If I ever create a religion
it will be the worship of trees
those most benign and
indiscriminate of beings,
pouring their oxygen over us.
In the Beginning
there was only Tree:
Its branches divided
earth and sky;
Its roots united
earth and water
Trees, I'll pray,
let me climb
trees
catch the heart,
their branches striding
wide and high, their leaves
slipping against the sky
like the coins of light
sun strikes through water
Trees, I'll pray,
let me climb
trees
never harmed anyone
--except accidentally, crushing
the logger cutting it down
--not from malice
--not by choice
--not even in self-defence
--by chance alone compelled,
unwitting instrument
of the laws of physics--
and of karma in the shape of an axe
Trees, I'll pray,
let me climb
trees
cast long shadows
around themselves, trees
cast spells, spilling darkness,
scattering light, confusing
secrecy with mystery, confusing
second sight with love at first, confusing
happiness with almost everything
--a soft touch on a slow impulse
--the cry of a young wind
tearing the clouds apart
--the mutterings of an old mind
left to itself and now
more seer than sinister--
I plunder the grass for them
my throat quickens and gleams
in the cold light of trees leaning,
enlacing their boughs in a web,
ensnaring wild dreams
--of a tree absorbing me
into its cellulose; squeezing me
through ever-finer filaments,
the busy chlorophyll extrudes me
into the air in the form of a flower,
where a bee sucks, shedding pollen,
satisfied the craving blossom swells--
an apple hangs, waiting for the next
blundering idiot to come along, again--
and again, and again, it is necessary
to climb trees; to struggle from one odd
and wonderful angle to the next,
to the dizzying tip, where,
silhouetted against the moon,
a hairy angel croons a guttural hymn
Trees, I'll pray,
let me climb
trees
singing
--in the Beginning
there was only Tree--
the Idea of a tree
Friday, November 21, 2008
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Thoughts on the Role of Government
It seems to me there are essentially two views of government. One is that government is 'it', or 'them', that 'they' are in general not to be trusted to do the best for 'us' (however perceived) and should therefore be kept to a minimum. I think it's fair to say this is the view of most successful business people and of the bureaucracies--corporate, government and intellectual which surround them; that is, those who believe (or used to believe before the present financial crisis) that an unfettered free market can deliver the good life to everyone, despite the mounds of evidence to the contrary. (How anyone can claim that an economic system in which most people cannot afford to own their own home, or which pays hockey players in the millions of dollars and doctors in the thousands, is allocating scarce resources efficiently, is beyond me.)
At the same time, businesses tend to take for granted the many services they receive from government, from an orderly and peaceful society, to legislation regulating commerce and trade, to lower corporate health care costs, to education, and on and on, while incessantly demanding more and more tax cuts. Tax cuts for which there is no evidence that they in fact stimulate the national economy, not least because, in a progressive tax system, the biggest cuts go to the wealthiest taxpayers who are as likely, or even more likely, to invest in a foreign country than in Canada.
Many investors and business owners complain about 'double taxation', the fact that corporations pay income tax on their earnings, and their shareholders pay income tax on the dividends they receive from those corporations. This is indeed double taxation, but it is perfectly justified because, as mentioned above, corporations make heavy use of government services and should pay their fair share to fund them, and shareholders, whether other organizations, or individuals, also makes heavy use of government services, and should pay their fair share for them.
The other view of government is that it is 'us', an instrument of the citizens' collective will, as variously, and sometimes painfully (through elections, for example, or demonstrations) determined, and that therefore it should be as large as necessary to deliver the services its citizenry require. This is the view of democratic socialists; that is, those who believe that a mixed economy of public services and regulated private enterprise will deliver the good life (with evidence from the Scandinavian countries that this is so). I'm sure no one who's read my earlier blogs will be surprised to read that I am of the second point of view.
However, this does not mean that the government should run each and every business, or even most of them. It means that the government must ensure that the essentials for a high quality of life--starting with clean air, water, and soil, and including affordable housing, education, useful, decently-paid work, health care, waste management, and public transit--are accessible to all. The private sector may have a role in providing these goods and services--building a public transit line, for example--but the utilities themselves should remain firmly in government control, responsibility, and accountability. (One of the often over-looked disadvantages of privatized services is the loss of accountability to 'corporate confidentiality'.)
