The 22nd Century Economy (1 of 10)

As much as we like to present history as a series of distinct epochs, in most cases that is an artificial simplification. Within individual societies throughout history, and now in our global society, different periods of history tend to blend together.

Each period of history can be seen as both an outgrowth of its predecessor and as a lead-up to its successor. I believe that most people throughout history have seen their own age as a transitory one, bridging the storied past and the uncertain future; I also believe that this is a healthy outlook because it creates a mindset for advancement and change.

As I have previously said, I believe that it is difficult to form forward-looking policy without a coherent vision of your goal. I believe that this is one of the reasons much government policy remains reactive, because politicians do not have, cannot articulate, or will not disclose their visions of the future.

I aim to be different. I have said before that my long-term environmental vision is of people living in urban "islands", surrounded by mostly unspoiled landscape. That vision drives much of my environmental policy. I want to expand on this vision of the future and discuss some other policy areas from a viewpoint of creating proactive policies that work toward identifiable goals.

In this post, I will start with the economy. I have referred to it as the 22nd century economy because I see our current system as being the 21st century economy, the successful but flawed basis which leads into the next age. I see the 23rd century economy as the "ideal" that the next age will play a part in ushering in. The time scales involved may be longer or (somewhat) shorter, I have simply used the 23rd century as the ideal in homage to Star Trek, which presents a vision of an ideal economy where scarcity no longer applies, people are driven by contribution rather than profit, and merit is the determining factor of success.

What we have now is a nascent global economy, artificially divided into ~200 nation-states, most with some form of mixed market system, combining capitalist economics with a moderately interventionist state. A little over half these states have some form of democratic political system, with the rest being authoritarian.

As I have said many times before, the current system is not in need of wholesale change, as it has been proven to be very efficient and has drastically improved living standards across the board. It can and will, with appropriate guidance, continue to improve life for humanity and bring us closer to our goals.

However, the system should also not remain static, because a fragmented, mixed capitalist economy is not equipped to transform into a global, democratic post-capitalist meritocracy, even if fusion power and replicators (scarcity-eliminating matter-energy conversion devices) were invented and perfected tomorrow.

I believe our attitude should be one of gradual change and improvement, constantly attempting to make our system one that will bridge the gap between the present and the future.

The obvious question then becomes, what will this "bridge" economy look like? What kind of system can reduce the problems we face today while simultaneously preparing for a post-scarcity economy and thriving in one where scarcity still applies?

I think we can start by identifying some of the things in the current system that will have to change to reach the long-term vision. Once we have incorporated those adjustments, we can work from there to complete the transitional framework.

Here are some of the problems I see with our current system:

1. The biggest problem is the inability of pure capitalism to price in externalities, that is, effects that economic transactions have on third parties. I have said before that in our system I believe governments must do their best to manage these externalities, but it is possible there is a better way.

2. A related problem is the tragedy of the commons, where a common resource (like fishing stocks or water) is overexploited because it is available to all. Again, government regulation has been the default (and relatively unsuccessful) solution to this problem, although some other novel approaches have been proposed, such as simply privatizing ownership of all resources, removing the incentive to overexploit.

3. The second great challenge we face, as I have mentioned before, is the reconciliation of profit with contribution. If we are move toward a true meritocracy, two things must happen. We must have equality of opportunity, and we must solve this problem. This will be a tricky one to solve, primarily because people don't agree on what constitutes contribution

4. Speaking of equality of opportunity, it is a necessity and we don't have it. There have been significant strides made in this area, but there is still a long way to go. Differences need to be eliminated between countries and within them. The two major sub-problems here are the lack of global economic and political integration disadvantaging people in certain countries as well as the neo-aristocracy created through inherited wealth.

There is progress being made on the first issue, through gradual increase in worldwide development as well as through political and economic integration. It is the second problem that really causes me grief.

I strongly believe that the majority of people who work their way to extreme wealth deserve to have such wealth, because they have indeed made contributions. Probably the opposite is true for so-called "trust fund kids". My observations suggest that the massive wealth they inherit tends to be a deterrent to contribution, rather than an enabler. There are exceptions, but they are rare. To solve this problem, I have previously advocated a heavy estate tax, but I am cognizant of the enforcement problems with estate taxes. A different approach may be necessary here.

5. Capitalism in its current form seemingly disincentivises efficiency in some ways. This is a curious problem, but it is pervasive. Presumably, most people would rather work less, and less time spent on low-skill activities would theoretically free up additional man-hours for more "contribution-added" activities. However, the trend in capitalist societies has been towards more work, not less, and employment economics are such that many people (and unions) are actually strongly opposed to changes that would replace human labour with machine power.

A related problem involves technologies that are more efficient, but more expensive. The energy efficiency of nuclear power, for example, is much higher than other alternatives, but its use is still relatively limited because of the cost. This disconnect between economic efficiency and technological efficiency is an interesting one, which I will have to give more thought to.

6. There is a small disconnect between our current form of capitalism and the democratic ideals we claim to value. The corporation, pervasive in today's capitalism because of its unique ability to raise large amounts of capital from strangers, is not a democratic beast. As a result, many people spend half (or more) of their waking hours in what is essentially an authoritarian environment. It would seem that we would want to move away from this if we could.

7. The last issue I will discuss is a controversial one, because of the atrocious evil that has been associated with perverse forms of the idea in the past. I thought long and hard about whether or not I should include it at all, and am fully expecting people to twist my words and crucify me for them. However, it is a real issue, and I can't not mention it.

This issue is evolution. I would argue that human evolution has been affected by the advent of industrial capitalism and modern medicine. I don't think its revolutionary to believe that there are certain genetic traits that we have an interest in promoting or preventing, mostly to do with inheritable diseases, but also traits like intelligence. It would seem self-evident that since intelligence (for example) is a trait almost universally valued across societies, and absolutely necessary for the survival and expansion of the human race, that we would want to make sure that the next generation is as intelligent as possible. It seems to me, however, that in developed countries, the smartest people are having fewer and fewer children.

By now, half of you are probably thinking I'm about to advocate Nazi-era policies of forced sterilization and the other half are probably thinking "I have five kids so he's saying I am dumb". I am not saying either of these things. I violently oppose the kind of restrictions on freedom and the loss of human dignity that are necessary for the first, and the second is not true in many, many cases, and is only a statistical argument. I am merely trying to say that if each successive generation is becoming less and less intelligent, that is (or will be) a serious problem and one that we should at least discuss in a reasonable fashion.

In the next few posts, I will discuss these problems further and try to point out some potential ways forward. Frankly though, I don't have very many answers yet, and these are tough problems.

As a sidebar, I have been reading about something called Economic Democracy, which is what got me thinking about the dynamics of a post-capitalist economy. Basically the idea is to retain a market economy, but replace corporations with worker-run cooperatives, which would borrow money from state-owned banks based on previous success and (possibly) how the objective of the business conformed with state goals. The cooperatives would pay a flat capital asset tax to the state. It is an interesting idea, and some of the ideas it presents deserve a long, hard look, but it suffers from three main problems in my view:

1. It would not be feasible to establish this system before worldwide political integration has been achieved. The very nature of the system precludes foreign investment, and it would substantially damage the economy through the loss of global application of comparative advantage. It would also reinforce national standard-of-living differences.

2. A worker-run system would suffer even more from a tendency to reject labour saving technologies in favour of inefficiency.

3. The capital allocation decisions made by the state owned banks make me very skeptical. I highly doubt that these decisions would be made effectively because of political interference and the historical inability of government bureaucrats to make good decisions on similar matters.

I will come back to Economic Democracy in later posts.

Fier, Responsable et Autonome

There are days when I find myself disillusioned by our politics. I see all the parties running around in circles, trying to offend the least possible number of people while accomplishing nothing.

I see absurdity from the Bloc when Gilles Duceppe compares Quebec sovereigntists to the anti-Nazi French resistance. I see absurdity from the NDP when they introduce a bill that will disqualify a large portion of our most brilliant legal minds from ever serving on the Supreme Court. I cannot count the number of times I have seen Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals make a completely illogical stand on something in order to pander to one voting group or another.

Even the Conservatives, my party of choice on most days, have their moments of insanity. Sometimes they will hitch themselves just a little too tightly to US Republicans and start talking about science as the enemy, or about how we shouldn't be providing contraceptives to developing countries. Other times they will follow the Liberals' lead and forget what they stand for in order to win votes.

However, amidst all these frustrating happenings, sometimes our politicians give us a glimmer of hope. They will stand up and say something that may not be popular, but that they believe in. On occassion, someone might even be bold enough to tell the whole truth.

That's why, today, I must give a wholehearted thumbs-up to Maxime Bernier, for his courageous vision on the future of Quebec. For all his past failings, this is a moment of brilliance:

I would like to discuss with you today the future of our society, the future of Quebec, which worries me very much.

Political debates in Quebec have been dominated for several decades by the “national question.” It’s a legitimate debate, but a debate that’s not going anywhere and will probably not go anywhere for a long time to come. Lucien Bouchard said it recently, and polls also show it: most Quebecers do not believe that Quebec will separate from Canada in the foreseeable future.

Despite this, since the 1970s, we’ve talked a lot about political independence, about the constitution, we’ve held referendums. And meanwhile, we’ve built a system of economic dependence that’s become more and more elaborate.

Quebec has one of the biggest and most interventionist governments in North America, and one of the heaviest fiscal burdens. Quebec has the most far-reaching social programs. Quebec is the province that gives the most subsidies to businesses, artists, parents, and to a host of other groups. And let’s not forget the other problems, such as the fact that Quebec is among the most rapidly aging societies in the world. This will increase the cost of social programs, and there will be fewer young people to pay for them.

Some weeks ago, we learned in a study of the Quebec department of Finance that we rank fifth among the most indebted societies in the industrialized world, not far behind Greece which is currently going through a difficult financial crisis. While we were debating independence, we accumulated an enormous debt and we became dependent on borrowed money to fund an unsustainable level of public services.

We certainly have many reasons to be proud of our culture, our language, of the evolution of our society during the past four centuries. But the political choices that were made in Quebec in the past four decades have led us in a dead end. If we do not change direction soon, we’re going to hit a brick wall.

As it happens, the Bloc Québécois was recently celebrating its 20th anniversary. Instead of discussing the real problems of Quebec, the bloquistes prefer to continue debating a hypothetical project and try to prove that our federal system is not working.

Gilles Duceppe made a fool of himself by comparing the separatist movement to the resistance against the Nazis in his anniversary speech. If the bloquistes spent more of their energy trying to find solutions to the concrete challenges that we face instead of uttering such nonsense, perhaps we’d be in better shape as a society.

Mr. Duceppe also complained, as he has been doing for 20 years, that Quebec did not get enough money from the federal government. He said that our last budget did not redistribute enough funds to Quebec, and that is the proof that federalism is not profitable for us. So in short, Mr. Duceppe, who is fighting for Quebec independence, laments the fact that Quebec is not enough economically dependent on the rest of Canada. He wants Quebec to get more money, he wants us to be even more dependent!

This year, Quebec will get $8.5 billion in equalization payments, an increase of $200 million compared with last year. That’s more than half of the $14 billion in the program. That’s money that comes from the richer provinces, such as Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan.

It’s true that other provinces, such as Manitoba and the three Maritime Provinces, get even more equalization money per capita than Quebec, and so are even more dependent on Ottawa. But that’s not an excuse. As a Quebecer, I am not really proud of the fact that we are a poor province that gets equalization money.

And if we are poorer, it’s not the rest of Canada’s fault. It should be obvious enough that unbridled state interventionism does not lead to prosperity. If that were the case, Quebec would be the richest place in North America instead of being one of the poorest.

Many studies have shown that the less its government intervenes in the economy, the more prosperous a society becomes. The Fraser Institute regularly compares the economic situation in the provinces and states of North America and has found a direct correlation between the level of economic freedom and prosperity. An analysis of 23 OECD countries over a period of 36 years has also shown that economic growth is inversely proportional with government spending. For every additional ten percentage points of government spending as a proportion of GDP, economic growth is permanently reduced by one percent a year.

So, to repeat, the rest of Canada has nothing to do with the fact that we are poorer, as the bloquistes claim. We are poorer because of bad economic policies that made Quebec’s economy less productive; we are poorer because we live beyond our means instead of having responsible policies; we are poorer because the first reflex of much of our political class is to constantly beg for more money in Ottawa instead of taking the necessary decisions that would solve our problems and put our house in order.

In the 1970s, Robert Bourassa invented the term “profitable federalism” (“fédéralisme rentable”). That was a very unfortunate concept to put forward as a way to defend the merits of federalism. For many Quebecers, the more money we extract from the rest of Canada, the more profitable federalism is deemed to be.

Both federalist and separatist provincial governments have used the threat of separation to try to get more money. Can you remember the Bélanger-Campeau commission? The whole debate about the fiscal disequilibrium? It’s always the same pattern, the same beggar-thy-neighbour approach. Even when the amounts being sent by Ottawa increase, the reaction in Quebec City is always that it’s not enough, we need more, or else this is the proof that federalism is not profitable.

For my part, the type of federalism that I wish for is not a profitable one, it’s responsible federalism. On the masthead of my blog, there are two words in large characters, two inseparable principles that I consider extremely important: liberty and responsibility. I favour as much individual freedom as possible. But when you are free, you must also be responsible for your actions. You can enjoy the fruits of your labour, but you must also bear the consequences of your bad decisions.

The same is true for governments. A responsible federalism is a federalism that rests on the principle of subsidiarity. This means that issues should be handled by the smallest or lowest competent authority, the one closest to the people. Each one should fund its own programs and decide for itself its own priorities as an autonomous entity.

This way, each province, each region, each community, develops according to its own personality. This allows local particularities to be expressed. And each is responsible for its own policies. If one has bad policies, others cannot be held responsible and should not be forced to help pay the bill.

In a large and diverse federation like Canada, the fastest way to breed resentment and disunity is to have a big central government intervening in local affairs. Separatism in Quebec, and discontent in the West, grew fastest during the Trudeau era, as a reaction against central government activism.

We, conservatives, offer a different vision: a smaller and less interventionist government in Ottawa. The intention of the fathers of Confederation was clear: it was to have autonomous provinces, each one responsible and completely independent in their own jurisdiction.

Even if the Bloc only cares about criticizing, we are solving real problems in Ottawa. For example, our government cut the GST by two percentage points, which allowed Quebec to take up this fiscal space. As a taxpayer, I would have preferred no increase in my tax burden and that the Quebec government find other solutions to its financial problems. But this is an illustration of the flexibility of our federation. Provinces are free to decide their own fiscal policies.

Our government is also going ahead with its plan to reduce corporate taxes so that our economy becomes more competitive. Our government also adopted prudent policies to deal with the economic crisis and Canada is one of the countries that suffered the least from it. All of this helps Quebec and Quebecers.

Let’s be frank: many people in the rest of the country perceive Quebecers as a bunch of spoiled children who are never satisfied and always ask for more.

This perception has some basis in reality. It derives from 40 years of futile debates over independence; 40 years of irresponsible policies adopted by one provincial government after the other living beyond their means and getting us deeper into debt; 40 years of demands to extract yet more money from the pockets of our fellow citizens in the rest of Canada.

We have to get out of this false choice between independence and profitable federalism. We also need to put an end to policies that lead to our impoverishment and to stop expecting the rest of Canada to bail us out with more equalization money.

We are members of a political party at the federal level. As Canadian conservatives, there is obviously nothing we can do to solve the problems of the Quebec government. But we can contribute, in our own way, to changing the terms of the debate. We can shift political debates in Quebec to another paradigm. We can point to other solutions.

Imagine if, instead of exerting ourselves to get more money from the rest of Canada, we aimed at something more positive: to become sufficiently rich that we’re not on the receiving end of the equalization program anymore. Would we not be prouder as Quebecers if this happened?

Imagine if, instead of pointlessly debating the merits of political independence, we tried instead to live within our means and to get out of our economic dependence.

Imagine if, instead of having the bloquistes always trying to impede our progress within Canada, we had a group of conservative MPs teaming up with all those who, across this country, want a more decentralized federalism.

That’s the alternative that we have to offer Quebecers. The vision of a proud, responsible and autonomous Quebec.

-Maxime Bernier

If more politicians were this straightforward, the world would be a better place.

The Guns of the South

History suggests that global hegemony is a fickle mistress. Many empires have come and gone in the few short millenia of recorded history, often rising from nothing to become the preeminent power of their time. Without exception, however, they have not been able to maintain their hegemony. Many of these global powers have suffered a spectacular collapse, others have fallen into a long twilight that persists until they eventually vanish into the mists of history.

I have no reason to believe that this cycle will cease in the near term. Eventually, I am hopeful that humanity will come together as a species, and establish a fair and just society that will take us to the stars as one people, but even the most optimistic of us must admit that we are a long way off from that, even if it eventually does come to pass.

Therefore, there has been a lot of talk recently about the decline of American power, and the possibility that the American twilight has begun. I think that this is vastly overstating the current situation, for the simple reason that the world economy is now interconnected enough that a rudderless Dark Age is unlikely, and that there really is no successor ready to step up and lead the world.

The United States still enjoys significant advantages in business. The American system, and to a lesser extent the system of the greater Western world, is uniquely equipped to encourage innovation and economic achievement. Other systems have shown that they can take western innovation and improve on it, and especially that they can drive down costs and increase efficiency, but no other system has shown the ability to produce revolutions like the Internet.

The American business advantage drives much of the country's global power, and as long as the United States has that advantage, I think it is premature to say that America is entering her twilight. There are, however, two significant risks to American power, which I believe have precipitated much of the extant discussion; these are real risks and could lead to the twilight everyone is talking about.

1. The American "South"

The United States is teetering on the precipice of losing moral leadership in the world. History shows that in many cases, when a society stops being a leader in the propagation of truth and justice, decline usually follows. This is a traditional argument for the decline of the Roman Empire; the theory goes that Rome became decadent and corrupt, and instead of trying to improve the lives of its citizens, the Empire was paralyzed by corrupt officials attempting to enrich themselves and a general lack of moral leadership from the later Emperors. Ironically, Edward Gibbon, in his revolutionary book on the subject, even pointed to Christianity as a driving force in the Empire's decline.

In today's America, we are seeing the world's most powerful country fall further and further behind in many ways. The country now sits in hyperpartisan legislative gridlock, created almost entirely by the people who would be considered, in many countries, to be the extreme right. The Republican Party, once the stalwart backer of business and fiscal responsibility, has fully embraced the "Karl Rove strategy", refusing to compromise, and using the politics of fear to frustrate the opposition.

This political situation has created an America that is unable to provide moral leadership to the world. America was, and is, the best place in the world for scientific innovation. However, science is now demonized by the Republicans because it is based on the search for facts, something the Republicans abandoned some time ago. Support for evolution in the United States seems to be declining, thanks to evangelical propaganda machines. Scientists are portrayed as left-wing radicals because of the work they do on climate change.

This hostility to science will eventually begin to affect the ability of America to innovate. This could have disastrous consequences. Combine that with the regressive stance of the US on other social issues, like abortion and gay rights, and you have a serious risk to US hegemony.

Now, I have been particularly hard on the Republicans here, but the Democrats are guilty as well, for refusing to try to compromise with the few moderates left in the Republican Party. I am more convinced than ever that lobbyists are almost as responsible as Republicans for the sorry state of the USA. When Republicans do manage to put forward a good idea, like tort reform as a way to reduce health care costs, the Democrats will not even consider the idea, because their lawyer buddies don't like it.

When anyone dares mention the wasteful insanity of making biofuel from corn, or even that agriculture shouldn't be subsidized, the agricultural lobby crucifies them. Basically every bill that is passed is full of easter eggs to appease one congressman or another. Obama campaigned against this pork-barrel spending, but seems unable to stop it.

All these problems are complicated by a serious economic situation in the US today. There is also precedent for this. In Rome, the rapid expansion of the empire created a huge fiscal problem related to the maintenance of infrastructure, and most importantly, the army. The empire was forced to significantly raise taxes to pay for everything. At the same time, debasement of Roman currency caused significant inflation. The resulting economic crisis was likely a key factor in the fall of the western empire.

The United States faces a similar situation. The economic crisis exacerbated an already critical problem by forcing a massive amount of stimulus spending. If the budget had been balanced going into the crisis, it would have been more than manageable, as it is in Canada. However, there was already a fiscal crisis brought on by irresponsible tax cuts and massive military spending since 2001.

All this constitutes the first risk to American power. In order to stem the tide, the USA must accomplish the following things:

i. Health Care - the US is the only first-world country that doesn't have universal health care. This is insane considering that they are the richest of all. Equally insane is the fact that despite the lack of universal care, they still spend the most money on health care of any country. This must be solved through a combination of strategies, including many that are in the current bill. I believe a public option will help, and I also believe in tort reform as a way to reduce costs. I am happy the current bill was passed, and see it as a hopeful sign. However, the work is not yet done. The current bill is especially weak on cost control, and this must be addressed in the future.

ii. The War on Science - All the issues that are long-settled or marginal in most other developed countries must be won and shelved in the United States. I have already mentioned evolution and global warming as the biggest such issues. This doesn't mean that the US has to agree to massive carbon cuts or huge wealth transfer to other countries. It just means that people must acknowledge the validity of the science, and focus on debating an appropriate policy response.

iii. Defense Spending - The United States military has grown to an unsustainable size. The Romans attempted to remedy their similar problems by replacing Roman citizens with mercenaries in many cases, but were unsuccessful. Although the Roman army remained an effective fighting force well into the fourth century, it was no longer an unparalleled power. The United States must avoid a similar scenario, and recognize that it can no longer afford to be the world's policeman.

In the United States, the army rose to prominence as a conventional fighting force designed to engage and defeat opposing armies. It is the most powerful such force in world history. However, such an approach is no longer effective given today's realities. It is unlikely that there will be another conflict between major powers in the near future, as economic globalization has made most of the world's major powers interdependent. Future conflicts will be about rooting out extremist elements not affiliated with a national government, or defending against attacks from small "rogue states".

What is needed for such a world is not a massive army of tanks, infantry and battle fleets. The United States (and Canada) would be better served by remodeling their armed forces into a small, extremely well trained force supported by cutting edge technology. This small army, perhaps half the current size, would be focused on urban warfare, rapid deployment and counter-insurgency, and could be consolidated to a much smaller number of bases in order to save money. This type of model is currently used by the US Marine Corps, and should be expanded to the other services.

iv. Separation of Church and State - This has been a bedrock principle of the United States since at least the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. It has contributed significantly to the rise of the United States as a moral power in the world, and for the United States to avert disaster, it must be emphasized once again. The Roman Empire's decline, coincidentally or not, began shortly after the adoption of Christianity as the state religion.

Traditional battles in this area should be continued, but removing "In God we Trust" from money should not be secularists' most pressing concern.

Instead, it should be stalwart defence of the education system, and advocating against the indoctrination of children into religious traditions without providing them a fair choice. Although much of Richard Dawkins' anti-religious rhetoric is overstated, here he makes an excellent point.
It is considered absurd to refer to a child of Marxist parents as a "Marxist child", because at a young age, children are not intellectually equipped to make choices about political ideology.

However, it is commonplace to refer to children as "muslim children", or "christian children" simply because that is the religion of their parents. The great cause of secularists should be to prevent this from happening, and to infuse the education system with discussions of evidence-based reasoning and rational thought, so that when children reach their teenage years, they are equipped to decide for themselves what religion, if any, they will follow.

If the United States can overcome these obstacles, it will go a long way towards stemming their decline. If they should fail however, someone else may take their place.

2. The Global "South"

Many of the world's nations have gotten a raw deal from history. The indigenous people of the Americas were overrun, enslaved, or exterminated, and now exist in a miserable state in North America, and only a slightly better one in South America. Asia and Africa have been extensively exploited for their natural resources. All of these regrettable things have resulted in a divide between what some people call the global "north" and "south".

The last several centuries have not resulted in appreciable gains for these developing countries. All of the world's major powers have been from what is termed the "north", and imperialism and exploitation prevented most of these societies from expanding their global power.

Finally, this situation is beginning to change. Several small countries have made the leap from developing to developed, and provided a model of sorts for countries to lift themselves out of poverty. The best examples here are South Korea, Taiwan and Chile (to a lesser extent).

Following these examples, the big countries of the developing world are finally beginning to shake off the centuries of exploitation and reassert themselves on the world stage.If the United States fails to solve its problems and starts to slide into oblivion, there will be a chance for another nation to step up and lead. The obvious candidate at the present time is China, but India and Brazil are also emerging.

If America begins to decline, and one of these countries can present a credible alternative, they have a chance to become the next major global power.I will focus on China here because they are the only country developed enough to guess how such a thing might occur.

China has managed to construct an economic system powerful enough to compete with the United States on many levels. They can make a valid claim that they have harnessed the power of free markets while at the same time keeping decision-making highly concentrated and efficient. They can present a credible alternative to the American economic system.

The weakness of the Chinese economic system at this time appears to be innovation. Time will tell whether this is a temporary weakness or a consequence of the greater centralization and bureaucratization of the system, but the first stage of establishing China as a credible successor to the United States is to put them on similar economic footing. To accomplish this, China will have to learn to innovate better.

If China can continue to gain economically, and the United States cannot rectify its problems, an opening will almost surely present itself. In order to become the next global power, China must position itself as a moral leader of the world. At present, they have a long way to go if they are to accomplish this.

China has already begun cultivating significant relationships with other developing countries. In many cases they have provided development aid in exchange for resource access. They have also taken a strong position as the "voice" of the developing world, and have tried to position Chinese interests as an alternative to western "exploitation". They have begun to build relationships by advocating a fairer deal for developing countries on issues like climate change and free trade.

China must continue to expand this influence if they are to succeed. It is certainly true that elements of exploitation still exist between developing and developed countries. If China takes a strong stand on issues like agricultural subsidies, unfair trade agreements and environmental issues, they could be a third of the way to being a global moral leader.

The second thing the Chinese must do to seize their chance is to become more involved in the broader world. If they want to be seen as a moral leader, this is key. China must engage on world issues and show that they can succeed where the Americans have failed. If China engaged more fully in peacekeeping and issues like the Arab-Israeli conflict, they would be two-thirds of the way to being a global moral leader.

The final issues will be the most difficult, and involve the biggest change. If America falters on issues like evolution and gay rights, China must step up if it is to succeed. Human rights must be vastly improved and the Tibet situation resolved successfully before China can be the world's preeminent power. China must lead the way toward establishing a sustainable, global meritocracy. China has fewer problems with religious irrationalism than the United States, but many more when it comes to the freedom of its citizens. This must change if China wants to lead the world.

I must point out one other detail. I have portrayed the rise of China as a threat to American power. However, I want to emphasize that I am not suggesting that this would neccessarily be a bad thing. As tied as Canada is to the United States, if China can make the changes described above and become the world's "big fish", more power to them. The country leading the way matters much less to me than the destination.

From an American persepective, however, there are clearly things that can be done to ward off this threat. In addition to fixing American problems, engaging the developing world on more equal terms would go a long way towards maintaining American dominance. If the United States takes all these issues to heart, it could be a world leader for a long time to come.

The Architect's Tale (5 of 5)

In the previous five posts, I have explored and fleshed out my ideas on many philosophical ideas. I believe I have constructed a rational set of conclusions that reflect the best knowledge I have about the universe, and that these ideas can be built on further in this post.

The main conclusions I have reached so far are:

1. It is logical to assume the universe exists largely as I observe it.

2. The explanations for why the universe is the way it is can be split into two groups, those postulating some purpose for life, and those that do not. Either group could contain the correct answer, I believe the purposeful existence to be slightly more likely.

3. There are several guiding principles that people should use to decide how to live their lives. They include:

- People should act to ensure the survival of intelligent life by any necessary means

- People should endeavour to discover a possible purpose to our existence through study, observation and exploration of the universe. They should also use this increased knowledge to refine their moral views

- People should promote the establishment of free societies wherever they do not already exist, and encourage as much discussion and debate as they can within their own societies

- People should recognize the validity of a variety of viewpoints, and avoid fundamentalism and self-righteousness

-People should try to make sure that their decisions, moral and otherwise, are as nonzero-sum as possible, and should promote increased nonzero-sumness within their societies (and between societies) by increasing communication and trust

I think that those statements are a pretty good foundation for my belief system. However, to complete the circle, and build those core statements up towards my political beliefs, more work is needed.

Firstly, I would argue that in order to increase communication and trust, and in order to facilitate free discourse and the study and exploration of the universe, some kind of society is necessary. Anarchism will not work here, because it has at its base a rejection of the type of cooperation necessary for things like global communication networks and large-scale space exploration.

The next thing to consider is the kind of society that should be constructed, beyond the simple requirement of free discourse. Again, the requirements above dictate a technological society, one that accepts and promotes rational thought, questioning of paradigms and allows for new ideas. In my mind, this eliminates the forms of societies that discourage free thought, promote blind acceptance of ideas and discourage deviation.

This disqualifies any totalitarian state, be it fascist or communist, and also disqualifies any theocracy of the kind prevalent today. I do not deny, however, that it would be possible (although probably not with Christianity or Islam), to have an open and accepting theocracy that was in harmony with science and free discourse. This would require a more nuanced interpretation of God than is found in most western religions today, although many of the eastern religions seem to mesh relatively well with a scientific worldview. For now, however, I am of the strong opinion that the principles I have outlined can be accomplished most fully thorough a vigorously defended separation of church and state.

The next point I want to make is that any large-scale, technological and rational society must have some notion of personal responsibility. The evidence for this is empirical, there has been no successful society that has not been based on personal responsibility. This implies a key philosophical assumption, the one that started my whole philosophical investigation. The notion of personal responsibility is absurd without free will. If someone is not in control of their actions, there is no logical reason to punish or reward them for those actions. Therefore, I believe that we must accept the existence of free will. Even if there is no free will, we must continue to believe, and act, as if there is. Right now, I believe there is no conclusive evidence either way, but even if there was, I think we would, in order to have a chance of succeeding as a species, would have to ignore it. This pains me greatly, but I see no other way.

Once we accept that we have free will, I believe the notion of differential reward systems becomes defensible. If people can make free choices, then people can expect different standards of living, within an acceptable range. It is perfectly acceptable for people that perform certain actions, like hard work, to be rewarded to a greater extent than those that do not.

The following question then becomes, what types of actions should qualify a person for such a differential reward? This question is at the foundation of the type of economic system that I support. I believe that the ultimate measuring stick for differential reward should be "contribution to society". A person who makes a society more dynamic and vibrant, or achieves some great advance in understanding, should be rewarded more than someone who contributes nothing. However, it is obviously extremely difficult to build an economic system based on contribution, because there will never be complete agreement on what contributions are most important.

A second factor that is important to consider when discussing an ideal economic system is efficiency. In order to promote the development of a society, especially from a technical/scientific point of view, economic resources must be allocated as efficiently as possible. Inefficient societies will either be replaced my more efficient ones, or simply stagnate or crawl along at a snail's pace.

My view of the empirical evidence is that capitalism, tempered by government management of externalities, tends to be the best system to satisfy those dual criteria of efficiency and reward for contribution. Although the use of a price system and monetary reward has its issues, it is by far the most efficient system we have yet tried, and has produced massive technological advancement, and for the first time, a potential capability to explore the universe and to begin to reduce existential threats to humanity's existence.

In my view, there are three big problems with capitalism that do not naturally coincide with my perceived ultimate goals. The first is one have discussed previously, the existence of externalities in a capitalist economic system. I have previously advocated that management of this problem should be the primary responsibility of the government.

The second, related issue is that of equality of opportunity. If we are to have a system truly based on differential reward, it is essential that everyone have the same opportunity to succeed, otherwise the system will lose both efficiency and fairness. Some of this issue will be addressed by the management of externalities, for example, education and health care are both underproduced by a competitive market, given the positive externalities they create. Government will indirectly promote equality of opportunity by addressing these issues. However, I believe there is more that would need to be done. Even with management of externalities, issues like a de facto "aristocracy" based on inherited wealth (and the opposite, children disadvantaged by the socio-economic performance of their parents) as well as issues of broad-based discrimination might need to be addressed.

The third, and biggest issue, is the difference between contribution and profit. Capitalist systems encourage the maximization of the latter, as we all know. However, I believe empirical evidence clearly shows that although profit-making and contribution are correlated (strongly so), there remains a significant gap. I believe that it is self evident that many people grow rich without contribution, and many contributors live in poverty.

Exactly who these people are is certainly debatable, but I would give my own opinion that it tends to be artists of various kinds and scientists who are under-rewarded in our system and that celebrities of various kinds as well as many people in my own field (finance) and other service industries who are often overvalued. Now it is important to note that finance professionals, lawyers and other service professionals do make significant contributions to the functioning of societies and deserve to be rewarded. I am only stating that I believe it to be excessive in some cases.

Policies that can fix this problem are few and far between. As hard as I try, I cannot find many ways to try and reconcile this difference between contribution and wealth. This, in my view, should be one of the foremost challenges of the 21st century. It may end up requiring a wholesale shift in our economic system over the next century or two, but this is a challenge that I believe can be met incrementally and gradually.

Once we settle on a society with a market economy and recognize the need for a government to manage some parts of that economy,as well as to maintain a free and open society, the next question is about the kind of government that you want. Here the question seems to be around balancing efficiency, which we have established as key, with accountability and the need to preserve fundamental freedom and openness.

Although there certainly seems to be some evidence, including the experience of modern China, to suggest that authoritarian systems have a slight efficiency advantage, there are serious problems with preventing the abuse of power in those systems, because of the lack of accountability. Most authoritarian systems have difficulty maintaining a free society for a variety of reasons. On the other hand, democracy has its own problems. Some democratic systems are vulnerable to paralysis and inaction, either because of checks and balances in the system or because the system promotes highly fragmented coalition governments. Additionally, democracy sometimes has issues with making hard decisions, ones that might be unpopular but necessary.

As much as I have to admit that the Platonic "philosopher kings" might superficially appeal to me, I have to judge that given that since I believe freedom and openness must be the cornerstone of a society, an authoritarian government is too dangerous to accept. We simply cannot take the risk, and must therefore accept democracy as the best, and only choice. Additionally, as I have pointed out in the past, democracies generally have less civil war, genocide, political repression and other internal conflicts, and rarely fight wars against each other, all of which will help achieve my ultimate goals.

However, that does not mean we cannot attempt to at least minimize democracy's problems. The efficiency problem is a small one, especially when democracy is combined with capitalism. The main steps than can be taken to improve efficiency have to do with regulatory regimes and tax policy. In many cases, efficiency can be improved by simply trying to minimize regulation itself. I believe that in many cases there is far too much government regulation. Where regulation is required, it should be geared towards maximizing efficiency, through doing things like funding hospitals based on services provided and choosing cap & trade systems over flat taxes when trying to minimize carbon emissions. This desire for efficiency is also a contributor to my view on taxation.

The problem of systematic paralysis is more difficult, but seems to have been mostly surmounted in many democratic systems. Here I believe Canada has it at least partially right, in that the executive branch of a democracy needs to be relatively powerful. Gridlock can also be prevented through a multiparty system (ideally 3-5 parties) or even better, doing away with political parties altogether. Canada's system does have some weaknesses, which I have outlined in previous posts, but they generally do not relate to the gridlock issue.

Another problem Canada has managed to avoid is the lack of stability caused by extremely fragmented democracies, which also tend towards the extremes because of the tendency for the balance of power to be held by smaller, fringe parties. This has come at a cost of fairness in some respects, but I have already discussed those issues.

I think that that begins to cover the links between my basic philosophical views and the core of my political beliefs. Most of my other political beliefs drive off of the basis of the key goals at the beginning of the post, and off the subsequent analysis. Specifically, many beliefs come from a perceived necessity for efficiency, nonzero-sumness and tolerance. I will briefly elaborate, but try and keep it short as this post is getting towards the long side.

My views on efficiency inform many of my political beliefs. My views on free trade, agricultural subsidies, the necessity of global regulation, the desirability of a meritocracy (which leads to other policies around equality of opportunity) and other issues, are driven by my belief that we require both an efficient, and increasingly nonzero-sum society.

Another key factor that drives my political views is tolerance. I view a free and tolerant society as non-negotiable, which drives much of my social policy views. My views on regulation also affect my social views; government has no place legislating who can or cannot get married, for example.

There are some views that do not fall clearly within this framework, notably my views on health care and the environment. I believe that these views simply spring from the obvious point that humanity cannot explore the galaxy, drive science to new heights, and ensure our survival as a species if people are not getting quality health care, or if the environment is uninhabitable. There is also something to be said for preserving the diversity of life, for the sake of human knowledge and experience. I think this is why issues of conservation are probably the most important parts of environmental policy for me.

I believe I have accomplished an important task in the last few posts. I believe I have developed a reasonably solid and consistent philosophical foundation for my beliefs, which should help me significantly when I confront future issues and decisions. I am satisfied.

Elementary Electoral Education

Having spent the last several posts on the environment, I want to turn next in a completely different direction. At this point, I wouldn't blame people for thinking I was in the Green Party, despite my sincere effort to develop a more realistic and market-oriented environmental outlook. Now, though, I want to go to an issue that is at the heart of Canada's conservative movement as it exists today, and yet which nothing ever seems to get done on. That is the issue of democratic reform.

Democratic reform in Canada is necessary for a variety of reasons. Among them are the following:

1. The nature of our multiparty system means that the seat count in the House often does not correlate well with the popular vote.

2. As a result of item 1, ~8% of Canadians are without representation because the party they vote for has no members in the House of Commons or the Senate.

3. In regions where a single party dominates, the dissenting voters feel as if their votes do not count. For example, consider Liberal or NDP supporters in Alberta, or Conservative supporters in Montreal or Toronto.

4. Our current electoral system makes influential regional parties possible, which is generally counterproductive to finding national solutions to national problems. The Bloc Quebecois currently garners 10% or so of the national vote but can concievably win nearly 20% of the seats in the Commons.

5. One of the Senate's designed purposes is to provide for regional representation in the government. The Senate cannot currently do this effectively because of the public backlash that would result from the Senate overruling the democratically elected Commons.

6. The tendency in Canada towards stable, long-term, single party dynasties in the House of Commons, and the fact that Senators are appointed rather than elected, make it likely that the Senate will be dominated by a single party.

7. The Senate is expensive to administer, and in its present form it is not an efficient use of taxpayer money.

These reasons make democratic reform an attractive proposition. However, it is difficult because many of the proposed solutions to the above problems would require significant overhaul of Canada's electoral system, and likely at least one constitutional amendment. This would be a time-consuming process and would likely fail because of the provincial approval requirements for such amendments.

There has been strong pressure on the government for some time to tackle democratic reform, and many potential solutions have been put forward. I want to address two of these in particular.

The first proposal is to switch the method of election in the House of Commons to be by proportional representation. This would solve issues 1, 2, 3 and 4, but would cause a myriad of other problems. The most important of these would be that it would essentially wipe out the possiblity of a majority government, and force a constant succession of minority or coalition governments. Given how minority governments have generally performed in the past, Canada would likely be faced with a federal government that would have a very hard time accomplishing anything and would almost certainly have very frequent elections.

The second oft-discussed proposition that would address some of these problems is ameding the constitution to provide for a directly elected Senate, which would then have a greater mandate to exercise its powers. This would solve problems 5, 6 and 7, but would create problems akin to those in the United States, where progress could be impeded by a stalemate situation if a different party controlled the Senate and the Commons.

Taken together, the two above reforms would address the concerns I have outlined. However, as I have mentioned, they have significant drawbacks.As an alternative to these proposals, I would advocate the following actions, which I believe would go a long way towards solving many of Canada's democratic reform issues.

1. Pass the previously proposed legislation setting 8 year term limits for senators.

2. Pass legislation requiring the Governor General (on the PM's advice) to appoint senators with party affliliations corresponding to the proportion of the popular vote achieved by the parties in the last election, provided that the party with the greatest differential achieved at least 5% of the vote in the province the Senate seat is allocated to.

Appointments would be based on whichever party currently has the largest percentage discrepancy between their senate representation and their vote share. For example, the situation after the 2008 election looked like this:

Liberal Party- 2008 Popular Vote 26.26% and 55.24% of Senators
Conservative Party- 2008 Popular Vote 37.65% and 20% of Senators
New Democratic Party- 2008 Popular Vote 18.18% and 0.95% of Senators
Green Party- 2008 Popular Vote 6.78% and no Senators
Bloc Quebecois- 2008 Popular Vote 9.98% and no Senators
Other- 2008 Popular Vote 1.15% and 7.62% of Senators
16.19% of Senate Seats (17) were vacant

This makes the percentage differentials as follows:
Liberals- (28.98)
Conservatives- 17.65
NDP- 17.23
Green- 6.78
Bloc- 9.98

Under my plan, the 17 vacant seats should have been filled as follows:

9 Conservative Senators from the appropriate provinces
8 NDP Senators from the appropriate provinces

This changes the percentage differentials to the following:
Liberal- (28.98)
Conservative- 9.10
NDP-9.63
Green- 6.78
Bloc- 9.98

Say that the following year, there were 14 senators whose terms expired, 5 Conservatives, 5 Liberals and 4 Independents. This would result in the following adjustments and differential changes:

Appointment of 8 Conservative Senators (New Differential:6.25)
Appointment of 3 NDP Senators (New Diff: 6.78)
Appointment of 3 Bloc Senators (New Diff: 7.13)
Green Diff: 6.78
Liberal Diff: (24.23)

Say, however, that only two of the Senators whose terms are expiring in my hypothetical are from Quebec. This would preclude the appointment of more than 2 Bloc Senators, being that the BQ did not achieve 5% of the popular vote in any other province. The remaining seat would be allocated to the party with the next highest total, which in this case is a tie between the NDP and the Greens. In the event of such a tie, my proposal would be to allocate the seat to the party with the fewest Senators, in which case the Greens would get that seat.

3. Once the previous legislation was in place, I would consider a third piece of legislation mandating the appointment of Senators elected in provincial elections (such as those in Alberta and those proposed in Saskatchewan) assuming that their party affiliation is compatible with the legislation I have outlined above. This would simply provide further democratization to the Senate.

I believe that these three legislative actions, combined with the willingness of the new, much more democratic Senate to make more effective use of its designated powers and authority, would address all the problems I have outlined with regard to democratic reform and the Senate, without requiring a constitutional amendment and without creating huge legislative gridlock. It would also probably have the advantage of being easy to pass, as it is highly likely the NDP would support the Conservative government on this proposal, given what they stand to gain and the fact they support abolishing the Senate in its current form.

I would also support a fourth piece of legislation that also has to do with democratic reform, but which is mostly unrelated to the issues above. I believe that Canada is failing to take advantage of one of the prime advantages of our derided first-past-the-post system in the Commons. This is that each riding is represented by their own MP, who is supposed to be responsive to their needs and desires.

However, in Canada, having your own MP is basically useless because party discipline is so strong. I would wholeheartedly support legislation that made it illegal for political parties to take disciplinary action against their members for breaking with party line. For practical reasons, it is possible that budget votes could be exempt from this rule, but think of how much more representative and dynamic our politics would be if your MP actually supported your interests as opposed to those of his party.

Democratic renewal is one issue where the Reform party had it exactly right. Without a reformed Senate, and without some changes to increase citizen involvement in the political process, Canada cannot be a model 21st century nation.

The Book of Laws

In an attempt to establish a coherent worldview, I am going to try and write down a comprehensive summary of my political beliefs. I hope I can build on this is a Cartesian sort of way, and find where the inconsistencies lie. This list is intended to state my positions on issues are are currently contentious in Canada and around the world. It is not exhaustive, and does not include any of the issues on which there exists substantial agreement in Canada (such as the right to private ownership of land or the wisdom of inflation-targeting monetary policy).

Blair's Manifesto circa 2008:

The ultimate goal of all governments should be to act in the best interest of humanity.

The process of globalization should be directed as much as possible toward enabling the creation of a sustainable, global and democratic meritocracy.

Program spending should never exceed revenues in developed countries except in times of national crisis.

Governments should try to avoid over-regulation and keep themselves as small and efficient as possible.

The world's democracies should work tirelessly to spread liberal democracy to other nations, and defend any liberal democracy attacked by a non-democratic state. Israel is a liberal democracy and deserving of our support against its authoritarian enemies.

True free trade is a non-zero sum game: all parties benefit and therefore its development should be advanced as much as possible.

The current system of international trade disproportionately benefits developed countries and can be improved.

The European Union provides a useful, if imperfect, model for a future global federation. I therefore strongly support its continued development.

National and ethnic identity is an important cornerstone of human culture, and should be encouraged and maintained. This should not be seen as inconsistent with political integration.

Nationalism and international competition have the potential to foster great achievements and should be fostered. Again, I don't believe there is inconsistency here.

The long term exploration and eventual colonization of space is ultimately necessary to secure humanity's survival and should be supported accordingly.

The UN is currently a mostly irrelevant international body. A complete overhaul is necessary for it to survive.

Homosexuality is naturally occurring and is not wrong in any way. Equal rights must be afforded to GLBT's, including the right to marry, adopt, and pursue any career they wish without discrimination.

Affirmative action programs that are based on barriers that restrict an applicant's ability to achieve the otherwise necessary qualifications (primarily poverty or socioeconomic status)are good because they promote equality of opportunity. Racially, ethnically or gender based programs aimed at atonement do not have the same effect.

The current procedures for creating GMO foods do not pose a significant risk to health or the environment. GMO's should continue to be used to increase agricultural effectiveness.

Health care of the highest standard should be available free of charge to all citizens. Exceptions should be made in cases where personal choice places undue burdens on the system (smokers who get lung cancer should have to foot their bill).

With regard to non-urgent medical procedures, people should be able to pay at private clinics to lower wait times. This is a win-win situation as it shortens lines at public facilities as well.

It is a great irony that societies who value freedom and democracy so highly have so many citizens who spend a majority of their waking hours operating in a authoritarian environment at work. Increased transparency, accountability and democratization of corporations should be encouraged, and tax incentives should be given for the development of cooperative enterprises.

Climate change will have severe negative consequences for the earth, and the current warming has, at the very least, been exacerbated by human activity. It is of vital importance to limit the production of greenhouse gases in order to mitigate these effects.

Humanity is close to reaching a peak in oil production capacity. The peak for conventional sources will probably occur by 2020, and the overall peak a few years afterward. With growing demand, this will present severe problems, and will necessitate a shift away from fossil fuels.

The majority of resource wealth should be invested in programs that will provide long-term economic security to their region, so that stability can be maintained once the resources run out.

Protection of the earth's biodiversity will continue to be a key challenge for humanity. Programs that reduce land use should be pursued, with the eventual goal of providing for stable populations of all animals and plants.

Generally, I support tax policy that tends toward the taxation of negatives, like consumption and pollution, and tends away from taxing positives, like income.

I would support a heavy estate tax on estates valued above a certain amount, with exceptions for owners of family businesses and farms. I would not be averse to offsetting revenues from this tax by making income tax less progressive, allowing people to have more of what they legitimately earn.

Government is more effective when it is more participatory, and with new technologies this is easier than ever. Soliciting ideas and opinions with regard to public policy can provide a good starting point for policymakers.

Governments should provide incentives for couples to have relatively small families, especially in developing countries.

Quebec, although it has a distinct cultural and societal identity, is a vital part of Canada, and should remain so. However, the threat of separation should not be used to extort Quebec-friendly decisions from the federal government.

In the event of Quebec secession, federalist areas, especially the Aboriginal-dominated north, must be given the option to remain in Canada.

The current arrangement whereby First Nations people pay no taxes to the Canadian government should be amended to include an exception for taxes on alcohol and tobacco.

The current system of relations between the governments of the western hemisphere and the indigenous people of the Americas is unacceptable as a long term solution. Alternatives and modifications should be explored.

Corporations, lobby groups and unions should not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns. Only citizens should have that right, and the maximum individual donation should be capped.

Israel should have the right to exist peacefully, within its 1967 borders except where demographics make this illogical, and provided it provides gradual right of return for Palestinian refugees and their first-generation direct descendants.

Existing alongside Israel should be a democratic and peaceful Palestinian state, comprising the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as a connecting thoroughfare.

The Old City in Jerusalem should ideally be a democratically governed, sovereign city-state that provides for the worship of all faiths. Its current citizens should have the option of Israeli, Palestinian or Jerusalem citizenship at the outset.

Researchers should have license to use stem cells in projects designed to enhance medical knowledge and treatments, or other worthwhile scientific goals.

Those people who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect financial support from the government.

Abortion should be available on demand at any point before the fetus reaches viability.

States should have the right to limit immigration based on their economic needs, and discriminate based on the skills of applicants.

In densely populated areas, it makes more sense to group students in schools based on their needs rather than their location.

The legalization of marijuana, subject to the same restrictions and taxes as tobacco, would divert revenue from drug dealers to the government, and would likely decrease, rather than increase, usage.

I support Canada's current gun laws, with the exception of the long gun registry, and think they strike a good balance between individual rights and public safety.

I agree with Stephen Harper's statement that the Senate must either change, or face extinction.

The concept of offering prizes to private groups for certain technological innovations has proven to be successful in stimulating innovation and should continue.

Fission power, though imperfect, should be a part of the short-medium term energy strategy of developed nations. The development of fusion power should be a focus for nuclear policy.

I do not believe in capital punishment. However, I believe that inmate work policies can help to reduce the cost of the prison system.

Canada's policy of official bilingualism is a good one. On the other hand, parts of Bill 101 in Quebec should be modified, as they are discriminatory.

Canadian troops should remain in Afghanistan for as long as it takes to establish a peaceful, democratic state.

Education systems should be designed around a uniform curriculum, supported by subject-specific standardized testing, consistent throughout both public and private schools.

Special-needs students should have the option to attend private schools which better serve their needs, and should receive some financial support to this end. School voucher programs for non-special needs students are unnecessary in Canada.

Government funding for amateur sport should be increased, and divided more evenly among internationally prominent sports.

A great strength of Canada is our ability to create consensus out of disunity, to find solutions that may not work out in theory, but that work just fine in practice. We should apply this strength through increased involvement in global problems.

Canada should not be afraid to engage enemies as well as friends diplomatically. There is rarely harm in talking.

Canada should view the United States as a great friend and partner, but not as a model for development, and not as a superior whose wishes should be complied with unconditionally.

Immigration to Canada should be evaluated based on the skills of the applicant (compared with Canada's economic needs), and their potential contribution to Canadian life, rather than how long they have been waiting or what country they are from.

Proportional representation in the House of Commons is not the answer to calls for Canadian electoral reform. Perhaps it would be better applied to the Senate.

Some kind of carbon-reduction program, be it a carbon tax or a cap and trade system, is likely necessary in the fight against climate change. Any such program must not be used to redistribute wealth among regions, as the current Green Shift program would do.

I'm sure more issues will arise and some of my opinions may change. Nonetheless, every journey has a beginning...

Towards a Canada of Light (Jan. 10, 2007)

What a strange book. It was the title and the cover that caught my eye at first, and from the moment I laid eyes on it I knew it was a book I had to read. The cover illustration is one of the coolest pictures I've ever seen and it is now my MSN pic. The book itself suprised me though. I had expected it to be a book of policy, one that would offer specific policy prescriptions for Canada. Little did I know it was written by an english professor. More than a political manifesto it is a vision, a vision of what Canada is and what being Canadian means. This, I think, is what made me like it. The elements of policy reccomendations that do find their way into it are generally not ones that I agree with and I think that the book's biggest failing is its attempt to portray the corporatist, fiscally responsible Canada as incompatible with a Canada of vision, imagination and dreams. Powe speaks of the "suffocating" and "oppressive" aspects of a policy driven by the bottom line. This, I think, is fallacy. Just as Canada finds both a middle ground between the US and Europe while at the same time being distinct from either, I believe that there exists the potential for Canada to be a country of "responsible dreamers" where a culture of diversity and imagination and "interconnected solitudes" can exist, and be made better by responsible fiscal and monetary policy. Fiscal responsibility cannot be an end in itself, but must contribute to, and not obstruct, the development of A Canada of Light.

Having said that, the parts of the book that are less political really struck a chord deep inside. So much of the book is beautifully written, a rare description of things that I have felt and seen and grappled with but have never quite been able to verbalize. This is going to be a seminal post, one that says so much about the deepest feelings I have about my country and what it is and what it has the potential to be. It will be strange to use someone else's words to illuminate such a deeply personal part of myself. But he does a better job of it than I ever could, so rather than seeing this as a collection of quotes from his book, see this as my perspectives written in someone else's hand.

"My eyes followed the spin of the fields, newly laid out for sowing, the oak woods with hard bronze survivor leaves, and a world of great size beyond, of fair clouds and then of abstraction, a tremendous Canada of Light"

"Canada, this name, this place: what I was feeling, intimately, as if she were a part of me, not a mere country where I happened to be born and that often felt like my home"

"One way to push back this force that threatens to close off you capacity for reverie, to imagine, to sing out with sheer pleasure, to redirect yourself towards the stars, and to love intensely what comes to you, is to make your language soar into blockades and barriers, bringing them down"

"A Canada of Light, a promise, a flash, an opportunity for reverie, a turning leaf, an open door, a rendevous of many cultures, a sometimes quieter street or pathway in the wailing world, an outpost..the least likely place to incite mass ethnic hatred, a glimpse, a turning away, a provocation to thinki beyond single vision, a drama of inwardness, a site for talk and comtemplation, a celebration of solitudes, a generous spirit wrestling with the demon of closure and the shadow of uniformity, where the vision of the country remains, fortunately, always ahead of its politicians"

"Gather depth and expanse, and paitiently come together in the night to know beauty. Deepen solitudes, and love the unsolved. Salute each other across the truest eternal borderline, which is not national, but human"

"In Canada it is still possible to be alone. In America, there is a relentlessly public experience, the solidarity of the commercial, for everyone, with little quiet left for anyone"

"I'm drawn to my country's paradoxes and promises, its incompleteness and anomalies, the inward verve and subtle pulse of the magnetic north. Here discontinuities and abiding frictions are neccesary for our growth. Here I find a puzzle of great beauty. Canada works well in practice, but just doesnt work out in theory"

"We have formed a consensus to not allow ourselves to be defined by a single unifying idea"

"In this wide, spacious country with its areas of privacy and repose, solitude and reverie can lift us and inspire us: here we may think, observe, comment, reflect, interpret and release ourselves from traditional forms so that we may dream"

"We wait, in a rendezvous of societies and people, and in this waiting we are often perplexed, tempted by the swirls of anger and vengeful hatred, yet drawn to the energies of the barely spoken, and to traces in the northern air, to the lingering but not entirely comprehended memories of what it took to make this ours, the liberties of a new world."

"In this global electric city, we are haunted by a sense of presence, the trace of something close, almost there. Is that presence supernatural, immanent, or is it our human world amplified, echoed, calling, yearning, crying out?"

"It may be that this counter-nation, our eclectic mosaic culture, this condition of being seemingly disparate and seperate, all our obsessions with who we are, is our great strength, our promising path, our myth, our original form of harmony"

(Note: I don't know if I agree with this next one but it touches on an issue that I've always wondered about and have attempted, without much success , to figure out in the past. Is there an advantage to being less open about your thoughts and feelings? I have a lot of inner conflict about this quote.)

"Private identity must be cloaked if it is to maintain solitude, and thus make time for the cultivation of the inner person"

"Canada's lack of definition is it's strength"

"What sort of inwardness have you cultivated? Where does your soul reach? What air do you breathe? What are you made of, and who do you love?"

(My favorite one right here I think)

"The imagination seals us in rainbow covenants with the world. It takes the world, its rawness, back into ourselves, so that we may know more and find more, sychronicities, infinite correspondences and so we may keep grappling with enigmas"

"Canada is the via media, the middle way, between the United States and Europe.. We must discover that route again, and trace it, and follow, allowing its meander, attending to where it's whispering path may lead"

(Another favorite. Reminds me of Bob Seger and my #7 song of all time)

"There are fires other than those that consume us"

(Ok this is getting redundant. I love this one too)

"A secret country where solitudes and peace still largely exist, where we can ask questions about injustices and inequity, about whether there is a vocation in being Canadian, hoping against hope, expecting the impossible. Yet there is no map for this secret country because, to echo a line of Thomas Merton's, it is within ourselves"

"Canada is a place whose mythology and culture speak of an incognito difference: to communicate, then commune, with the world, rather than to conquer or subdue it"

"Why are we here? To be new, and to make a difference"

This is the Canada that I love. There is something to be said for a vision that can be embraced both by myself and also by people who have the opposite political views.

The Altar of Freedom (Aug. 11, 2006)

Abraham Lincoln coined the phrase in my title during the US civil war. He understood that freedom is not something that comes easily, but something that must be won. He also understood that that freedom is the cornerstone of western society. Freedom of thought, speech, religion, association and assembly are at core of western civilization and are non-negotiable liberties. Political freedom too, provides for a more dynamic society than does autocracy, and I think that political freedom has been indirectly responsible for much of the success of the west in the past two centuries. Our freedoms must be maintained if our society is to survive and prosper in the future.

Having said that, I want to outline some of the opinions I hold about international relations and tie them back to the central themes of this post, and the two that have come before it. I will start with a term that I am going to use, because I feel like it will need clarification as the post develops. I am going to use the phrases democracy and liberal democracy interchangeably for the purposes of this post, and use them as terms to represent the governmental structure common in the west, characterized by some form of elected representation determined by a large portion of the adult population, usually but not always a constitution, guarantees of the previously mentioned personal liberties and other protections, such as separation of powers and prevention of majority tyranny. I also want to clarify that when I talk about sacrifice, I mean necessary sacrifice. I believe that wasting people’s lives on fruitless endeavors, or not taking all possible measures to prevent civilian casualties, or any unnecessary abuse of human life, such as happened at Abu Gharib, is morally despicable and that those responsible for such actions should be punished accordingly.

With that in mind, I want to talk about the kind of world I would like to see in the somewhat distant future. The world today, at least in the west, is a far better place in terms of quality of life (on average) than at any other time in history. In understanding why this is the case, it is useful to look at the ideas in one of my favorite books, Nonzero, by Robert Wright. Wright talks about “societal evolution,” which is his theory that the behavior of civilizations approximates the long-term behavior of living organisms. This is a thesis which I find extremely persuasive. The first objective of a species is to ensure the survival of the gene pool. Similarly, the first objective of any society has to be to maintain its values, culture and system of government. As Darwin knew, not all species are equally well-equipped to survive in a given environment. Over time, the organisms that are unable to compete simply vanish. Similarly, Wright postulates that some societies are better organized for certain tasks than others, and in a given environment, weaker societies are swallowed up or replaced by more efficient ones. Wright spends a large part of his book on the theory that how well societies are able to compete depends on the level of non-zero sum interaction in a society. This is a complicated hypothesis, so I will just summarize the main conclusions. It predicts that societal evolution is a directional process, and that societies are necessarily becoming more interdependent, more complex and more specialized and that is what is responsible for the increase in quality of life. This integration is constrained by two factors, barriers in communication and barriers in trust.

The point of all this is that the future society I would like to see would be characterized by the absence of those barriers, and theoretically would then have the highest possible average quality of life. I will now discuss what I think this world would look like, but my interpretation is certainly open to refinement and debate. There would have to be some sort of global political and economic authority, but I think a “world government” per se is an impractical idea in the foreseeable future. Instead, I would advocate a global federation similar to, but with more power than, the European Union. This federation would be run by three elected bodies, one based on “power” (production capacity, economic strength etc), one based on population and one based on egalitarian national representation. For a more detailed description of how the political organization might work see my “Kingdom of Conscience” post. This federal authority would have the responsibility of maintaining a global constitution, guaranteeing uniform political and personal liberties such as those previously described, regulating the global economy by enforcing contract law and resolving economic crises (As the EU does) and providing for common global endeavors such as space exploration, global defense, peacekeeping and so on. The need to enforce a global constitution would also require a Global Supreme Court, in order to make sure that national laws do not conflict with said constitution. I know that what I have just outlined is a very idealistic vision, but I believe that it is possible, and certainly something to work toward. Much of the foreign policy that I advocate has at least an eye on that ultimate goal.

As you can see, I have started with the big picture in this post. However, a vision is nothing without more immediate and specific goals, and thus I will try to work downward, from the general to the specific. In my view there are two major factors that must be satisfied before large-scale global integration can move forward. They are related, but we must have both before we can proceed. First, conflict between nations must be resolved prior to any integration attempt. Nations that are openly hostile to one another cannot be expected to adopt common ideals and work closely together. In that light, it is extremely important to distinguish between resolving conflict and enforcing peace. Israel and the Arab states have had periods without war, but they have been engaged in a conflict since 1948. A ceasefire is not sufficient to foster interdependence, a lasting solution must be found for the problems at the core of the conflict. The second criterion has to do with establishing liberal democracy. The creators of the EU correctly determined that an integrated, democratic international body must be made up exclusively of democratic states. The political decision-making process in autocracies does not lend itself to integration, and if a global organization is looking to have a common constitution with guarantees of personal liberties, obviously member states must be able to tolerate these liberties within their countries, something that authoritarian regimes tend not to be very good at.

These two criteria are related in that the former almost always follows the establishment of the latter. Immanuel Kant wrote on this concept, which he called Republican Order, and it has since been debated and expanded by many other prominent philosophers and political scientists. Empirical evidence shows that wars between democratic states are extremely rare, and almost every example to the contrary is a case where one or both of the states had been democratic, in the modern sense, for less than five years. The evidence also shows that the incidence of civil war, genocide, political repression and other internal conflict is considerably lower within democratic states. In that light, it would seem that the most straightforward way of achieving the above criteria throughout the world is to support the establishment of liberal democracies at the expense of other systems of government. This goal also correlates well with Wright’s societal evolution, because logically, one of the best ways of preserving our social systems and ways of life is to propagate them as much as possible.

Of course, the next question becomes, how can we do this? For the answer to this, we can look again to history. There are three ways the system of government can be changed in a given country.
1. Peaceful, internally driven liberalization. This happened to England over a period of several hundred years and to several English colonies such as Canada, Australia and to some extent, India. It also occurred in Taiwan and Spain, among other places. This process is slowly beginning in China.
2. Revolution. This is perhaps the most common way. The populace grows discontented with authoritarian rule and collaborates to overthrow the previous government and establish democracy. This happened in the USA (1776), the USSR (1991), China (1912), much of Latin America and all over Europe, especially France, where it has happened probably five times since 1789.
3. External Force. This is the most controversial of the three ways. It involves other nations, either directly or indirectly, supporting the establishment of a democratic state through the use of force. It has been tremendously successful in several instances, Germany (1945), Japan (1946), South Korea (1952) and Israel (1948). Additionally, it has been somewhat successful in several other instances, notably in the former Yugoslavia (1990’s) and Germany (1918). However, the strategy has proven disastrous in some instances, Vietnam being the best example. The jury is still out on Iraq and Afghanistan, the two most recent attempts.

Each of these three approaches has its advantages and disadvantages as a way of spreading democracy throughout the world. From a purely sympathetic point of view, the first option is the best, in that it requires the least bloodshed. However it is also the most useless if one is looking at ways to propagate democracy. It is extremely difficult to influence a peaceful liberalization process from the outside, and also tends to take an extremely long time. In some cases it is not even a viable option, as the sitting government would rather face revolution than liberalize.
Choosing the right approach for fostering democracy across the world is not a simple matter of choosing the “best” of the three alternatives and then applying the strategy across the board. When we in the west are considering how best to proceed, each individual case must be carefully considered and a unique solution found. The first option, the peaceful transition option, is one that needs to be exacted in allied states that already have some characteristics of western government. This actually constitutes a large portion of non-democratic states in the world today. These countries have less distance to travel, are moving in the right direction and are not a threat to the west. Nothing would be gained by overthrowing the current regimes in these countries. Some examples might be China and Russia. Also, this tactic would be extremely useful in the aftermath of revolution or invasion for use in neighboring countries. For example, should the US succeed in the goal of establishing a strong democracy in Iraq, the peaceful transition option would become much more feasible and much more imminent in places like Saudi Arabia.

The second approach, the revolutionary approach, would also probably be the best tactic in several situations. Regimes that have radicalized and are unlikely to pursue reform, yet do not present an immediate threat to the west, would be possible candidates for this type of action. Also, states with the potential to exact heavy damage to the west in the wake of an invasion might be better dealt with through this method. North Korea is a good example, as military action could result in nuclear attack. Other possible candidates include several countries in central Asia and in Africa. In order to effectively utilize this tactic, a complicated series of procedures would have to be used. Perhaps the most effective way of inciting a population against its government is through economic means. Sanctions and incentives can be very effective. Additionally, creating international pressure against these states is a part of the strategy. Funding opposition groups is also a possibility, but great care must be taken to make sure those groups are committed to democracy. Funding groups just because they oppose your enemy is a mistake, as the Americans have learned in Afghanistan and Iraq. These measures, along with others, represent perhaps our best hope for democratizing radicalized regimes.

The third approach, external military action, is the most direct of the three, but also poses the most problems. It is not the preferred strategy in most cases. However, it should not be unnecessarily ruled out, as there are cases where it is the best option. When states pose an imminent threat to the democratic world, there is often no other option but force. In the Middle East, for example, Hezbollah, though not a regime per se, exercises de facto control over southern Lebanon. Hezbollah is a radical organization that poses an imminent terrorist threat to democracies. That is a case where the use of force by Israel is both necessary and justified. Another example of a situation where military action could be the best course of action is a situation where it is necessary to establish a “beachhead” for democracy. In regions where democracy is not prevalent, it is often difficult to find enough internal support to pursue either a liberalizing agenda or a revolution. In this case, establishing one or two democracies through external force can be a catalyst for further democratization of the region through the first two methods. In this case, the obvious example to use is Iraq, although until a stable democracy is established it cannot be considered a success. Establishing a liberal democracy in a Muslim state could be a critical turning point in democratizing the Middle East. It would make it considerably harder for states like Iran to say that Islam and democracy are incompatible. In the best case scenario, it could cause a domino effect and substantially contribute to the rise of democracy in the rest of the region. At a minimum, it will be one less radical regime blocking the way to a peaceful and integrated world. The mismanagement of the war by the Bush administration has made the job more difficult, but the goal can certainly still be accomplished. Iraq and Afghanistan are two big opportunities to expand democracy and create change in the wider Middle East, but in order to accomplish that, we must make sure that the job is finished before we leave. The sacrifice made by those Afghanis, Iraqis and coalition troops that have lost their lives in the conflict will not be wasted if those two countries can emerge as pillars of freedom. If we retreat, however, as many in the western world have advocated, those sacrifices will have been in vain.

Speaking of those people who have advocated unconditional peace and withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, I want to address one of their principal arguments in some detail. Many of them hold the view that given enough time, the non-democracies of the world will go through the same process that happened in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries, in that their populations will realize the advantages of liberalizing and pressure for change, resulting in either peaceful liberalization or revolutions. In their view, the democratic world does not need to get involved, as the process will proceed regardless. There is a major problem with this view. Non-democratic states have been forced by two factors into taking an adversarial position against the world’s democracies. They are forced to vilify us and act against us, and we have no choice but to defend ourselves and our freedoms. Acceding to their demands, (abandon Israel, close military bases, prevent corporations from exploiting energy resources etc) will not pacify them, because in order for them to remain in power, we have to be the enemy. As mentioned, this is for two reasons. First, democracy tends to spread once it is firmly established in a region. It is therefore in the interest of non-democracies to prevent the emergence of a strong democratic state in their region. In this way, the democratic states of the world are already irrevocably involved in conflict with these states, as we are the greatest threat to their power. Israel is the shining example here. The authoritarian nations of the Middle East cannot afford to let Israel become stable and powerful as it would certainly incite pressure for change in their own regimes. I also believe that a large part of the insurgency in Iraq had developed in order to prevent the emergence of a strong democracy.

The second reason is slightly more complicated. It has to do with increasing globalization, the global information revolution and the tremendous power of the world media. The crux of the matter is this. The wide availability of detailed and reliable information about the state of the world has increasingly opened the eyes of the people living in non-democratic regimes. They now, more than ever, understand what life is like in liberal democracies. They know what they are missing out on. China is the easiest place to see this, where increasing knowledge of the west had driven much of the reform over the last twenty years.

These two factors, the regional pressure for democracy and the information revolution, have forced the hand of non-democratic regimes. Faced with regional democratic pressures and wide knowledge of the better quality of life enjoyed in the west these regimes have to take action to appease their populace. They can either liberalize or radicalize. China, for example, has responded to democratic pressures by introducing limited market-oriented reforms. Iran and North Korea on the other hand, have radicalized. By portraying liberal values as incompatible with Islam (Iran) or Communist ideology (North Korea) they can provide an excuse to their population why they cannot enjoy the quality of life or the personal liberties present in democracies. In order to legitimize this excuse, these regimes must attempt to prove to their populace that the advantages of their regimes outweigh the advantages of liberal democracy. They can only do this by challenging the west, and attempting to prove themselves superior.

I do not believe that the challenges of fundamentalist Islam and North Korean communism are sufficient in themselves to threaten the western way of life. I believe that the inherent advantages of liberal democracy would eventually prevail and these regimes would collapse through revolution. However, we cannot afford to wait. The cost of waiting 50 or 100 years for those regimes to collapse will be 50 or 100 more years of state-sponsored terrorism against the west. It is even possible that those states would, facing revolution, launch nuclear attacks against us. Therefore, I think the west must do everything they can to hasten the fall of those regimes. Supporting internal revolution may be what is necessary to subdue nuclear-armed radical states, and armed conflict against other terrorist organizations should be undertaken if necessary.

Democratizing the planet, and subsequently promoting an interdependent and just world, will not be an easy task. It will require gargantuan effort, tremendous resolve, and the willingness to sacrifice. In those three things we can learn much from the people of Israel. They have sacrificed more to earn their freedom than perhaps any other nation, and their arduous task is far from over. They should be commended and supported, not bigoted. To all those who would say that the sacrifice is not worth it, and point to the suffering of those that have lost on both sides, I would reply that paradoxically, establishing a lasting peace will necessarily require war and that freedom is not free. Every citizen of earth deserves the same freedom that we in the west take for granted, and to get that they will have to win it from their oppressors. I would also comment that as in the 1930’s, when Hitler ruled Germany, we will eventually have to face those that would destroy us. As it would have been in 1936, the cost now will be less than if we wait until we are attacked. We have to learn lessons from the past. As Lincoln said, “Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it”. Finally, to everyone in Israel and the other free countries of the world that have lost loved ones defending freedom and democracy, I would remind you once more of the words of Abraham Lincoln, “I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic(s) they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours, to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the Altar of Freedom”.