WEBVTT

NOTE Rights and Income Security

1
00:00:30.000 --> 00:00:48.640
I'd like to welcome you to yet another round of the great Canadian debate on income security.

2
00:00:48.640 --> 00:00:55.920
In B.C. we call it something about what about shovels? The essential question of this debate

3
00:00:55.920 --> 00:01:03.160
is Should Canadians Be Guaranteed the Right to an Adequate Income and a Predictable System

4
00:01:03.160 --> 00:01:12.320
of Social Security? Put very boldly, the two sides of the debate respond as follows. On

5
00:01:12.320 --> 00:01:18.920
one hand, some say no to this question. They argue that if we provide such an adequate

6
00:01:18.920 --> 00:01:24.640
and predictable system, those who use the system will lose their motivation to contribute

7
00:01:24.640 --> 00:01:32.480
to Canadian Society. We've all heard this argument. There is usually one caveat to the

8
00:01:32.480 --> 00:01:39.840
argument however. It's namely that some Canadians, by virtue of their age, their health and perhaps

9
00:01:39.840 --> 00:01:47.840
their war service, deserve some security. The worthy poor are different than the unworthy

10
00:01:47.840 --> 00:01:56.960
On the other hand, some say yes to this question. They argue that our capitalist society creates

11
00:01:56.960 --> 00:02:02.860
a group of people who will always be poor, that the system depends on this group to do

12
00:02:02.860 --> 00:02:09.820
the dirty work in society and the unpaid labor in the home. Thus, it is incumbent on society

13
00:02:09.820 --> 00:02:17.820
to provide adequately for this group or, alternatively, to change the system that creates such inequality.

14
00:02:17.820 --> 00:02:27.020
Between the two positions lies the views of most Canadian politicians and many confused

15
00:02:27.020 --> 00:02:34.980
members of the Canadian public. It is the stuff of family Sunday dinner arguments and

16
00:02:34.980 --> 00:02:42.460
a lot of Canadian indigestion. The result of these uncertainties is a patchwork system

17
00:02:42.460 --> 00:02:52.140
of Income Programs, a safety net with large holes in it for some and security for others.

18
00:02:52.140 --> 00:02:59.660
The purpose of this afternoon's debate is to shed some new light on the argument, to

19
00:02:59.660 --> 00:03:05.660
see if we can all get some new ideas for next Sunday night's dinner.

20
00:03:05.660 --> 00:03:12.460
Our two panelists are well chosen to present different points of view.

21
00:03:12.460 --> 00:03:19.120
Our first speaker is Walter Block, and many of you will know Dr. Block as the Senior Research

22
00:03:19.120 --> 00:03:22.500
Fellow at the Fraser Institute in Vancouver.

23
00:03:22.500 --> 00:03:29.660
Dr. Block has published numerous popular and scholarly articles on economics.

24
00:03:29.660 --> 00:03:35.900
He is a regular contributor to the Financial Post and writes a syndicated column for Sterling

25
00:03:35.900 --> 00:03:44.900
newspapers. Recent writings include Focus on Economics and the Canadian Bishops, 1983,

26
00:03:44.900 --> 00:03:52.720
Focus on Employment Equity, a critique of the Abella Royal Commission on Equality, 1985,

27
00:03:52.720 --> 00:03:59.520
and The U.S. Bishops and Their Critics, An Economic and Ethical Perspective, 1986. He

28
00:03:59.520 --> 00:04:05.760
has an upcoming publication on government expenditure facts predicted for next year.

29
00:04:05.760 --> 00:04:16.760
Welcome Dr. Block.

30
00:04:16.760 --> 00:04:21.760
Thanks for the introduction. I have just one quarrel with the introduction.

31
00:04:21.760 --> 00:04:26.760
It has been alleged that capitalism creates a group of people who are poor.

32
00:04:26.760 --> 00:04:31.760
I would say compared to what? I think the poor and the capitalism are usually richer

33
00:04:31.760 --> 00:04:37.760
than the middle class or even some of the very rich people in alternative systems.

34
00:04:37.760 --> 00:04:42.760
Further, I would deny that it's capitalism that creates the poor.

35
00:04:42.760 --> 00:04:53.760
It's rather the vestiges of socialism that we still have in the society that create the poverty, not the capitalist system itself.

36
00:04:53.760 --> 00:05:01.760
Before I start, I'd like to get in a brief commercial, as is consistent with my devotion to capitalism.

