Comments on: The Right Economic Direction for Ontario's Government http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2009/10/28/the-right-economic-direction-for-ontarios-government/ Reality, Reason, Self, Consent, Capitalism Sun, 25 Jul 2010 06:09:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Paul McKeever http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2009/10/28/the-right-economic-direction-for-ontarios-government/comment-page-1/#comment-487 Paul McKeever Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:09:44 +0000 http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/?p=1015#comment-487 Marco: I had a look back at the 2007 election platform (which was drafted beginning in 2004 and into 2005...it was released in October 2005). It did say something to the effect of: "financial assistance will be available for those in demonstrable need". I do not recall what, exactly, was the rationale for, or the meaning of, that sentence. For example, it does not say who will be offering the assistance (e.g., public vs. private sector), or what form the assistance will take (e.g., charity vs. secured loans). I can tell you this: such a line would not make it into the next platform. Perhaps this is a function of my philosophical learning curve, which is also a learning curve for the party itself. There has been a lot of intense discussion - especially between myself and Freedom Party founder Robert Metz - over the last 10 years of our close association. We have learned from one another, and from our (sometimes heated) debates, and my perception is that we have grown in the same direction, and applied our learning to various considerations relating to the party. For example, 6 years ago, I probably would have told you that eliminating a line about *tax-funded* financial assistance to the poor would be "hard core". Today, I would say that tax-funded financial assistance to the poor is hard core, and evil...because it is a violation of the people who pay the taxes that would make such assistance possible. Marco: I had a look back at the 2007 election platform (which was drafted beginning in 2004 and into 2005…it was released in October 2005). It did say something to the effect of: “financial assistance will be available for those in demonstrable need”. I do not recall what, exactly, was the rationale for, or the meaning of, that sentence. For example, it does not say who will be offering the assistance (e.g., public vs. private sector), or what form the assistance will take (e.g., charity vs. secured loans). I can tell you this: such a line would not make it into the next platform. Perhaps this is a function of my philosophical learning curve, which is also a learning curve for the party itself. There has been a lot of intense discussion – especially between myself and Freedom Party founder Robert Metz – over the last 10 years of our close association. We have learned from one another, and from our (sometimes heated) debates, and my perception is that we have grown in the same direction, and applied our learning to various considerations relating to the party.

For example, 6 years ago, I probably would have told you that eliminating a line about *tax-funded* financial assistance to the poor would be “hard core”. Today, I would say that tax-funded financial assistance to the poor is hard core, and evil…because it is a violation of the people who pay the taxes that would make such assistance possible.

]]> By: Marco http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2009/10/28/the-right-economic-direction-for-ontarios-government/comment-page-1/#comment-486 Marco Sun, 01 Nov 2009 05:22:37 +0000 http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/?p=1015#comment-486 Awesome Paul! I have seen an interview with Tim Hudak on The Agenda on TVO, and he doesn't seem to be a free-marketer (which is no surprise), but seems to be for lack of a better of a better term "free-marketish", as evident in the above critique. Thus, I agree that he and his party are not a viable solution to McGuinty. One thing I do have a question about though is, when you say that government shouldn't be "a lender of last resort", I do understand what you mean, however isn't there an exception to be made in the case of education for poor parents so that no child is without an education in the Freedom Party platform? Awesome Paul!

I have seen an interview with Tim Hudak on The Agenda on TVO, and he doesn’t seem to be a free-marketer (which is no surprise), but seems to be for lack of a better of a better term “free-marketish”, as evident in the above critique. Thus, I agree that he and his party are not a viable solution to McGuinty.

One thing I do have a question about though is, when you say that government shouldn’t be “a lender of last resort”, I do understand what you mean, however isn’t there an exception to be made in the case of education for poor parents so that no child is without an education in the Freedom Party platform?

]]> By: Michael Neibel http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2009/10/28/the-right-economic-direction-for-ontarios-government/comment-page-1/#comment-485 Michael Neibel Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:42:28 +0000 http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/?p=1015#comment-485 Agreed 100%. The government represents initiatory physical force. When force in introduced into the market place, the right of buyers and sellers to negotiate according their own best judgement is violated. No politicial today either in Canada or the US as far as I know, is a champion of individual rights. all other rights such as human rights, group rights, minority rights etc, are just euphamisms for collective rights which deny the primacy of the individual. Agreed 100%. The government represents initiatory physical force. When force in introduced into the market place, the right of buyers and sellers to negotiate according their own best judgement is violated. No politicial today either in Canada or the US as far as I know, is a champion of individual rights. all other rights such as human rights, group rights, minority rights etc, are just euphamisms for collective rights which deny the primacy of the individual.

]]>