Reading over Winnipeg blogs, I came across this. It's a university student reflecting on their values, morality, sustainability, and urban sprawl. On the post itself I'll write only a little. Most of it self-discovery and what not. I do not know enough about the Oak Ridges Moraine to comment.
What I found interesting is that the writer "hate[s] the urban sprawl that surrounds [her], even though [she is] a suburbanite". This seems odd; if a person hates urban sprawl, wouldn't moving downtown be wiser than living in suburbia?
Moving away from directly commenting on the article, but keeping on with my line of thought. Urbanists seem to have a dislike of suburbia and "urban sprawl" and, as is the case of the blog writer, even sometimes think this takes on a moral aspect.
My question would be, why do urbanists believe that governments should force their preferences for living arrangements on others?
Urbanists may prefer living in tightly packed downtown neighbourhoods or in apartments/condos. They may enjoy being surrounded by people and noise at all times. They may not value freedom or space as much as others. That's fine. If people want to live in urban areas, they should be free to.
On the other hand, though, urbanists are in a constant struggle to have municipal and provincial governments enforce their urban preferences on everyone else. Every talk of urban issues comes with the standard calls for governments to promote "urban density" and to limit "urban sprawl". Every attempt to further develop a city outwards is met with resistance, such as Waverly West here in Winnipeg or Richmond Hill in the blog post.
Why should the preferences of urbanists take priority over the preferences of those who prefer the freedom, space, and quiet of suburbia (or even ex-urbia)?
Why is "urban density" superior? What makes living in a cramped, loud, over-populated urban area inherently "better" than living in suburbia, rather than a free choice of trade-offs for individuals to make on their own?
Why should their values and morality be imposed by government on others who do not share them? Or subsidized at the expense of others?
By purchasing homes in the Suburbs/Exurbs, individuals show a preference for the space, freedom, etc. that suburban living provides and are willing to take on the additional inconveniences of increased transportation times and costs to do so. Should this choice not be respected?
If people want "urban sprawl", why should we be trying to force "urban density" on them instead simply because a small group of urban activists wants their preferences forced on others?
Showing posts with label General Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General Politics. Show all posts
2012-02-09
2012-01-04
Councillors Misunderstand the Meaning of Charity
The Sun had an article and an editorial on councillors Harvey Smith and Jenny Gerbasi providing $200 to support some carolers to a prison.
In general, I would be against the allocation of public funds to private events, but the sums involved ($200) are paltry and, from my understanding, ward budgets are created so councillors can provide discretionary funds for these kinds of things, so this does not particularly irk me. (Although, I am moderately surprised that Gerbasi and Smith would be the councillors to support what seems to be a Christian outreach event with public funds). The Sun seems to be lacking perspective on this issue.
On the other hand, there are two related things that concerned me about this issue, both being justifications of the funding. The first issue concerns Gerbasi's justification:
It annoys me when leftists and progressivists pervert Christian theology to justify their redistributive politics. Yes, Jesus and the New Testament state to visit prisons, care for the orphans and widows, and the like. Yes, Jesus spent time with thieves, tax collectors, prostitutes, and other such marginal individuals.
But, not once, does the the New Testament advocate state redistribution. It advocates private charity and self-sacrifice done out of love for others. There is a large difference.*
Use secular justification as you wish, but do not use a misreading of the Bible or Jesus to justify something that is not spoken to in the Bible or by Jesus.
The second concern being Smith's justification:
This seems to be a common misconception among progressivists. There is some thinking among this group that the use of public funds for "charitable" causes is charity.
It is not.
Using public funds raised from mandatory taxation is not charity. Using other people's money to fund causes, however noble, is not charity. There is nothing moral or charitable about it. Charity requires voluntary sacrifice out of concern for others, not mandatory confiscation for redistributive purposes.
If Smith was being charitable, he would have opened his own wallet for the $100.
Now, if you believe public funds should be used for an activity justify it through a cost-benefit analysis or arguments from political philosophy or pragmatism, but don't pretend that it is somehow noble or charitable to forcibly take money from one group of people and give it to another group of people (however charitable the latter's intentions might be).
As an additional note, One Man Committee posted on this topic, criticizing Brodbeck's editorial insinuating hypocrisy because Brodbeck once gained grant funding for a community center. This is unfair to Brodbeck, as, in the editorial, he allows for funding for community events.