37
00:05:01.760 --> 00:05:08.760
And let me just mention that these cards have been given out to you, and if you fill them out and give them back to me or mail them to me,

38
00:05:08.760 --> 00:05:14.040
to me, we will make you a gift of a free four month subscription to Fraser Forum, which

39
00:05:14.040 --> 00:05:20.080
is a Fraser Institute monthly publication. And for those of you out there in TV land

40
00:05:20.080 --> 00:05:25.080
who will be hearing this later, let me just mention the address, which is the Fraser Institute

41
00:05:25.080 --> 00:05:32.080
626 Bute Street, B-U-T-E, Vancouver, BC, V6E 3M1. So if you write to me, I will make you

42
00:05:32.080 --> 00:05:39.080
3M1. So if you write to me, I will make you a gift of this splendid publication.

43
00:05:41.400 --> 00:05:48.400
The question of income security has to do very much with the welfare state. And in my

44
00:05:48.640 --> 00:05:55.200
view, the ideal situation would be that we have no welfare state at all. I think welfare

45
00:05:55.200 --> 00:06:02.200
There is the meaning to recipients. It creates dependency. It reduces self-reliance. And

46
00:06:02.200 --> 00:06:23.200
it's morally suspect. It's morally suspect, I claim, because the money that is derived

47
00:06:23.200 --> 00:06:28.200
is derived through force, through the tax system. It's not a voluntary payment.

48
00:06:28.200 --> 00:06:33.200
Further, a large part of the perceived need for the welfare state is created by the existence

49
00:06:33.200 --> 00:06:38.200
and excessive influence of government itself.

50
00:06:38.200 --> 00:06:43.200
For example, minimum wage laws create poverty by creating unemployment,

51
00:06:43.200 --> 00:06:48.200
especially for teenagers and unskilled workers. There's occupational licensure,

52
00:06:48.200 --> 00:06:54.240
Licensure, Taxi Medallions, Central Control, Government Ownership of Industries such as

53
00:06:54.240 --> 00:07:00.880
the Post Office, Air Canada, Ferries, Petrocan, CBC, the Agricultural, Land Reserve, Marketing

54
00:07:00.880 --> 00:07:06.760
Boards, Regional Policies, Tariffs, Quotas, International Barriers to Trade, Inter-Provincial

55
00:07:06.760 --> 00:07:11.480
Barriers to Trade. In all of these cases it's government that is creating poverty in the

56
00:07:11.480 --> 00:07:17.280
first place and then we expect government to come on the white horse riding to the rescue

57
00:07:17.280 --> 00:07:20.320
to stop the poverty that it created in the first place.

58
00:07:20.320 --> 00:07:24.960
Surely it's more sensible to ask that the government stop creating the poverty in the first place

59
00:07:24.960 --> 00:07:29.440
and hence the felt need for a welfare system.

60
00:07:29.440 --> 00:07:32.560
However, even if this is all corrected,

61
00:07:32.560 --> 00:07:36.700
even if government isn't busily out there creating poverty as it is,

62
00:07:36.700 --> 00:07:42.480
there would still be people, the mentally handicapped, the blind, quadriplegics, ill people,

63
00:07:42.480 --> 00:07:44.520
mothers with infant children.

64
00:07:44.520 --> 00:07:50.600
So I think we have to have some sort of welfare and as the person who introduced this topic the chairperson said

65
00:07:50.600 --> 00:07:54.800
there is usually a caveat or an exception for some people

66
00:07:54.800 --> 00:07:58.880
but it's a very limited one it's not one where everyone can get on the bandwagon

67
00:07:58.880 --> 00:08:05.200
because by its very nature if you increase security for some people once you get past a certain threshold

68
00:08:05.200 --> 00:08:11.040
you decrease security for everyone else because society is insecure the total thing is not given

69
00:08:11.040 --> 00:08:15.440
God doesn't say, well, you know, the economy shall be flat like that. Rather it has ups

70
00:08:15.440 --> 00:08:20.960
and downs, and if we flatten it for some people, the rest have to vary even more. So you can't

71
00:08:20.960 --> 00:08:26.520
have security for everyone. Given that we have to have some sort of welfare, I would

72
00:08:26.520 --> 00:08:32.440
put forth for our consideration three principles. The first principle is that private welfare,

73
00:08:32.440 --> 00:08:39.440
or charity, is vastly preferable to government welfare. For one reason, when you give to

74
00:08:39.440 --> 00:08:44.000
to charity, you give to charity on a voluntary basis, nobody forces you at the point of a

75
00:08:44.000 --> 00:08:50.040
gun to contribute. When you do so through the tax system, you are told in effect that

76
00:08:50.040 --> 00:08:56.080
if you don't pay your taxes you go to jail, and that is coercivid. Secondly, most of the

77
00:08:56.080 --> 00:09:03.080
money in the private system goes to the poor. General Arnold Brown of the Salvation Army

78
00:09:03.080 --> 00:09:14.080
Donald Brown of the Salvation Army estimates that from 2% to 3% of the amount of money that is collected does not go to the poor.

79
00:09:14.080 --> 00:09:19.080
That is the cost of collecting it. The rest, 98% or 96%, goes to the poor.

