Democracy is broken - let's fix it!

Any time that there is an election, there is always extensive media coverage.

It never ceases to amaze me how superficial the discussions are regarding policies that are under consideration by the competing parties. Is this because we live in a ‘sound bite era’ where the issues are complex and the typical media format is not up to the task of  adequately addressing the details and subtleties  of every topic  and point of view under discussion?  Or is the average citizen too busy or too politically apathetic to dig deeper into the topics at hand. In any case, it seems to me that most citizens obtain their information from the mainstream media and, consequently, believe that superficial information that they receive is sufficient to make an "informed vote" at the polls. 

Furthermore, when the electorate is poorly informed election races often default to a battle between personalities rather than platforms. Unfortunately, in these races, form succeeds over content and any projection as to how the winning party will perform once in office becomes a crapshoot. One possible reason that the “personality contest” type of election has become increasing common is that very few members of the voting populace possess an adequate understanding of economics and, consequently, fail to comprehend the true impact of government operations on our individual choices, freedoms and living standards. In other words, the true costs and benefits of public policies, regulations and programs are never really evaluated by the voting public in any comprehensive manner.

I, for one, believe that our electoral system is failing us and it actually perpetuates the deficiencies in our democracy to which I have alluded above. It is a commonly held view that democracy, while not being perfect, is the best form of government available. Whether you agree with this  view or not, being less than perfect means that there is clearly room for improvement.

 To initiate discussion and debate on how and what to improve, I am proposing the following changes to our electoral events and processes.

 Introducing the Voter Questionnaire and its supporting electorial process.

Overview

Imagine a scenario where elections actually generated robust debates and discussions. Furthermore, imagine these to be framed around specific topics to which we will refer to as Public Policy Categories.  Assume for this scenario that these Public Policy Categories,  or PPCs,  are limited strictly to the direct domains of responsibility for the level of government that is undertaking election: federal, provincial, municipal.  

For a provincial election, these PPCs could include: energy, healthcare, education, welfare & family services, regulations, policing, other government services, jobs & labor issues , financial accountability, leadership.

 Now suppose that, during the weeks and months running up to the election date, the political parties would stake a position on each PPC and make their positions widely known to the public. In support of disseminating and interpreting this information, media outlets of all types and stripes would run specific shows and campaigns designed to encourage public debate and discussion among voters as well as to  present differing viewpoints to the public regarding the issues and policy positions taken by each party in the race.

When election day arrives, imagine that voter would no longer vote for a party on a ballot, but would vote for their preferences in each of the PPC categories identified above [there are 10 of them] as presented to them within a document known as the Voter Questionnaire (VQ) .

 A closer look …  continue to imagine the scenario.

 In each PPC, all participating parties would stake a position and make it public during the election campaign leading up to election day. However, while this stated position appears on the official Voter Questionnaire (VQ)  [ it will replace the ballot for recording individual voter preferences ], the name of the party supporting the position [ PPC option] is never identified.  The purpose of this is to attempt to isolate the voter’s choice from any particular party allegiance; in this manner, it is hoped that the choice that the voter makes within each PPC will be less influenced by partisan party politics and will more truly reflect his of her beliefs and preferences [unless, of course, the voter has done the homework to be well informed of party positions] .

Let’s look at an example of how this might work within the Voter Questionnaire.  Under the financial accountability PPC, the following options may appear:

a] I prefer an increase in corporate taxes in order to balance the budget annually. [ this may represent the NDP’s chosen  position, for example, but it would not be stated on the voter questionnaire which party has taken this position]

b] I prefer a decrease in government spending in order to balance the budget annually [ this might represent the Ontario Libertarian Party’s anonymous yet official stake on this issue]

c] I prefer that the government increased its debts in order to pay for new government programs [ the Liberal Party may own this stake]

d] I believe that we should legalize, commercialize and tax marijuana as the primary method of increasing government revenues to balance the budget [ The Freedom Party’s stake]

d] I don't care how the government meets its financial obligations long as my needs are met with government assistance [The Communist Party of Ontario]

e] I prefer the introduction of a carbon tax to balance the budget and protect our environment [Green Party]

f] I do not have an opinion on this topic.

It must be noted that ALL OPTIONS [ a -----> h]  that are presented on within each PPC on the Voter Questionnaire [VQ]  MUST have the official endorsement of a party that is competing in the election. In fact, it would be best that the stake that they take on each issue be worded [within guidelines ] by the party leadership itself and will have had the active participation of the party membership in crafting the party’s official stance on each PPC. A coordinating body, preferable a private sector law firm, would coordinate the preparation of the Voter Questionnaire with each participating party and complete this task several months ahead of Election Day.

 Once the final and official Voter Questionnaire is completed, it would  be available for publication by any interested persons or organizations – ie the political parties themselves, members of the media, etc.  The VQ MUST be available at least 60 days prior to the election date in order to to provide enough time for the public to become familiar with its contents and be exposed to any media events that may further their interest in, and knowledge of, the political landscape.

 On Election Day. each voter will mark the official copy of the VQ in the ballot box which will be used to tally their preferences for all 10 PPCs in the VQ.

Evaluating election results

Each of the 10 PPCs in the VQ will carry a 1/10 weighting  towards 1 compete vote.   When the individual VQ is tallied, each voter’s PPC response a record a  1/10th of a vote score in favor of the party that supported the PPC option selected by the voter. For example, if the NDP had publicly supported option d] and if the voter had selected option d], then the NDP candidate in that riding would receive a1/10th vote added to his/her tally.

Note that every PPC will present an option that says “I do not have an opinion on this topic.  On this option, no score is awarded to any party; this is also true if this voter omits a response to any PPC. In effect, a complete vote can distribute 1/10^th incremental scores to a variety of parties AND any voter’s accumulated score can represent any multiple of 0.10 point from 0 to 1, depending on the number of “spoiled” PPC votes chosen by the  voter. 

The election will be one by the Party that accumulated with the highest overall PPC scores for the official VQ returns tallied.

Another example and its advantage …

Let’s select another PPC as an example: Under the topic "leadership", the following party options would be provided for selection: “ I believe that the party, and its leader, that is best prepared to lead and direct the resources of the Ontario government is:  “ 

a]  The NDP

b]  The Liberal

c]  The Conservative

d]  The Green Party

e]  The Ontario Libertarian Party

f]   The Communist Party

g]  The Freedom party

h]   I do not have an opinion on this topic.

One major advantage of the VQ is that, if a voter has the tendency to vote for candidates based on personal qualities [charisma, for example] rather than sound and reasonable policies, then the PPC selection would only count for 1/10th of a full vote. The remaining 9/10s of the  vote will be determined by policy positions in the remaining 9 PPCs  Hopefully, in order to make full use of the voting privilege, each voter may be encouraged by the VQ format to invest a little more time and effort learning about the policy options, and their implications on the lives of fellow citizens, that are available.

Yet another example….

 Under the PPC "other government services", the following  options might be:

a] I prefer that the government shrink in size by privatizing all operations that are nonessential services. For example, the LCBO and The Beer Store are retail chains that would be better run as private enterprises rather than government monopolies. [Ontario Libertarian Party]

b] I prefer the status quo – no changes to the current size and structure of the Ontario Government [ governing Ontario Liberal Party]

c] I do not object to considering that the government provide additional tax-supported services such as province-wide day care programs [ NDP]

d] I prefer the government take control and run the whole businesses in the province. [ Communist Party]

e] I prefer that government end all “corporate welfare payments” and use the saving to create a new Environmental Governance agency to oversee Ontario and direct the responsible use of its natural resources . [Green Party]

f]  I prefer that a new agency, responsible for collecting tax revenues from the sale of commercialized marijuana, be created to generate new funds for the provincial Health Care programs. [Freedom Party]

g] I prefer a review of all existing Agencies, Boards and Commissions to identify and eliminate those that no longer serve the public interest suffiently to remain in force. [Conservative Party ]

h]   I do not have an opinion on this topic.

 Note that the statement alternatives presented are stated in a way that reflects party vision & policy rather than address any specific issue. Any voter that is concerned about specific issues is likely to vote for party whose the stated options best align with the ideological stance of the voter. It will be up to the voter to decided which “vision  and approach to  governing” satisfies him or her best,  and to trust that the selected Party will  address any specific issue  of concern in a manner acceptable to the voter.

One more PPC example --- regulations.

PPC Statement :  “I believe that any party that takes power after this election should approach the domain of government regulations using the following approach:”

a] Create new legislation that will protect the public interests while focusing on job creation. [NDP]

b] Create new legislation that will protect the public interests while focusing on the protection of our natural resources and any threats from climate change . [Green]

c]  Create new legislation that will protect all workers from exploitation by rich and powerful corporations [Communist]

d]  Create new legislation that will legalize marijuana to allow new recreational freedoms for our citizens and reduce control of the moralists of our society [Freedom Party]

e] Create new legislation will protect the interests of, and reduce the regulatory burdens to our  retirees, new immigrants, public servants, the poor and the middle class [Liberal Party]

f]  Review and rationalize current regulations with the view of culling regulations that have outlived their usefulness and/or  provide unfair advantages to special interest groups at the unnecessary expense of taxpayers  [Libertarian Party]

[h]  I do not have an opinion on this topic.

 On a personal note, this author believes that this category is a key  and essential one because it accounts for almost all of the inflexibility that governments claim  when the public requests serious cost-cutting. The reason is that , as long as a regulation exists, the  government claims the responsibility to enforce it. Over 500,000 provincial regulations exist in Ontario and this is growing. The only way to enable cost-cutting is to reduce the “responsibility load” of government so that regulations can be selectively eliminated and  ineffective programs scrapped or usefully transformed.

The Benefits continue to add up …

 The above examples portray the possibilities that such a Voter Questionnaire approach to elections could have in creating a more meaningful and engaging democracy. It will shift the focus off “personalities” and onto specific platforms that clarify & solidify the positions that each party is prepared to stake on a wide array of government domains.

 Another advantage of this plan will accrue to each party. To the extent that the party members are prepared to contribute  the necessary effort in  thinking about, discussing, debating  and discovering acceptable common ground and compromise within the party’s evolving vision and platform, the party itself will be enriched and become more mature, cohesive  and professional in its presentation to the public.  If every participating party member contributes to produce the final creation os the party’s 10 PPCs for the VQ, then these will  truly reflect the party membership. This, in turn, will also provide every voter on Election Day with a broad array of unique and robust position statements from which to chose Hopefully the range of PPC options  will  represent the full gamut of realistic possibilities within each PPC  for voters to weigh and evaluate. 

In some instances, however, 2 PPC options presented buy different parties may be the same or very similar. This is where the  the VQ coordinating body will add value to the creation of the Official VQ and work with the parties in questions to ensure that each PPC option is carefully worded  so that differences in each party’s PPC stance are clear.  Therefore, it will require additional soul-searching, discussion and debate within the party membership to refine and craft a PPC party position that is sufficiently  nuanced to best reflect the party’s stand on the topic without ambiguity. REMEMBER, each party is competing for the  vote on every PPC and, for this reason, the more compelling and clear they are on every PPC , the better it is for the voter to consider and decide with minimum confusion or doubt. [ all those 1/10ths of a vote will add up quickly!]

Furthermore, If each political party promotes and campaigns actively on each of their 10 stated positions that appear in the VQ, they will have no excuses after the election that the Official VQ  did not fairly present their parties’ policy options.

Finally, the data collected for a VQ styled election will produce valuable information for the governing party regarding the “pulse” of the communities it serves. In addition, the content of the VQ  also provides an excellent  framework by which the government in power can be evaluated during its term – to track  where it succeeds in delivering on its platform , and where it fails – to be held accountable by the public in ways never previously possible.

Summary

This Voter Questionnaire approach may seem like a complicated [and possibly expensive] way to run an election, but if we are to continue to claim that we live in a  democracy, then we owe it to ourselves to inject more honesty, clarity, consideration, and investigation into the choices we make in the political arena.

 To prepare for every election using this approach will require much effort to “get if right”, but it is an effort that will be repaid in democratic dividends that all active participants stand to reap. The phase “participatory democracy’ will hold more meaning than is has to date.

Our world is infinitely more complex than it was when our electoral system was originally designed and it desperately needs to be updated. Fortunately, we live in an age where the technology is available to capture and process voter data in ways never before possible. All that is needed now is the political will and broad public support to build a more robust democracy shaped by a substantially more knowledgeable and engaged electorate.

 This paper was written to generate discussion and to suggest some ideas that may address some of the deficiencies of our current electoral system.  Hopefully it has been successful in its aim.

Let the discussions and debate begin!

Logical proof that “God” is Consciousness

Logical proof that “God”  is Consciousness

“Cogito ergo sum” , “I think therefore I am” , is the phrase attributed to the French philosopher René Descartes to explain that an individual does not exist without the awareness of self.

The terms consciousness and awareness are essentially synonymous in any discussion related to the exploration of explanations concern the nature of human existence, human reality and ‘beingness’.

Fundamentally, when consciousness exists, all states of awareness that occur within that unique instance of consciousness would not exist otherwise. This means that all images, sounds, feelings and thoughts that occur in any state awareness can only owe their existence to consciousness.

To extend this concept further to include shared states of consciousness beyond the singular, an enabling mechanism must exist. When 2 people communicate with each other, they strive to communicate the contents of their consciousness. If the contents of an individual state of consciousness cannot exist without its own existence, then how can 2 individual states of consciousness share their contents if they did not share the same essence – consciousness. This implies that these 2 people can only communicate if they are able to share a state of consciousness between them.

If 2 people can share the contents of their consciousness through this shared essence, this implies that ALL instances of consciousness can share the contents of their individual states of consciousness through this shared essence. For example, a pet dog will respond affectionately to its owner who is paying positive attention to it thereby sharing their mutual contents of consciousness; this instance of sharing contents; however, will be limited to the consciousness capacity of the pet and owner. If Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking were to hold a discourse on the topic of ‘black holes’ , however, the contents of the sharing would occur at an entirely different level.

As a thought experiment, let's assume that all sentient beings share a universal state of consciousness. Let's also assume that all 'reality'  that is individually  experienced and selectively shared by the sentient beings exists within this universal state of consciousness but is filtered at the level of each unique instance of consciousness. Finally lets premise that this filtering occurs such that the ability to experience the contents of this universal state is curtailed as to not overwhelm the capacity of each unique instance (ie each individual human being, for example) at its current state of evolution [ example , Einstein vs pet dog] . If I were to transmit the message "God is Consciousness" by Twitter or e-mail to every unique state of consciousness that is prepared to receive such a message, then the contents of my consciousness will be shared successfully by everyone that is able to receive, read and understand my message. The instrument of transmission  [Twitter, e-mail] of the message also exists in the consciousness of all who receive this message, otherwise the message could not be shared. My ability to share this message by Twitter or e-mail would not have been possible 60 years ago because these communications instruments did not exist as constructs within this universal, shared state of consciousness. Only the evolution of consciousness to create and incorporate these instruments makes this event possible today.

If God is consciousness at a universal level, and this universal consciousness is shared by the unique, but limited states of consciousness of all sentient beings, then it follows that all experiences (images, sounds, feelings and thoughts) that have ever occurred collectively by all sentient beings must exist with in this universal state of consciousness. Most religious texts, including the Bible, teach that God knows all things and is infinitely wise. To the extent of these religious texts are correct, then the premise that God is universal consciousness as described above is consistent with these teachings.

If the premise that God is universal consciousness were to be accepted as a universal truth by all sentient beings, then there would be no need for competing forms of religion. While there is much to praise within organized religions and their teachings, the greatest criticism of these religions is that they create huge and dangerous schisms between peoples - they indoctrinate their followers to the extent that some of them will ‘fight to the death’ to defend their beliefs and ensuing way of life.

There will never be peace on earth among men while these schisms exist and are reinforced.

The above  logical proof that “God is consciousness”  will be  difficult premise to refute on a logical level. However, it will be resisted on an emotional level to the extent that anyone has invested the contents of his or her consciousness in a religious paradigm. This is unfortunate.

To me, all religious organizations are political organizations, and the most largest and influential of these are also supported by political institutions within countries. For example, there was a time many decades ago in the USA that all forms of US currency had inscribed on it  the phrase' E pluribus Unum' [ one from the many ],  which was subsequently replaced by the phrase "In God we trust". This is an example where a government decided to active promote a religious paradigm over one that had previously promoted a unity of purpose for all.

Would it not be better for all states to promote another phrase that more accurately depicts our shared reality: "One in all and all in One" ?

Different Points of View on labour Unions

In the past few days, two friends of mine  (Rick and Bill ) exchanged a few emails on then topic of Labour Unions.  Here is the content of those exchanges.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Gene

Date: September 3, 2012

To: Rick

Subject: Re: A different point of view

Good morning gentlemen!  I have found some time to weigh in on this discussion…. 

My arguments against unions are based primarily on a belief that property rights, and their protection, are an essential feature of a civil society. Without property rights, the strong can take from the weak with impunity.

The most fundamental property right the ownership of  ourselves [our bodies, our minds and the things that these can do]. Another fundamental property right is that we own that which we produce with our minds and bodies - our labour - unless we give these products up to another through legal contract [see employment and intellectual property law]. 

In Canada, while property rights are not explicitly protected under the Charter of Rights [ NOTE that these are protected under the US Constitution], we have a long tradition of property rights protection and we have created the institutions and laws to protect these under contract. Land ownership is also protected under contract. In addition, accumulated physical and monetary assets are protected under legal statutes as anyone will know after reading a mortgage contract or a property deed.

One type of monetary asset is the ownership of shares in a business. One can own shares by being the company founder and increase the value of these assets by making the necessary decisions, sacrifices and investments required to see that business succeed. Any way to own shares in a business is by purchasing them. In addition, shares can be earned under a formal  Employee Compensation Plan designed  to incent and reward specific employees whose positive impact on the company's bottom line is exemplary.

In business terms, various ' factors of production' are required to grow a business. One of the most important factors of production are its Human Resources -  employees who bring with them the skills, experience, knowledge and motivations to help a business succeed. In most cases, from my experience in the private sector, the best employees are rewarded financially and with increases in responsibility [ aka promotions]. My current employer, for example, rewards top performers by inviting them to participate in a share ownership program after one year of employment if their contributions merit this privilege.

An employee's job is not his personal property. The employer creates and owns the job in response to new or increasing demands on the enterprise. The only part of this job that the  employee owns is his person, and he employs this personal property as an instrument to acquire other amenities necessary for survival [food, clothing, shelter, transportation,etc] and/or to improves the quality of his living standards ( toys, vacations, etc). In an employment contract between employee and employer, the employer entrusts the employee with the use of other company assets [money, equipment, intellectual property, proven operational procedures, and other employees who have signed similar employment contracts] in order to conduct profitable business for the company .

When an individual employee uses his job performance to negotiate better terms of employment with his employer, he will likely be successful if the job performance warrants it and unsuccessful if it does not. As a recruiter over the last 31 years, it is never ceased to amaze me just how specialized our jobs have become. This is why it is so difficult to find the right talent in  private sector enterprises that must survive in an increasingly competitive, global business environment. One weak member of a senior management team can cost a company dearly, and one 'Wayne Gretzky' can significantly raise the overall performance of the business. This is one reason why some senior executives get paid like Wayne Gretzky and, unfortunately, the business-bashing media of organizations like the Toronto Star and CBC will never be able to appreciate the contributions of these men and women as outside observers of the enterprise.

When an individual employee is no longer free to the go shared his/her terms of employment with the employer on his or her own merits, but instead, is forced to negotiate as a member of a group all members of the group stand to gain regardless of merit, then the individual employee has less incentive to be an exemplary job performer. When the group threatens to remove one of the key factors of production from the production process, then this threat is an attack on the property rights of the owners of the business. Remember - a job carries with it no property rights within the business. Therefore, contests between unionized workers and employers is not a battle between property owners - there is only one set of property owners in this equation that being the company owners. When one employee chooses to remove his or her "property" ( body and mind) from the employee/employer equation, it is unfortunate but legally appropriate. However, when a group of employees choose to remove their collective property from the same equation, the impact on the business is much greater and is likely to bring long-lasting consequences to the value of the private property that belongs to the business owners.  Since a strike is a planned action - it does not occur by accident  - it is therefore not insurable and the company owners cannot buy protection from the damages caused by a strike. 

A strike is described by union leaders as a " negotiation tactic". I see it for what it really is - blackmail.

Rick.    When you and Janice go shopping, do you "comparison shop"? Do you seek the best combination of price, utility, quality and/or convenience? Do you care whether the product originates in Canada or the Philippines or Brazil or China? You are currently driving a Mini Cooper which was designed in Germany and assembled with parts that were made by businesses from many countries - is this an indication that you are like most people who are willing to purchase an item without 1st  investigating whether it was " union made" or made in Canada? [ BTW. Did you know that  Magna International operates in over 30 countries around the world?]

My point is, most of us 'vote' carefully with the assets [ salaries, etc] that we have earned through our labor and the sacrifices that we must make to earn those assets. We generally do not care about how or where the product of our desire was made - we only care about whether it meets our criteria for price, utility, quality and convenience. However, it is strange that we behave so differently when one of the factors of production -labor- for this product comes under discussion. The same holds true when we save for our retirements - most of us hold investment instruments [stocks] in the very same corporations that we choose to demonize. Oddly, we then dump those stocks when they perform badly because we as shareholders would never have purchased them in the 1st place without the expectation for a profitable return. Remember - a profitable return is only likely when the business attempts to optimize the use of all factors of production in a way that will reduce costs [ including labour costs ]  and increase profitable sales for its owners [including the shareholders].

As you know, I work for Canadian company that operates its enterprises in several countries including the USA, Mexico, Brazil, France and Germany. Since I joined the company in 2009, business revenues have grown from $33 million to $68 million and we have expanded business operations for our SAP consulting division to the USA, Mexico and Brazil where none previously existed. To accomplish this, our management team has taken many risks  and made many investments including establishing legal business entities in each of these countries and  establishing business offices to support these business entities in countries where he had no previous knowledge of the domestic laws, customs, labor markets,etc. There is no room for 'deadwood' in a business like R3D. Also our profit margins are kept in check by the presence of many competitors.

In public-sector enterprises, there are no competitors. Because monopoly operations are the law of the land in government enterprises, there is no way to contain costs except politically. All funding is obtained through coercion [try to evade paying you taxes and see how long you remain a free man]. Monopoly operations in government enable and permit monopoly operations in labour [aka unions]. The "assets"  of government operations are considered to be "publicly owned"  but have you ever known a citizen to have an equity stake in those assets similar to a share in a private corporation that can be sold on the market for financial return? [ bonds do not count because they are simply loans with special terms, not a claim on assets].  When a private-sector union strikes, the company's shareholders feel the pain due to real losses incurred  when production is disrupted. When a public-sector union strikes, the pain is felt by politicians who fear the loss of re-election possibilities when government services are disrupted. If we taxpayers really do "own our government " in the true sense of ownership, then do we also own the jobs in government? Should we not have a say as to whether we are prepared to be held hostage by a special-interest group - ie the labor union that is holding us hostage? Is it truly a democratic society when one special-interest group can hold so much sway over all citizens? 

The labor union movement is adversarial in nature as it pits its own interests against the interests of society and the legitimate property rights of many of its members. Somehow,  over time, this movement [ with the help of snake-oil selling politicians]  has negotiated the legal right to do attack our rights . All laws are not fair laws, or you even ethically sound laws. Just as I see taxation is theft, I also see union strikes as an attack on property rights and a form of theft.

As for the extremely high compensation packages of some executives, I also take offense as a shareholder when one of my shares performs poorly while the executives' receive nosebleed paydays. However, as a shareholder, I have a right to be concerned. If I was not the shareholder, then it would be none of my business. In any case, if I do not like what an executive is doing to my investment in the company he runs, I am free to sell my shares and invest elsewhere.

Like Wayne Gretzky who earned exceptional paydays by being an exceptional talent who was a highly profitable draw to private enterprises known as the NHL and Edmonton Oilers, there are "Wayne Gretzky-like"  executives who bring great value to business  enterprises. However,  since few citizens take as much interest in following the "sport of business" as  they do the sport of hockey, then the talents of these executives often go unsung among the masses. 

Rick.  I suspect that you are a fan of protecting property rights as much as I am, but that you have not given this topic as much thought as I have. 

You have worked within a public-sector institution for over 30 years of your career. Prior to 1981, while you and I were employed by the [ a physical fitness company] , we were employees and not owners - as such, we were not particularly concerned about the business risks and profitability of that enterprise. Neither of us had a personal stake in the factors of production that determined whether it succeeded or failed. 

It is an real eye-opener to be an owner of a business enterprise. I am a shareholder of R3D as well as Hardwood Ski and Bike.  While I was employed as an IT recruiter for 28 years, I never earned a salary - 100% of my personal income was derived from sales commissions. These facts, I believe, qualify me as an entrepreneur and a capitalist. These roles have me with a first hand understanding of the “machinery” of private business enterprises as well as an appreciation for the value of strong business leadership.

My point is, Rick, that we all take different paths in life and each path exposes us to experiences that contribute greatly to shaping our beliefs and our thinking. My fight for smaller government, the elimination of unions, the reduction of taxes and the stripping away of tens of thousands of useless regulations - this fight is clearly a byproduct of my work history and the personal experiences of their brought me. My truth is my truth. Your are truth is your truth. We are each entitled to our own truths. However, when one’s truth leads him to the belief that he is entitled to take the fruits of one man’s labour [taxation] in order to supply these to another man ‘unearned’, then this is where I draw the line. In is one thing to help a friend in need of to voluntarily give to a community charity; it is quite another to give up these fruits through force and for a cause in which you do not believe.

 As a believer property rights, I doubt that I will ever stop feeling the injustice of government and the special privileges that they bestow on their political friends such as labor unions.

Concerning the alleged benefits of unionism to the Canadian middle class.

ð I agree with Bill -  I do not trust statistics published by unions or their supporters.  Selectively chosen and/or interpreted stats can argue any point of view that one likes, and union leaders  and their friends will only promote their self-serving causes.

ð The Toronto Star is notoriously a pro-socialist newspaper. Have you ever read an article in the Star regarding the protection of property rights? 

ð Socialist “income-sharing” strategies are counter-productive because they distort labour markets in a way that shifts the labor factor of production away from their most productive applications to less productive uses. This results in less wealth production than would otherwise be the case. If we as a society wish to raise living standards for everyone, increases in productivity in the wealth-creating enterprises is the only way forward (NOTE: All government enterprises are wealth-consuming enterprises because they are funded by coercive taxation to meet political agendas and they do not produce tradable goods and services except on a monopoly basis – for example, the LCBO. All private sector enterprises, on the other hand, produce goods and services for people who freely exchange some of the accumulated assets gained from their work [ie money] for these goods and services - no coercion required).

ð No one can legislate productivity. Strikes will not create more wealth. The so-called "middle class" is an arbitrary and relative measure defined by statisticians - if Canada's nation wealth declined by 80%, there would still be a statistical "middle class" as would be the case if it increased by 500%. The "poor" would still be poor in the eyes of some members of society even if their living standards were to increase substantially because the poor would still be defined as the bottom 20% of income earners. We live in an Era of Envy where the bottom 99% demonize the top 1%.  Yet, the bottom 50 % rarely know anything about the richest members of society and the contributions that they have (or not as the case may be) made to societal living standards.

If unions were to spend more time helping business enterprises to be more productive and profitable, rather than constantly trying to steal a piece of the wealth pie from the capitalist owners who have legitimate property rights, then more good-paying jobs would emerge and middle-class prosperity would blossom from merit rather than coercion. 

And if governments were 1/10 the size that they are today, there will be that many more resources applied productively to wealth-generating economic activities than exists today.

Finally, if we returned to the Gold Standard, then ……….. [ thats a story for another day :-) ]

Gene 

On Sep 2, 2012,  Rick  wrote:

Good morning.

I just read this morning's Star article on unions and their impact on our society (which might be taken as "the society in which they operate"). Interesting piece.

A few items came off the page for me:

1. "When union membership thrives, so does the middle class." Harvard University and other economic institutes have shown an incontrovertible correlation between the rate of unionization and the percentage of the nation's total wealth held by the middle class. 

2. "Unions have narrowed the gap between rich and poor through the first 70 years of the last century." "As unions were weakened by globalization, free-trade agreements and anti-labour legislation the gap goes off the charts" (More about this later)

3. "In 1968, when 28 percent of workers were unionized, the middle class claimed 53.2 percent of the nation's income [on 60% of the households]. In 2010, union membership had plummeted to 12 percent while the middle-class share of income dropped to 46.6 percent. Meanwhile, the proverbial "1 per cent" saw its share more than double from 9 percent in 1974 to 23 percent in 2007." (Canada'a numbers were 37.6% "union density" in 1981 and 31.5% in 2010 with most of that in the private sector.)

4. CEO salaries and perquisites: "CEO pay packages swell by double-digit increases every year - in good times and bad - even while they put downward on wages, pensions and benefits."

There is a lot more in the article, but I put this forward as a rebuttal to Gene's point of view about unions being "thieves of capitalists' profits". Here is my point of view on that: A capitalist seems to me to be the person who creates the idea, the invention, "the company" (as in Henry Ford) which produces a product or service for sale. Just as a musician/artist should receive royalties for his or her work, so should the originator of the "company". After all, no one would benefit economically if it wasn't for that person. Now, along comes two groups of people: "the workers" and "the administrators/managers". Both are employees of "the company". Both benefit from the opportunity to work for "the company". The key thing here is that these two groups are both employees. 

So here is the lead-up to my point: If the "capitalist" benefits from the propagation of his/her idea (etc.), then part of the wealth should rightly be earned by the two groups which make that propagation happen: "the worker" and "the administrator/manager" without whom nothing would happen. In capitalist terminology, this is what is deemed to be "profit centres" - each type of worker becomes her/his own profit centre from their involvement in "the company" and are free to spend their earnings, as is the "capitalist", in their society thus creating the local/national economy - and creating other opportunities for "capitalists" to cash in on opportunities where earnings are being/need to be spent, and so on. 

My point: If unions and their workers are nothing but "profit thieves" (as you called them) then administrators/managers and, yes, CEO's are nothing but profit-sucking middlemen (and women) between "the capitalist" and "the workers". To whit: Since the early 1990's, the wage differential between workers and management has gone from a factor of 4 to a factor of 10. To quote the Star article: "As for the top 50 "layoff leaders" - those companies that fired the most workers - their CEO's averaged almost $12 million a year in salary." My question is: "Why?" Weren't they just doing their job? Why do they get obscene amounts of remuneration ("pay for service") in ever-increasing amounts by demanding more for doing what they should be doing anyway? It's kind of like what you call "profit-thieving unions and their workers", isn't it? If CEO's - "the administrators/managers" - get performance bonuses (even when the company goes bankrupt, it seems) then why shouldn't "the workers"? If "the capitalist" wants to improve his/her bottom line in "the company" then perhaps a major scaling back on "profit-sucking middlemen" and their "culture of entitlement" should occur?

There is an ever-increasing culture of entitlement in our society (Western society?) - at all levels. It has been stated that the cost of labour is the culprit and that such labour should be moved to Third World countries (Globalization?) to improve the bottom line. Well there are two types of "labour" in "the company" aren't there? There are millions of business MBA grads out there who could run a company and not just a handful who demand ever-obscene levels of "pay for service". So to use your terminology: "If they don't like the pay [for service] they can quit and work for another company", can't they? Just as "the workers" can leave if they don't like their level of pay then so can the other group of workers in "the company".

As for the "1 per cent": The Star states, "In fact, the richest 1 per cent of Canadians took a stunning one-third of all income gains between 1997 and 2007. That compares to 8 per cent in the 1960's." Maybe it's time for the richest citizens - not all of whom are "capitalists" but the beneficiaries of their society's economy - to put back into their society. When the French Revolution took place there was an ever-widening wealthy class, a shrinking middle class, and an ever-widening poor class and society revolted. In Canada in 2012, there are the same economic conditions. What must we do to prevent a "French Revolution" of our own?

Rick

Problem: A systematic voting bias that favours public servants.

There exists a systematic, undemocratic bias that appears during every political election that  favors public servants - in particular those that are represented by the collective bargaining process that is the government granted privilege of union membership.

The problem has  two dimensions. 

First. All tax revenues come under the spending discretion and control of public servants. Consequently,  then public servants  as a class of society ultimately possess the collective voting power (and self-serving) tendency to vote in favor of political platforms and government internal policies that will serve their individual and personal interests AS public servants. Examples of such self- interests include:  voting for new or expansionary government programs that will provide more job opportunities for themselves within the public service; voting for employee compensation and benefits increases for themselves; voting against any measure that proposes a reduction in the power, size, mandate, revenues and influence of government in our lives.

Second. When public servants are members of a union, this systematic bias becomes dramatically reinforced. Since the majority of public servants are union members, then this systematic bias clearly favors society's 'political class' over those that fund their jobs - the wealth-generating citizens who are employed in the private sector. It must be noted that the citizens who are employees of the public service are members of the wealth-consuming class, and that any taxes that they must forfeit from their pay-check  are paid by monies that originated from taxation rather that the wealth-creating activities of business.

Everyone understands the power and influence of unions today.

Unions have been granted by government authority the "right"  to employee "collective bargaining" tactics  to extract compensation and other job-related advantages from employers for their members. Their leverage to achieve these ends is directly proportional to the percentage of the employer's workforce that belongs to the union membership. The threat that the union presents to the employer to “negotiate” better employment terms is strike action, or other less-punitive job action which will threaten the employer's reputation and will withdraw from the public community that the employer serves the services upon which they have come to depend.

Solution: Collective voting.

I am proposing “collective voting” to counter the bias of "collective bargaining".

Under collective voting, any public servant that enjoys the benefits of collective bargaining under union membership must forfeit his or her individual vote at election time, but  will be entitled to influence the single collective vote that will be granted to every separate union organization that employs public servants. Furthermore, to prevent unions from re-structuring themselves into many smaller voting units in order to counter the purpose of this collective voting scheme, a single vote will be allowed for every distinct community  of public servant - one vote for all teachers; one vote for all health care worker; etc.

It is anticipated that many union members will not willingly  forfeit their individual vote in favor of the voting restriction imposed by union membership - they will likely argue this as being  "undemocratic”. I sympathize with them. 

For this reason, a concurrent law must be passed to make union membership voluntary. In this way, every public sector employees will have  the democratic choice between the advantages of collective bargaining and the ability to exercise their right to vote as a citizen of Ontario.

Anticipated consequences:

While this "collective voting "proposal is not ideal, if implemented it will greatly reduce the systematic and undemocratic voting bias that currently exists. Two scenarios are likely to become manifest as result of this change. 

First , union membership may not change at all but the voting influence of unions will become almost nonexistent, thereby eliminating the bias. 

On the other hand, if membership in unions drops radically, then the number of citizens who lobby for internal policy changes  or at election time, vote  in favor of self-serving political objectives - these will also be reduced along with the bias. 

In either case, the interests of democracy will be served.