A pro-government principle also does not mean that we should blindly trust government to provide for us as if it were our parent. It is not our parent; it is our servant, the way we organize ourselves to provide the goods and services we want, and it requires on-going direction and supervision. To work properly, a democracy requires more than voting, fundamental though that is. It requires citizens to become involved in the on-going political process between elections, including becoming active in a political party. This applies particularly to those who are unhappy with the way the present system in Canada operates. For politics to change, it is necessary for them to become involved with the political party of their choice, and encourage others to do the same. Young people, especially, could take over any constituency organization of any party in the country, simply by a few of them consistently showing up at meetings, and running for membership on the constituency's executive. They would be welcomed with open arms and great sighs of relief from the current, mostly grey-haired participants.
I have no patience for anyone who says they're not going to vote until a system they approve of (some form of proportional representation (PR)) system in place, so their vote won’t be 'wasted'. The only wasted vote is one that isn't cast; it is the votes against the winning candidate, the narrowness of their margin, which keep elected representatives attentive to their constituents, not landslides. (Even though I recognize the draw backs of first-past-the-post (FPTP), I remain relatively cool to PR; that is, I'm adamantly opposed to STV (the single transferable vote) for reasons I may address in a later blog, but am open to being persuaded by some form of multiple-member PR.)
Regarding government as the instrument of our collective will, also does not mean that government can spend any amount of money it pleases, or increase the civil service beyond useful numbers; we must demand both effectiveness and efficiency in the way it operates. ('Effectiveness' means getting results that matter; 'efficiency' means doing so at a reasonable cost.) We must ensure that such public servants as the Auditor-General have enough resources, and the correct legislation, to provide thorough oversight of government operations. The Auditor-General's mandate should cover both accounting practices and accuracy, and the concept of the public obtaining value for each tax expenditure. The more visible government operations are, the more we can trust those who are doing the governing at the moment.
Those who believe in small governments are often quick to condemn what they consider excessive spending--raising the alarm over the costs of health care, for example, as if that money, or any other government expenditure, simply vanishes into thin air. Of course, it does not; government spending and investment play significant roles in a healthy economy from the wages and salaries paid (much of which immediately flows back to governments at all levels through various taxes) and the goods purchased. Of course, anything can be carried to an extreme, but the fact that it may be possible for a foolish government to buy shoddy local, instead of higher-quality foreign-made, goods, is a problem to be addressed, not a reason to jettison favouring local procurement. The goal should be to improve the shoddy local goods, whenever possible (which trade deals like NAFTA make much more difficult).
For the most efficient and effective spending, I believe in starting with the people who actually put the money to work--in the area of health care, for example, this would include everyone from the cleaners and morgue attendants to the LPNs, doctors, nurses, and administrators--and get them to design how the hospital functions from the ground up. Again, without expecting perfection, we are more likely to get a sensible, workable, and lowest-effective-cost from this approach than by hiring consultants to design something from the top down. (I admit I write from total ignorance on how hospital operations are actually designed in B.C.; I'm just using it as a convenient example. If this kind of approach is already being incorporated in the process, so much the better, but I suspect it's not, and that much of the design of operations is indeed from the top down and involves a heavy reliance on consultants.)
However we view government, for it to work properly--that is, for it to respond effectively to citizens’ requirements--means that more citizens than now must join in the process more actively than just voting every few years. Such involvement can include letters-to-the-editor, demonstrations, attending panel discussions and so forth, but the most promising of all involvements is to join a political party and start to change things at the grassroots.
At the same time, businesses tend to take for granted the many services they receive from government, from an orderly and peaceful society, to legislation regulating commerce and trade, to lower corporate health care costs, to education, and on and on, while incessantly demanding more and more tax cuts. Tax cuts for which there is no evidence that they in fact stimulate the national economy, not least because, in a progressive tax system, the biggest cuts go to the wealthiest taxpayers who are as likely, or even more likely, to invest in a foreign country than in Canada.
Many investors and business owners complain about 'double taxation', the fact that corporations pay income tax on their earnings, and their shareholders pay income tax on the dividends they receive from those corporations. This is indeed double taxation, but it is perfectly justified because, as mentioned above, corporations make heavy use of government services and should pay their fair share to fund them, and shareholders, whether other organizations, or individuals, also makes heavy use of government services, and should pay their fair share for them.
The other view of government is that it is 'us', an instrument of the citizens' collective will, as variously, and sometimes painfully (through elections, for example, or demonstrations) determined, and that therefore it should be as large as necessary to deliver the services its citizenry require. This is the view of democratic socialists; that is, those who believe that a mixed economy of public services and regulated private enterprise will deliver the good life (with evidence from the Scandinavian countries that this is so). I'm sure no one who's read my earlier blogs will be surprised to read that I am of the second point of view.
However, this does not mean that the government should run each and every business, or even most of them. It means that the government must ensure that the essentials for a high quality of life--starting with clean air, water, and soil, and including affordable housing, education, useful, decently-paid work, health care, waste management, and public transit--are accessible to all. The private sector may have a role in providing these goods and services--building a public transit line, for example--but the utilities themselves should remain firmly in government control, responsibility, and accountability. (One of the often over-looked disadvantages of privatized services is the loss of accountability to 'corporate confidentiality'.)
A pro-government principle also does not mean that we should blindly trust government to provide for us as if it were our parent. It is not our parent; it is our servant, the way we organize ourselves to provide the goods and services we want, and it requires on-going direction and supervision. To work properly, a democracy requires more than voting, fundamental though that is. It requires citizens to become involved in the on-going political process between elections, including becoming active in a political party. This applies particularly to those who are unhappy with the way the present system in Canada operates. For politics to change, it is necessary for them to become involved with the political party of their choice, and encourage others to do the same. Young people, especially, could take over any constituency organization of any party in the country, simply by a few of them consistently showing up at meetings, and running for membership on the constituency's executive. They would be welcomed with open arms and great sighs of relief from the current, mostly grey-haired participants.
I have no patience for anyone who says they're not going to vote until a system they approve of (some form of proportional representation (PR)) system in place, so their vote won’t be 'wasted'. The only wasted vote is one that isn't cast; it is the votes against the winning candidate, the narrowness of their margin, which keep elected representatives attentive to their constituents, not landslides. (Even though I recognize the draw backs of first-past-the-post (FPTP), I remain relatively cool to PR; that is, I'm adamantly opposed to STV (the single transferable vote) for reasons I may address in a later blog, but am open to being persuaded by some form of multiple-member PR.)
Regarding government as the instrument of our collective will, also does not mean that government can spend any amount of money it pleases, or increase the civil service beyond useful numbers; we must demand both effectiveness and efficiency in the way it operates. ('Effectiveness' means getting results that matter; 'efficiency' means doing so at a reasonable cost.) We must ensure that such public servants as the Auditor-General have enough resources, and the correct legislation, to provide thorough oversight of government operations. The Auditor-General's mandate should cover both accounting practices and accuracy, and the concept of the public obtaining value for each tax expenditure. The more visible government operations are, the more we can trust those who are doing the governing at the moment.
Those who believe in small governments are often quick to condemn what they consider excessive spending--raising the alarm over the costs of health care, for example, as if that money, or any other government expenditure, simply vanishes into thin air. Of course, it does not; government spending and investment play significant roles in a healthy economy from the wages and salaries paid (much of which immediately flows back to governments at all levels through various taxes) and the goods purchased. Of course, anything can be carried to an extreme, but the fact that it may be possible for a foolish government to buy shoddy local, instead of higher-quality foreign-made, goods, is a problem to be addressed, not a reason to jettison favouring local procurement. The goal should be to improve the shoddy local goods, whenever possible (which trade deals like NAFTA make much more difficult).
For the most efficient and effective spending, I believe in starting with the people who actually put the money to work--in the area of health care, for example, this would include everyone from the cleaners and morgue attendants to the LPNs, doctors, nurses, and administrators--and get them to design how the hospital functions from the ground up. Again, without expecting perfection, we are more likely to get a sensible, workable, and lowest-effective-cost from this approach than by hiring consultants to design something from the top down. (I admit I write from total ignorance on how hospital operations are actually designed in B.C.; I'm just using it as a convenient example. If this kind of approach is already being incorporated in the process, so much the better, but I suspect it's not, and that much of the design of operations is indeed from the top down and involves a heavy reliance on consultants.)
However we view government, for it to work properly--that is, for it to respond effectively to citizens’ requirements--means that more citizens than now must join in the process more actively than just voting every few years. Such involvement can include letters-to-the-editor, demonstrations, attending panel discussions and so forth, but the most promising of all involvements is to join a political party and start to change things at the grassroots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)