80
00:09:19.080 --> 00:09:26.080
Now this is a record that many people in the public sector would be hard to meet.

81
00:09:26.080 --> 00:09:31.080
Soll estimates that if all the money that has been gone for social welfare and helping

82
00:09:31.080 --> 00:09:36.080
the poor were just given to the poor instead, the average poor family would have some 70,000

83
00:09:36.080 --> 00:09:40.600
a year. The fact that they don't have it shows that there are great leakages when it's

84
00:09:40.600 --> 00:09:45.900
done through the public system.

85
00:09:45.900 --> 00:09:50.760
The idea here is corporate welfare bums. It's the rich who get the welfare, the richer the

86
00:09:50.760 --> 00:10:20.760
and the Better Organized. It's millions of dollars for bailouts for rich corporations and stockholders and very well organized unionists and pennies for the poor. So if you think if you're in favor of the poor, if you're in favor of the underdog and you have the same goals as I share, then you should look very much askance at public means of channeling money to them because these means do not succeed. All too often, the money is diverted to the people who need it the least. Third, private charities.

87
00:10:20.760 --> 00:10:25.360
Traditionally, private welfare is much more efficient. The emphasis is on getting people

88
00:10:25.360 --> 00:10:31.240
back on their feet, not instilling dependency for four or five generations or more, as is

89
00:10:31.240 --> 00:10:38.240
done in some advanced welfare states. Traditionally, private charity was a task of the churches

90
00:10:40.400 --> 00:10:46.840
and other civic-minded organizations. Churches such as the Mormons, the Hutterites, the Catholics,

91
00:10:46.840 --> 00:10:52.560
The Dutch Church, Synagogues, Christian Churches of all denominations have established estimal

92
00:10:52.560 --> 00:10:59.920
records of helping the poor. Yet, the main objections to privatizing welfare come from,

93
00:10:59.920 --> 00:11:05.540
paradoxically, the churches. In virtually every case where private citizens

94
00:11:05.540 --> 00:11:10.000
compete with government or try to, they do so wholeheartedly. They are anxious to show

95
00:11:10.000 --> 00:11:16.160
that they can do a better job at a lower cost. This applies, for example, to private sanitation,

96
00:11:16.160 --> 00:11:21.160
and even private competitors for mail delivery and police and fire protection,

97
00:11:21.160 --> 00:11:24.160
once such private alternatives have arisen.

98
00:11:24.160 --> 00:11:27.160
But there is one glaring exception to this rule.

99
00:11:27.160 --> 00:11:31.160
The audiological new class run private poverty centers,

100
00:11:31.160 --> 00:11:34.160
which are in the business of providing food for the needy.

101
00:11:34.160 --> 00:11:37.160
They are, however, highly ambivalent about their role.

102
00:11:37.160 --> 00:11:41.160
According to spokespersons from such groups as the Vancouver Food Bank,

103
00:11:41.160 --> 00:11:44.160
the Richmond Food Bank, the First United Church in Vancouver,

104
00:11:44.160 --> 00:11:53.160
The New Westminster Unemployment Action Center and the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C., giving food to the poor should really be a government enterprise.

105
00:11:53.160 --> 00:12:01.160
This whole issue arose, you will remember, when Bill Bennett had the downsizing of government and called forth the private sector to make up the difference.

106
00:12:01.160 --> 00:12:08.160
In the good society, in the view of these people, there would be little scope for private initiatives such as their own.

107
00:12:08.160 --> 00:12:11.160
The public sector should do the job.

108
00:12:11.160 --> 00:12:23.160
The Reverend Alan Bush of the St. Albans Richmond Food Bank even goes so far as to claim that the BC government, in its cutbacks under Bennett, was taking advantage of the kindly and loving people administering to the poor.

109
00:12:23.160 --> 00:12:33.160
And according to Sylvia Russell of the Vancouver Food Bank, they have no intention of expanding their base of operation to take up the slack left by government.

110
00:12:33.160 --> 00:12:40.160
All this is in sharp contrast to the views of the old-time, long-term private groups in BC which have been on the scene for decades.

111
00:12:40.160 --> 00:13:08.160
Supposed needs are so high, even with free enterprise and without government causing the problems, and even with an unstinting church and private effort.

112
00:13:08.160 --> 00:13:13.100
Suppose there are still needs that are unmet, then I would introduce for our consideration

113
00:13:13.100 --> 00:13:19.580
principle two, and that is that we have limited state welfare, not welfare that is generous

114
00:13:19.580 --> 00:13:26.500
to a fault. The government welfare or whatever kind of welfare should be as little as possible

115
00:13:26.500 --> 00:13:32.860
consistent with maintaining adequate financial support. Otherwise, as our chairperson mentioned,

116
00:13:32.860 --> 00:13:43.860
Now, perhaps the greatest example of the deleterious effects of Welfareism run amok have to do with the black family in the United States.