He states in the article:
I'm pretty sure community club socials and block parties would fall under community events.
* For those interested in further theology: Parts of the Old Testament, as the laws of governance for the polity of Israel, did require some redistribution, in particular the year of Jubilee, a tithe to support the Levite priesthood who were not allowed to own land, and laws concerning gleanings. On the other hand, these are quite different from the redistributionism of the modern welfare state. I could have a deeper discussion on this issue, but for now it's tangential.
In general, I would be against the allocation of public funds to private events, but the sums involved ($200) are paltry and, from my understanding, ward budgets are created so councillors can provide discretionary funds for these kinds of things, so this does not particularly irk me. (Although, I am moderately surprised that Gerbasi and Smith would be the councillors to support what seems to be a Christian outreach event with public funds). The Sun seems to be lacking perspective on this issue.
On the other hand, there are two related things that concerned me about this issue, both being justifications of the funding. The first issue concerns Gerbasi's justification:
“What would Jesus do at Christmastime?” Gerbasi asked. “I think he’d support this application. He went to the thieves and the prostitutes and lived among them and cared for them. That’s what Jesus did. Think about it. That’s why I felt kind of passionate about it — and I’m Jewish.”
It annoys me when leftists and progressivists pervert Christian theology to justify their redistributive politics. Yes, Jesus and the New Testament state to visit prisons, care for the orphans and widows, and the like. Yes, Jesus spent time with thieves, tax collectors, prostitutes, and other such marginal individuals.
But, not once, does the the New Testament advocate state redistribution. It advocates private charity and self-sacrifice done out of love for others. There is a large difference.*
Use secular justification as you wish, but do not use a misreading of the Bible or Jesus to justify something that is not spoken to in the Bible or by Jesus.
The second concern being Smith's justification:
“It’s Christmastime, we should be charitable,” said Smith.
This seems to be a common misconception among progressivists. There is some thinking among this group that the use of public funds for "charitable" causes is charity.
It is not.
Using public funds raised from mandatory taxation is not charity. Using other people's money to fund causes, however noble, is not charity. There is nothing moral or charitable about it. Charity requires voluntary sacrifice out of concern for others, not mandatory confiscation for redistributive purposes.
If Smith was being charitable, he would have opened his own wallet for the $100.
Now, if you believe public funds should be used for an activity justify it through a cost-benefit analysis or arguments from political philosophy or pragmatism, but don't pretend that it is somehow noble or charitable to forcibly take money from one group of people and give it to another group of people (however charitable the latter's intentions might be).
As an additional note, One Man Committee posted on this topic, criticizing Brodbeck's editorial insinuating hypocrisy because Brodbeck once gained grant funding for a community center. This is unfair to Brodbeck, as, in the editorial, he allows for funding for community events.
He states in the article:
"A community event is something organized by a community group that provides broad benefits to the public, like a seniors group raising funds to enhance the lives of the elderly."
I'm pretty sure community club socials and block parties would fall under community events.
* For those interested in further theology: Parts of the Old Testament, as the laws of governance for the polity of Israel, did require some redistribution, in particular the year of Jubilee, a tithe to support the Levite priesthood who were not allowed to own land, and laws concerning gleanings. On the other hand, these are quite different from the redistributionism of the modern welfare state. I could have a deeper discussion on this issue, but for now it's tangential.
2011-06-07
Elitism, Art, and Right-wing Populism
It's been a while since I posted on here. I said what I wanted to say about the election in my last post and I've been busy. Since the election the only thing I felt somewhat compelled to post on was the 60% statistic going around, but that would have been little more than a rant on idiocy. Graham posted on it and his was a lot more fair and a lot less harsh than mine would have been. I've now probably lost whatever little momentum I had for this blog when I started, but oh well.
So anyway, I hope to post more through the Manitoba election season (we'll see), but for today, I'm going to talk about right-wing populism. I was reading Margie Gillis, The Media, and Them High-Falutin' Ideas on Nothing in Winnipeg and thought I'd respond. I'll start with the caveat that I did not watched the news segment discussed for more than a couple minutes and got bored, but the segment itself is not that important to the discussion.
Before I begin, Sun News is the voice of right-wing populism in Canada, just as Fox is the voice of right-wing populism in the US. The Sun News channel was specifically created to fill this market. There is no major left-wing populist media outlet in North America as traditional left-wing populism has been almost wholly abandoned outside the intelligentsia and public service unions (whose membership base is often not in full agreement with the more activist agendas of the unions). More on this in a bit.
This is one misinterpretation a lot of individuals with more left-leaning or centrist beliefs make a fair amount. They miss the presuppositions behind right-wing populism, often imputing left-wing populist assumptions onto them.
Traditionally, the category of the "elite" are viewed based on a left-wing, quasi-Marxist conception of economics. There are the rich elite and then there are the poor working masses who the elites extract "surplus value" from. This class warfare conception forms the basis of left-wing populism and it has been largely abandoned in North America. While there's the occasional "soak the rich" rhetoric, most left-wingers have abandoned the class warfare approach, recognizing that if you "soak the rich" over-much they'll just shut the factory down and move it to China. Most progressives realize that you can not destroy the rich as you need to keep them around to support the welfare state, which the rich pay the lion's share of.
What class warfare politics that does exist generally resides in academia, which is relatively isolated from economic realities due to their centrality in the modern credentialism system, public service unionism, which are also fairly isolated from economic realities exceptingin the occasional public service slash, and in racial minorities, who are still relatively economically disadvantaged but their populism is generally more racial in tone than strictly economic.
Most of the white working class, the traditional base of left-wing populism in North America, has abandoned it because as long as there's a basic social safety net and jobs (which they know will leave elsewhere if the country is to punitive the rich), they live fairly comfortably.
Despite the abandonment of left-wing populism, the political language and pre-suppositions that formed the basis of it are still in use. The conception of the elite as being economic elites is one such remnant.
Populism in North America has largely become the domain of the right, but it is a different animal. This populism traces it's routes back to the "silent majority" reaction to the 60's counter-culture. It is not based on economics (although, the Tea Party movement may change this, but it's too early to tell). Rather, it is based on culture. The counter-culture tried (and succeeded to a certain degree) to radically alter North American culture form its traditional value and right-wing populism became the go to of the "silent majority" in reaction to this attack on traditional values. At this point, the basis of political disagreement began to move away from economics to post-materialist values. Thus the "culture war," the original basis of right-wing populism.
Knowing this, we see that when right-wing populists talk of elitists and elitism, they are not talking about the traditional economic elites, rather they are talking about cultural elites. The economic philosophy of right-wing populism is generally somewhat producerist in tone, setting "producers" (ie. workers, businessmen, entrepreneurs, etc.) against "parasites" (ie. "welfare bums", "corporate welfare", public bureaucrats, etc.). Most economic elites, excepting those seeming to survive primarily off corporate welfare and rent-seeking, would be among the producers and would be seen as models rather than enemies.
To the right-wing populist, the elitists consists of those who are seen as those who are becoming wealthy by being parasitic (ie. the bureaucratic and political elites) or the gate-keepers of culture who are seen as hostile to traditional values. (It should also be noted that right-wing populists often use "elitists" and "elitism" rather than "elites" as "elites" has a more economic connotation, while elitists is more to the point).
Now, we'll isolate art in particular. First, we must make a rough distinction between "high art" and "popular art". Right-wing populists generally don't have a problem with popular art in general (except where the values being espoused by a particular piece of art are antithetical to right-wing populist values). Except for some extreme religious fundamentalists (which are a small and waning sub-section of right-wing populism and have never really had any strength in Canada) there would be little political objection (taste is another discussion entirely) to Hollywood movies, popular music, trade books, classic paintings etc. that were not directly espousing hostile values.
The problem is more with "high art" such as modern theatre, interpretive dance, and modern paintings. I know these categories are rough and over-lapping, but this distinction is essential.
The first problem is that "high art" is generally "parasitical" these days; it is funded in large part by government through taxation. I'm not going to start the art funding debate, but this "parasitism" is one of the primary reasons for populists dislike of high art.
Second, is that much "modern" art is generally inimical to right-wing populist values. (At this point, we should also distinguish between "modern" and "classic" art. The "classics" like classical music, Shakespeare, paintings that aren't "modern", etc. are less prone to dislike. As defining features of Western civilization there is some love for classic art among right-wing populists. There is less hostility towards this and more mixed feelings about public funding). Modern high art generally embraces leftist values and generally are hostile to traditional values.
The third is perceived condescension. Nobody likes feeling that they are being condescended to, right-wing populists are no different in this regard. The arts debate feels condescending to populists and, to some degree, the general public at large. If say, a metalhead and country-western lover disagree, they might argue that the other's taste is horrible, but, generally, no one suggests that liking one genre or the other makes you an inherently better person, but high art is different. Those who support high art often give off a strong tone of superiority in taste and that those who don't like high art are lacking as a person. This is often the basis of why high art is argued as deserving of government funds where popular music might not be. (Whether supporters of high art mean to be condescending is irrelevant, that is the way they come off to many who do not particularly enjoy high art).
Knowing this we can begin to more accurately understand right-wing populism's (and thus Sun News' and Krista Erickson's) reactions to "art".
"Not Getting" high art would be a source of pride for exactly the reasons illustrated above. It's a form of social signalling that you are not an elitist, that you are not a parasite, and that you are agreeable to right-wing populist values. Sun News and Krista are doing just this sort of signalling to their intended audience.
For similar social signalling reasons, cultural elites would generally turn up their nose at and deride, for examples sake, Tom Clancy novels, which are right-wing military fiction written for the "common man".
Given the basis of right-wing populism, it is excellent credential to strive for if that is who you are appealing to (which Sun News is).
Also, once you understand the basis of right-wing populism that hostility towards the arts becomes perfectly understandable. It would be akin to the left-wing elite deriding Ayn Rand or "Not Getting" the appeal of Tom Clancy. It signals that you are one of the group and that you reject culture that is inimical to the group and its values/culture. There is no good reason to bother to try to "Get It" and some very good reasons to deride it.
So anyway, I hope to post more through the Manitoba election season (we'll see), but for today, I'm going to talk about right-wing populism. I was reading Margie Gillis, The Media, and Them High-Falutin' Ideas on Nothing in Winnipeg and thought I'd respond. I'll start with the caveat that I did not watched the news segment discussed for more than a couple minutes and got bored, but the segment itself is not that important to the discussion.
Before I begin, Sun News is the voice of right-wing populism in Canada, just as Fox is the voice of right-wing populism in the US. The Sun News channel was specifically created to fill this market. There is no major left-wing populist media outlet in North America as traditional left-wing populism has been almost wholly abandoned outside the intelligentsia and public service unions (whose membership base is often not in full agreement with the more activist agendas of the unions). More on this in a bit.
That anything that doesn’t enjoy the support of the majority must be “elite,” and thus suspect. (False.)
...
* To be fair, there are people in the arts who could certainly be considered elite — I would point to the many extremely wealthy private citizens who are often prominent or silent donors, board members, and fundraisers for everything from the ballet to the most esoteric art galleries. It’s telling that these folks (and I applaud their efforts) are usually not the people referred to when certain crowds discuss the “elite” who support and work within the arts.
This is one misinterpretation a lot of individuals with more left-leaning or centrist beliefs make a fair amount. They miss the presuppositions behind right-wing populism, often imputing left-wing populist assumptions onto them.
Traditionally, the category of the "elite" are viewed based on a left-wing, quasi-Marxist conception of economics. There are the rich elite and then there are the poor working masses who the elites extract "surplus value" from. This class warfare conception forms the basis of left-wing populism and it has been largely abandoned in North America. While there's the occasional "soak the rich" rhetoric, most left-wingers have abandoned the class warfare approach, recognizing that if you "soak the rich" over-much they'll just shut the factory down and move it to China. Most progressives realize that you can not destroy the rich as you need to keep them around to support the welfare state, which the rich pay the lion's share of.
What class warfare politics that does exist generally resides in academia, which is relatively isolated from economic realities due to their centrality in the modern credentialism system, public service unionism, which are also fairly isolated from economic realities exceptingin the occasional public service slash, and in racial minorities, who are still relatively economically disadvantaged but their populism is generally more racial in tone than strictly economic.
Most of the white working class, the traditional base of left-wing populism in North America, has abandoned it because as long as there's a basic social safety net and jobs (which they know will leave elsewhere if the country is to punitive the rich), they live fairly comfortably.
Despite the abandonment of left-wing populism, the political language and pre-suppositions that formed the basis of it are still in use. The conception of the elite as being economic elites is one such remnant.
Populism in North America has largely become the domain of the right, but it is a different animal. This populism traces it's routes back to the "silent majority" reaction to the 60's counter-culture. It is not based on economics (although, the Tea Party movement may change this, but it's too early to tell). Rather, it is based on culture. The counter-culture tried (and succeeded to a certain degree) to radically alter North American culture form its traditional value and right-wing populism became the go to of the "silent majority" in reaction to this attack on traditional values. At this point, the basis of political disagreement began to move away from economics to post-materialist values. Thus the "culture war," the original basis of right-wing populism.
Knowing this, we see that when right-wing populists talk of elitists and elitism, they are not talking about the traditional economic elites, rather they are talking about cultural elites. The economic philosophy of right-wing populism is generally somewhat producerist in tone, setting "producers" (ie. workers, businessmen, entrepreneurs, etc.) against "parasites" (ie. "welfare bums", "corporate welfare", public bureaucrats, etc.). Most economic elites, excepting those seeming to survive primarily off corporate welfare and rent-seeking, would be among the producers and would be seen as models rather than enemies.
To the right-wing populist, the elitists consists of those who are seen as those who are becoming wealthy by being parasitic (ie. the bureaucratic and political elites) or the gate-keepers of culture who are seen as hostile to traditional values. (It should also be noted that right-wing populists often use "elitists" and "elitism" rather than "elites" as "elites" has a more economic connotation, while elitists is more to the point).
Now, we'll isolate art in particular. First, we must make a rough distinction between "high art" and "popular art". Right-wing populists generally don't have a problem with popular art in general (except where the values being espoused by a particular piece of art are antithetical to right-wing populist values). Except for some extreme religious fundamentalists (which are a small and waning sub-section of right-wing populism and have never really had any strength in Canada) there would be little political objection (taste is another discussion entirely) to Hollywood movies, popular music, trade books, classic paintings etc. that were not directly espousing hostile values.
The problem is more with "high art" such as modern theatre, interpretive dance, and modern paintings. I know these categories are rough and over-lapping, but this distinction is essential.
The first problem is that "high art" is generally "parasitical" these days; it is funded in large part by government through taxation. I'm not going to start the art funding debate, but this "parasitism" is one of the primary reasons for populists dislike of high art.
Second, is that much "modern" art is generally inimical to right-wing populist values. (At this point, we should also distinguish between "modern" and "classic" art. The "classics" like classical music, Shakespeare, paintings that aren't "modern", etc. are less prone to dislike. As defining features of Western civilization there is some love for classic art among right-wing populists. There is less hostility towards this and more mixed feelings about public funding). Modern high art generally embraces leftist values and generally are hostile to traditional values.
The third is perceived condescension. Nobody likes feeling that they are being condescended to, right-wing populists are no different in this regard. The arts debate feels condescending to populists and, to some degree, the general public at large. If say, a metalhead and country-western lover disagree, they might argue that the other's taste is horrible, but, generally, no one suggests that liking one genre or the other makes you an inherently better person, but high art is different. Those who support high art often give off a strong tone of superiority in taste and that those who don't like high art are lacking as a person. This is often the basis of why high art is argued as deserving of government funds where popular music might not be. (Whether supporters of high art mean to be condescending is irrelevant, that is the way they come off to many who do not particularly enjoy high art).
Knowing this we can begin to more accurately understand right-wing populism's (and thus Sun News' and Krista Erickson's) reactions to "art".
No, it’s everywhere, really: the bold and brawny pride of Not Getting certain art forms, or philosophical concepts, is a common feature of American media in particular — and it’s cropped up with some frequency in many Canadian outlets over the years.
"Not Getting" high art would be a source of pride for exactly the reasons illustrated above. It's a form of social signalling that you are not an elitist, that you are not a parasite, and that you are agreeable to right-wing populist values. Sun News and Krista are doing just this sort of signalling to their intended audience.
For similar social signalling reasons, cultural elites would generally turn up their nose at and deride, for examples sake, Tom Clancy novels, which are right-wing military fiction written for the "common man".
And is touting that ignorance as some sort of credential really what we want to be striving for?
Given the basis of right-wing populism, it is excellent credential to strive for if that is who you are appealing to (which Sun News is).
Also, once you understand the basis of right-wing populism that hostility towards the arts becomes perfectly understandable. It would be akin to the left-wing elite deriding Ayn Rand or "Not Getting" the appeal of Tom Clancy. It signals that you are one of the group and that you reject culture that is inimical to the group and its values/culture. There is no good reason to bother to try to "Get It" and some very good reasons to deride it.
