From: "paul bobbitt" <paul.bobbitt@canrem.com>
Subject: social democracy
Reply-To: "paul bobbitt" <paul.bobbitt@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: soc
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:34:25 EST

JB>In article <1992Nov2.4342.61770@dosgate>, on 2 Nov 92 22:56:58 EST,
JB>"paul bobbitt" <paul.bobbitt@canrem.com> writes:

JB>Other than what I've seen through the media and through various
JB>discussions on BBSs and Usenet about the Canadian socialized medical
JB>system, I really don't know all that much about Canada's liberal
JB>system. I doubt that I would prefer it to voluntarism, however.

I don't expect that anyone prefers government to voluntarism, but 
voluntarism cannot maintain an integrated system of social programs
any more than it could put a man on the moon.  There has to be some
form of overriding centralized organization to monitor and maintain
spending in the correct areas.  
>
JB>All of these things must come at a price, however, and I strongly doubt
JB>that the upper 2% of your society in wealth can manage to pay for all of
JB>your social programs. Every dollar taken away from a poor or middle
JB>class family represents a need or a want that the family can no longer
JB>afford. It's not as though the government actually creates any wealth.

Actually, every dollar taken away from the middle class most likely
represents a want, not a need.  Each dollar given to the lower class
fulfills one of the needs they could not otherwise have obtained.
Of course the middle class has the right to obtain some of its wants,
but failing to provide for the needs of a portion of society is
unconscionable.  The backlash that would be generated by such 
inequity... well, I don't have to hypothesize.  Look at L.A.  Look
at New York City.  Look at Detroit.  Then decide in the light of the
facts whether it is essential to provide for the needs of all members
of society.

Ah yes, and in case you should again point out volunteerism as a 
viable option, do consider the donations of the residents of 
Beverly Hills to the street people in L.A.  The government is the
only way to oversee that such "donations" (read tax) are indeed
made, and that they are directed to the right people.

JB>I strongly suspect that Canadians pay a much higher percentage of their
JB>incomes in taxes than our 47%. This despite the fact that we have for
JB>many years borne the costs of a bloated military budget in our
JB>ill-chosen role as policeman of the world -- a burden which the citizens
JB>of your country did not have to bear to anywhere near the same degree
JB>as we. Had all of this money been able to remain in the pockets of the
JB>people who earned it, many of the social problems such as homelessness
JB>would be considerably reduced.

Last year, 6% of our budget went to defence.  I don't know how that
compares to your country's defence budget.  Most of the money went
to paying the interest on our deficit (something Americans are no
doubt familiar with), with the next largest expenditure going to
social programs (medicare, drug plan for seniors, housing programs) 
and payments to individuals.  (ie. tax refunds, child support 
payments, unemployment insurance, welfare.)  Are these programs
expensive?  Yes.  Are they worth the decrease in crime, and the
general safety of citizens?  Yes.

JB>Another factor that must be considered is that we receive many more
JB>immigrants proportionately than does Canada. Many of them do not pay
JB>their way and increase the strain on the public coffers. I'm sure this
JB>also has an effect on whatever measures of relative standard of living
JB>are available as well.

I'm not sure of the statistics for this.  I know that our country
does indeed accept a large number of immigrants each year.  In fact
this year it accepted a refugee from Brazil on the grounds that his
life was threatened by the police because he was a homosexual.
Interesting times.

Another one of our "social programs" that tax dollars are used for
is multiculturalism.  Canada has typically not followed the American
perception of the melting pot as the ideal of society.  Rather, we
have been quite successful in the development of the "mosaic" form
of cultural integration.  Every child is taught to respect the 
traditions of other cultures, and value them as they do their own.
People are allowed to be different, to be Japanese-Canadians,
Irish-Canadians, Afro-Canadians, etc.  They preserve all of their
culture, while still being every bit as Canadian as someone whose
family has lived here for ten generations.  (Like mine.)
The end result is a level of tolerance towards people who are 
different that is seldom seen outside our country.  In fact, this
perception of the benefits of multiculturalism may explain why
the GLBO movement has made so much progress in so short a time.
We are now protected nationally from all forms of discrimination
(outside the religious community).  Our military has lifted its 
ban on gays and lesbians, we have a gay Member of Parliament, and
we are (I feel) steps away from being permitted to marry.  It is
not as far a step as some might think to go from accepting 
ethnic-Canadians to accepting Gay-Canadians.  We have had to
fight for equality, and will have to continue to fight, but our
task has been made easier by the tolerance this social program
has instilled in Canadians.

Tax money spent in teaching people to be tolerant is tax money
far more valuable in government hands than in the hands of 
individuals.  In fact, it's basically freed us from the plague
of the "Religious Right" that America is currently suffering.

(Continued in the next message)
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #7722  Int: paul.bobbitt@canrem.com  GEnie: P.BOBBITT
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Xref: sparky soc.motss:47470 talk.politics.misc:60079