Thinking
It's been one of those weeks where I've been nicely distracted from the thought of my thesis defense by some big ideas being discussed. Like my moniker suggests, I've been absorbing tons of information but very little's been trickling out. Still, I've quite enjoyed being absorbed in my thinking through its implications.
1) At my friend's birthday dinner, there was a brief discussion about the wonders of Canada and the myth (in the grand story sense, not the inaccuracy that it's come to mean) of our national healthcare. This dovetailed into Andrew's post about the long wait for treatment for his friend's ACL,how unfortunate the current circumstances have dictated the long wait and what is to be done. Are we forever burdened with 'equal access to crap' as some claimed in the comments, or is it better than we think it is?
It seems like private delivery of some medical services seem not completely unreasonable, as long as those parameters are strictly defined. If however, some feel that private delivery shouldn't be based on 'medical necessity', then what exactly? Surely, a compromise can be achieved that doesn't completely undermine the public system. This also assumes that those resources freed by private delivery could be redirected elsewhere to other parts of the public system, instead of just having it shrivel away. Part of the problem is the fact that small-scale trials are nearly impossible. You can't create an industry only to destroy it completely if it doesn't meet your political objectives. So what are our options for testing private delivery? Thought exercises just aren't that convincing.
2) At the same time, I've been reading Reed Scowen's "Time to Say Goodbye", whose thesis is that Quebec and Canada should separate (for reasons explained in the book) and Canada can be the better for it. I'm only 2/3 of the way through, but I was struck by this line,
"Canada is a country of minorities"
and what he defines Canada to be:
"...we are in a state of mutual allegiance with everyone who lives within Canada's borders, not with the objective of achieving a common substantive purpose, but through loyalty to the structure that provide us with our freedom and its corresponding responsibilities, to 'the authority of certain conditions in acting'."
My first thought was, "is that enough to bind us all together"? My second thought, of course, was, "let's see Molson try to sell that.
"A deeply felt commitment of mutual allegiance with all Canadians; a commitment to parliamentary rule; the search for fairness in our respect for basic human rights and freedoms; respect for local and regional values and priorities; above all, a respect for the Constitution itself - that's what you get from being Canadian. This is our common culture, our civil association. It may not satisfy my definition of what it is to be Canadian. Nor yours. It does not make us unique in this world. But that's all that we all agree on. And it's enough."
3) The 'country of minorities' made me think of the Ontario's citizen's assembly's referendum to the Ontario public on whether to change our electoral system from a first-past-the-post to a mixed-member proportional representation (PR) system. As a symbolic thing, it seems appropriate to have a country of minorities governed by minority-based coalitions. There are much better arguments for and against switching to any type of PR, of course. I just wasn't thinking about them at the time. I have no idea how it'll turn out, and while I know what the pundits like, I'm eager to see what Ontarians' views are.
4) Finally, The provincial Liberal government has decided to follow New Jersey, Australia and others to ban 'inefficient' light bulbs by 2010. Some think this is a good idea; others, not so much. While it seems quite heavy-handed to me, I'm wondering whether energy consumption (among other things) can be decreased without such government intervention or drastic environmental degradation?
1 comment:
Interesting, thoughts, topics and questions. The broad theme I see running through all four are "how are we governed?" and "how should we be governed?" I am perhaps biased in drawing out this theme as these are two of the questions that I ruminate on most, with the possible exception of "how have we been governed?"
To divide the topics:
1) Public health care is so entwined in the fabric of the nation, buraucratically, economically, philosophically, that it is not going anywhere. We have the advantage of looking to other nation's examples of different methods of delivery to see what is best. Anecdotally, there have been times when the system has severd me or my loved ones excellently, and other times when I would have gladly maxed my credit card to get faster and better quality care. One has to wonder however if there would be less variation in a privately funded system?
2)Canada is only a country of minorities because we have come to think of ourselves that way - but even then it is perhaps only a minority of people who think this?
You quote Scowen as writing -
"...we are in a state of mutual allegiance with everyone who lives within Canada's borders, not with the objective of achieving a common substantive purpose, but through loyalty to the structure that provide us with our freedom and its corresponding responsibilities, to 'the authority of certain conditions in acting'."
I don't know about you, but maintaining and strengthening "the structure that provides us with our freedom and its corresponding responsibilities" seems like a pretty good "common substantive purpose."
This is the essence of modern liberalism. We try to agree on those things that are necessary for us to live together freely and peaceably, and we leave the rest. That in itself is no small achievement and it binds us together. The Constitution, the common law, fairness, respect: these are the things that allow Canada to be relatively free of the racial, religious, and economic based strife that has plagued most of the world for most of the time. It is a testament to our success that we don't see this as success, that we want more, some "grand vision" when what grander vision can there be than Peace, Order and Good Government?
3)Proportional representation is bad for democracy, bad for liberalism, and will be bad for Ontario. Briefly stated, PR errodes the accountability of the individual elected representative. Under the system of electoral ridings that we and our constitutional ancestors have used since the 15th century, citizens have elected an individual member from their community to represent their interests and the common good. PR systems transfer the citizen's representation from an individual to a group (a party) and that is not good for democratic representation.
4)While I am convinced that the Ontario government's light bulb ban is another example of its not so latent paternalism, I think it may be a decent and defensible idea. We already require certain standards of cleanliness and efficiency for gasoline and such, so why not for home lighting, for similar reasons? Unlike the ban on pit-bulls and the forced wearing of bike helmets, this proposal does not put undue limits on the citizen's freedom of choice or property.
How shall we be governed? Good questions.
Post a Comment