2011-04-02
Be a Smart Voter
A must read from the Globe and Mail, Be a Smart Voter. (Via Volokh).
When you vote you are exercising the force of the government over your friends, family, neighbours, and countrymen. You have no moral imperative to vote, but if you do vote you have a moral imperative to those around you to be informed and to vote responsibly.
This is one of the reasons I oppose compulsory voting systems, like Australias. If someone is not voting because they are disinterested, uninformed, or unable to decide a voting preference, they are exercising their right to vote (or not, as the case may be) responsibly by recognizing this and refraining from forcing their disinterest and lack of knowledge on others. It is those who go to the polls because when they are uninformed or undecided who are acting irresponsible. They are the ones who are exercising the force of the state against their countrymen without either understanding the consequences of their actions or not heeding their understanding.
So be informed. Learn the party's platform and promises, then learn whether their platform will actually benefit your country or harm it. Learn the social sciences so you are capable of understanding the effects of various policies. The most important social science to learn in regards to government are the political sciences, statistics, and economics.
The political sciences are important so you know how our system works. A respected introduction to Canadian politics is How Canadians Govern Themselves, which is published by the Library of Parliament.
A less respected work I'd recommend is an American humour book, Parliament of Whores. This book illustrates, in a humourous manner, the reasons that government just sometimes doesn't seem to work as well as we'd like (and no, it's not because bureaucrats are lazy and politicians are evil).
For specific political topics, there are too many to give an intro. book for each, but wikipedia is always a good place to start. It will often have
Statistics is important so that you can understand what those numbers politicians, newsies, and that jerk on the internet love to constantly throw at you actually mean. The must-read classic on this is How to Lie with Statistics. It's a simple read, is not that long, and has all the basics you need to know so that you can protect yourself from being lied to by statistics.
Economics is probably the most important thing to know when you are studying the issues. At the route of almost all government issues are economic issues like taxation, spending, the redistribution of wealth, and economic control. Economics is also the area that (and many politicians) seem least knowledgeable about when it comes to voting. I would highly recommend Naked Economics. It is simple and easy to understand, but detailed. Definitely a must read. Learn economics.
So, if you are going to vote, be informed. If you aren't informed, be responsible and don't vote (or at least spoil your ballot, if duty compels you to vote anyway).
When you vote you are exercising the force of the government over your friends, family, neighbours, and countrymen. You have no moral imperative to vote, but if you do vote you have a moral imperative to those around you to be informed and to vote responsibly.
This is one of the reasons I oppose compulsory voting systems, like Australias. If someone is not voting because they are disinterested, uninformed, or unable to decide a voting preference, they are exercising their right to vote (or not, as the case may be) responsibly by recognizing this and refraining from forcing their disinterest and lack of knowledge on others. It is those who go to the polls because when they are uninformed or undecided who are acting irresponsible. They are the ones who are exercising the force of the state against their countrymen without either understanding the consequences of their actions or not heeding their understanding.
So be informed. Learn the party's platform and promises, then learn whether their platform will actually benefit your country or harm it. Learn the social sciences so you are capable of understanding the effects of various policies. The most important social science to learn in regards to government are the political sciences, statistics, and economics.
The political sciences are important so you know how our system works. A respected introduction to Canadian politics is How Canadians Govern Themselves, which is published by the Library of Parliament.
A less respected work I'd recommend is an American humour book, Parliament of Whores. This book illustrates, in a humourous manner, the reasons that government just sometimes doesn't seem to work as well as we'd like (and no, it's not because bureaucrats are lazy and politicians are evil).
For specific political topics, there are too many to give an intro. book for each, but wikipedia is always a good place to start. It will often have
Statistics is important so that you can understand what those numbers politicians, newsies, and that jerk on the internet love to constantly throw at you actually mean. The must-read classic on this is How to Lie with Statistics. It's a simple read, is not that long, and has all the basics you need to know so that you can protect yourself from being lied to by statistics.
Economics is probably the most important thing to know when you are studying the issues. At the route of almost all government issues are economic issues like taxation, spending, the redistribution of wealth, and economic control. Economics is also the area that (and many politicians) seem least knowledgeable about when it comes to voting. I would highly recommend Naked Economics. It is simple and easy to understand, but detailed. Definitely a must read. Learn economics.
So, if you are going to vote, be informed. If you aren't informed, be responsible and don't vote (or at least spoil your ballot, if duty compels you to vote anyway).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)