Saturday, 22 October 2011

We've Veered So Far Left, We Can't See Straight

Topp calls for higher income taxes on wealthy Canadians

Brian Topp, a former party president and a senior advisor to Layton, says he wants the NDP to make higher taxes for the rich a key plank in the next election campaign.
"That money should be redeployed to more important priorities like tackling child poverty, public transit, real job creation... post-secondary education, the health care system, the environment."

This is an article on Jurisdiction.  We are responsible for what we have jurisdiction over.  For example, I have jurisdiction within my home and therefore a responsibility to be a loving father.  Consequently, Brian Topp does not have jurisdiction within my home, therefore no corresponding responsibility to father my children.  We are responsible for what falls within our jurisdiction. 

The government (across all party lines) has done a brutal job defining what their jurisdiction is.  By being murky on jurisdiction, they can be equally vague on their responsibility.  This vagueness is rarely if ever clarified, therefore the logical basis for policy is never justified beyond, "a need that the government thinks it should meet'.  I recently laid into the Conservatives for not acting out of a 'limited government principle', rather, diving into multi-million dollar culture investments...without any justification as to defending how this is even within their jurisdiction to entertain.  If the Conservatives cannot justify how an expense is within their jurisdiction, then they should not be able to take responsibility and therefore they must say no to the proposed expense.  No responsibility, no expense.  By blacking out the discussion on jurisdiction, the governments have a hay-day free for all with respect to budgets and programs (check debt level/tax rates out if questions). 

The same concern obviously extends to Mr. Brian Topp and the NDP party.  There is no logical argument at all (not even a bad one) for defining why it is the governments jurisdiction to tax and give in such areas (but not limited to) child poverty, public transit, real job, heath care, environment etc.

What if Brian Topp expanded to the list? What would you say if Brian Topp said, "That money should be re-deployed to more important priorities like parenting your child via 'observers' to ensure you are doing your job correctly, buying your food to ensure it's healthy and paying for a state sponsored 'spiritual gathering place' that we encourage all Canadians to embrace."?  What would be a natural reaction?  Well, one would be, "that's ridiculous, you don't have any business telling me what to do in those area's".  And that's the key word, 'those'.  Our awareness of jurisdiction tells us intuitively that government cannot encroach on those area's because it is a clear violation of what they have jurisdiction over.  And since we intuitively know and believe this, we claim they therefore have no responsibility to act!  Thing get murky when we move from obvious examples to things like Mr. Topp claims.  He thinks government has 100% jurisdiction and therefore responsibility to enter into those area's he lists.

Just because a cause is good does not mean it falls within the category of 'legitimate government expense' any more then the NDP passing a law to have 1 government observer watch our children at all times to make sure they don't fall off a cliff.  Every parent agrees it's good not to have a child fall off a cliff, but no parent should conclude that the government therefore has jurisdiction to impose laws to have watchful eyes.  Citing 'good cause' is not grounds for blitzing into our lives with laws and control.  It's an invalid argument to suggest otherwise,unless you can somehow defend, "I can prove it's good to eat healthy, therefore it's important for the government to create laws determining our diets to ensure we do not make harmful choices".  A good thing needing to be done does not justify government intervention.  Given this be true, I extend this to poverty, education, jobs, etc.  Just because those are good causes does not mean the government has jurisdiction...therefore I ask:

What defines that which government has jurisdiction over?  Does the NDP have jurisdiction and therefore responsibility to force us to give up money to pay for the list Topps describes above?  If so, what gives them that jurisdiction, and why?  Is majority says so? Somehow whatever the masses thinks is best is right? Pragmatically or morally speaking?

As I see it, there is not a strong argument I have observed that acts to define jurisdiction for government to act in so many area's as Topp defines.  Because I have not seen any from the NDP (throw Liberal into the mix), I will argue on their behalf (I'm a free market guy, so go easy on me):

We believe that a strong portion of the means of production and distribution should move away from corporations and the private citizen and into the hands of government.  We believe that government should enter into various area's of ones life (see Topps list) and make choices on their behalf (i.e creating programs with parameters).  We have jurisdiction to do this because the corporations and income earners do not (entirely) own the means of production and distribution, but the people do, and as the people's representatives, we will do our job and tax and redeploy capital.  The jurisdiction is created from the will of the people giving us permission to tax and re-spend as a form of justice, thus our term, social justice.  We are righting the wrongs of the free market by 'leveling the playing field'.  The leveling of the playing field and helping others is what we call compassion, fairness and moving forward together.  We believe equality is just and closing income gap is creating that just society. By nature of us having a responsibility to create a just society, we therefore have jurisdiction within the realm of anything that is a social injustice.  We will therefore continually move into area's of perceived social injustice and thus expand our jurisdiction to right those wrongs (and keep the programs to maintain justice, least we regress). We have jurisdiction to establish justice by the will of the people and justice is a fair, tolerant and equal society.  The free market has to be (take your pick) kept in check/broken and rebuilt to ensure we right these wrong.  Therefore, Mr. Topp has jurisdiction and thus responsibility to act within the list provided.

I remain open and welcome anyone to correct, clarify or add, your comments are welcome below:

1 comment:

Think of how you can make your point and be respectful.
Try to keep cursing to a minimum; with thanks.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain