as relevant only insofar as it lets me express my values.
But I don't think this reflects the general social contract.

As for your notion of payouts adjusted for income, what do you plan
to do about children whose parents put their own need for alcohol
(or cocaine, or a new car, or...) over their children's health or
education.

Where non-universal programs come into play, such as welfare, I do
support a negative income tax system, by the way. Free social
workers from supervising (and degrading) the people who need welfare
to stay alive after an economic disaster, and leave them only people
who need supervision (such as chemical dependents).

>costs less? less than what? not less than 10 years ago, even taking
>inflation into account. Costs are out of line and have been increasing for
>years. A nice lower cost system of 20 years ago is mutating into a
>higher cost system. Costs are up dramatically (I'd have to look it up)
>yet people aren't living that much longer. Something is wrong.

Actually, the total bill for medical services has declined in absolute
terms over the last couple of years. And if you want the reason: more
ways to prolong life, more intensive care, more technology, and all of
it costs more money.

>>But the value
>>of universal programs comes from a deeper source: they recognise
>>our interdependence, and the way our society rests on mutual
>>obligations.
>
>statement of moral, philosophical opinion, not of fact.

All statements contain some opinion. If you don't agree with it,
I would be interested to see your refutation. I think my opinion
rests on a pretty solid foundation of fact.

>>Of course, some people on this forum do not like the concept of
>>mutual obligation. But this dislike seems very selective. For
>>example, I have yet to see anyone challenge the concept of universal
>>fire protection, or defence, or police services.Yet police and fire
>>departments are run by bureaucrats, as are prisons; just as much as
>>all the other universal social programs.
>
>because it benefits ME! (and WE pay for it to benefit us! This is NOT
>the same as saying "I don't mind helping others, therefore I agree to
>paying a bit more in taxes")

Universal health care benefits you, too. Why not have competing fire
companies? If you don't buy insurance (your choice), they don't go
to your fire (hint: what happens to the people next door?). Please
give me one argument against universal fire protection that does not
also apply to universal medical care.

>>All government
>>activities form part of a highly artificial construct,
>
>only if you make it so highly artificial, with big interventionism.

People invented government. That makes it, by definition, artificial.
No "natural" government exists, any more than "natural" cars or
"natural" electronic circuits. We make them to express our values. We
(and only we) take responsibility for them.

And I do not favour "big interventionism". I favour individual
responsibility (for my community, not just myself). The less the
government has to do, the better.

According to my value system, the need for government intervention
comes from individual irresponsibility. My primary reason for asserting
we have responsibilities to one another comes from religion and
tradition, but I can make a solid case for my views on practical
grounds.

>
>keep it simple, and goverments resembles more the kind of ordinary
>implicit contract between people (not to kill each other, not to steal,
>to stay out of each other's way, mind your own business; break this contract,
>and I break you!) You on the other hand, are talling about active interference
>in other people's lives, based on your set of values.

You draw an implicit distinction between my values and "real" values.
This amuses me. In fact, the basis of universal health care does represent
a basic value shared by the majority of Canadians, or it would not exist.

>and the moral
>>basis of the laws that oblige us to refrain from killing other people
>>or making off with their means of life also oblige use to make provision
>>for their legitimate needs.
>
>they do not. One says take care of yourself, and don't bother others.
>The other (yours) says that you are obligated to look after others, and
>that the state must impose this on everyone.

Please give me an example of a moral/religious/legal tradition that
excludes provision for the poor and the dispossessed.

Your culture will adapt to service ours - Columbus to Natives, 1492
Your culture will adapt to service ours - Borg to Captain Picard, 24th C.

standard disclaimers apply ----------------------- John G. Spragge
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals