From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Social programs (Was: Reform party platform)
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:50:26 GMT

In article <92343.193806SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1992Dec4.170937.26625@Princeton.EDU>, nfs@hart (Norbert Schlenker)
>says:
>>
>>In keeping with my resolution to debate the issues raised by Mr. Hui,
>>here's the first Reform policy to which he objected.
>>
>>   | The Reform Party opposes the view that universal social      |
>>   | programs run by bureaucrats are the best and only way to     |
>>   | care for the poor, the sick, the old, and the young.   p.28  |
>>
>>Mr. Hui and his cadre have deemed this policy unacceptable.  May we
>>assume that its logical negation,
>>
>>   | We hold the view that universal social
>>   | programs run by bureaucrats are the best and only way to
>>   | care for the poor, the sick, the old, and the young.
>>
>>is acceptable to Mr. Hui, his correspondents, and the NDP?
>>
>
>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.

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.

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
way that you can care for everyone's health and educational needs, in fact
there are much BETTER ways of caring for people: where you don't bog down
the economic engine, where you can do it cheaper and more effectively, and
where you don't kill all the wealth and growth the economy gives you (and
pays for this 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. The consensus is that the competitive FREE MARKET 
is best at sorting out which way gets goods and services produced
and distributed in the most efficient way. Stop subsidizing dead-wood,
worthless industries, stop subsidizing pollution, stop meddling in
the economics, and let the market steamroll ahead, creating growth and
jobs.

Saying that free market economics is better for growth, is not a statement
about social policy, and it shouldn't be. That's for individuals to decide
and implement through their goverments.

(aside: people and industries suffer and fail under socialism, because of
what the state imposes, and what it restricts. People suffer under capitalism,
but at least it's due to what those people can't do to help themselves.
Under capitalism, at least those unfortunate people can be helped; but under
socialism-communism, the whole lot will fail together).

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).

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. Once money has been transferred, the less-fortunate become
'comfortable' and they can pay for services like medical care and education.

This lets the market work efficiently. Right now, Canadian schools (K - 12)
are very expensive, yet produce very mediocre results. Why? because teachers
and schools get money straight from the government, and the users of the
school have only token say over things. If parents send their kids off
to another school, the bad school still gets money, ie gets rewarded with
money for being poor quality.

Goverment now spends money for you, which removes your say from the process.
It may be universal, but it is also universally shoddy! If you really
care about universality, give poor people money, and let them decide who
is providing the best service. Which is better? letting government beauracrats
and civil servants decide what is adequate quality service? Hand money
straight to public employees and hope they provide good, low cost, efficient
service? Or give money (in the name of universality) to people who need it,
and let the have the power to select and reward the best? I think it's 
obvious.

>Everyone,
>rich or poor, has similar child care needs; will get sick, and
>will get old. Of course, universality means various economies:
>health care in Canada costs less because hospitals only have one
>insurer to deal with, rather than dozens or hundreds. 

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.


>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.

>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")

With police: the police are entrusted with too much power over other
people's liberties to be run by anyone other than the government
(after all, the police are just enforcing arbitrary moral viewpoints
that the people elected them to do (not that that's always right))

Same argument with defence etc.
However, market mechanisms can be harnessed to reward high quality
units, and punish low quality, slow expensive units (sack them, demote,
no cash bonus etc).


Some experiments have been done with privatized prisons (in Britain)
and the results have been amazing  (better care of prisoners, more
modern, less cost to public). (prisons are much more controlled than
the outside world, so I don't object to private prisons, while I do object
to gun toting rent-a-cops patrolling public streets)

>In much modern anti-government analysis, a contrast gets drawn between
>those functions of the government deemed to be "natural", including
>printing money, putting out fires, running a military, police, prisons,
>and those deemed "unnatural", which include most provision for social
>welfare. This distinction has absolutely no basis in fact. 


>All government 
>activities form part of a highly artificial construct, 

only if you make it so highly artificial, with big interventionism.

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.

There is VAST difference between this implicit contract in society
between inviduals((mind your own business) and the kind of active governments
you envision (governments minds your business and your whole life for you).


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.

-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9390 can.politics:10776