117
00:13:43.860 --> 00:13:50.860
And I'd like to read some very pithy quotes about what's happening to the black family as a result of welfare.

118
00:13:50.860 --> 00:13:54.860
They're being victimized by the welfare state.

119
00:13:54.860 --> 00:13:58.860
The facts about the black family are brutal.

120
00:13:58.860 --> 00:14:02.860
More than half the black children born in the US today are illegitimate.

121
00:14:02.860 --> 00:14:07.860
Almost half of these, 23% of all black children, are born to unwed teenage mothers.

122
00:14:07.860 --> 00:14:13.860
Every year, more black girls drop out of high school to have a baby than graduate from college.

123
00:14:13.860 --> 00:14:20.860
Over 50% of all black children are now being raised in single-parent households, meaning by unmarried black women.

124
00:14:20.860 --> 00:14:25.860
About 75% of all poor black children are in these families.

125
00:14:25.860 --> 00:14:29.860
This is a social tragedy of truly frightening proportions.

126
00:14:29.860 --> 00:14:32.860
It has never happened before in history.

127
00:14:32.860 --> 00:14:38.860
Mao Tei-Sung's deliberate efforts to break up the nuclear family on the Chinese rural communes

128
00:14:38.860 --> 00:14:45.860
didn't have even a fraction of the effect that contemporary American social policies have had on black Americans.

129
00:14:45.860 --> 00:14:52.860
The welfare system makes an irresistible offer to every eligible female over the age of 16.

130
00:14:52.860 --> 00:14:59.860
It says to every black female teenager, you may be poor, you may have family problems and you may be discouraged about your future.

131
00:14:59.860 --> 00:15:06.860
But if you have a baby right now, we will give you your own apartment, free medical care, food stamps and a regular income over the next 20 years.

132
00:15:06.860 --> 00:15:10.860
If you have another baby soon after, we will increase your allotment.

133
00:15:10.860 --> 00:15:17.860
Allotment. How many black men, poor or even affluent, can match this offer? How many teenage

134
00:15:17.860 --> 00:15:24.700
girls anywhere, black or white, poor or affluent, can afford their own apartment at age 16?

135
00:15:24.700 --> 00:15:27.980
These teenage girls who drop out of school and have babies are not ignorant, they are

136
00:15:27.980 --> 00:15:33.460
not morally weak, they are not sexually lascivious. They are simply rational human beings making

137
00:15:33.460 --> 00:15:39.580
the most intelligent choice on how to improve their economic condition.

138
00:15:39.580 --> 00:15:45.580
Now, a further quote, black families are not really breaking up at all, instead black families

139
00:15:45.580 --> 00:15:51.120
are no longer forming. When women start families, they no longer look for a husband, they simply

140
00:15:51.120 --> 00:15:56.780
marry the state. Now there are charges that, well, you know, blacks, you know, they never

141
00:15:56.780 --> 00:16:03.100
had much of a family structure anyway. That is false. I continue my quote. The black family

142
00:16:03.100 --> 00:16:08.420
was more than strong enough to survive the ordeal of slavery. There were cases of black

143
00:16:08.420 --> 00:16:12.800
Black men and women walking up and down the countryside after the Civil War, searching

144
00:16:12.800 --> 00:16:17.280
for wives, husbands or children from whom they had become separated during the chaos

145
00:16:17.280 --> 00:16:21.900
and the conflict. Advertisements for lost spouses and children were still appearing

146
00:16:21.900 --> 00:16:28.040
in the black newspapers as late as the 1880s, 25 years after the Civil War. This survival

147
00:16:28.040 --> 00:16:33.200
continued right through the 1930s. One study of ethnic groups in Boston in the early part

148
00:16:33.200 --> 00:16:37.680
of the century revealed that the rate of broken families among blacks was actually lower

149
00:16:37.680 --> 00:16:51.880
Black social patterns were ruined only when liberals arrived on the scene in the 1930s

150
00:16:51.880 --> 00:16:56.360
with their aid to families with dependent children and other blandishments to let the

151
00:16:56.360 --> 00:17:02.640
state do for people what they aren't capable of doing for themselves. The tragedy occurred

152
00:17:02.640 --> 00:17:07.840
because blacks trusted the system. They didn't have the inherent suspicions to resist government

153
00:17:07.840 --> 00:17:13.360
assistance and avoid sympathetic bureaucrats like the plague, as many ethnic groups did

154
00:17:13.360 --> 00:17:19.680
then and still do today. No, the black family was more than strong enough to survive slavery,

155
00:17:19.680 --> 00:17:26.480
it was just not strong enough to survive the welfare system.

156
00:17:26.480 --> 00:17:33.480
Level Three. Whatever the welfare, however high, however low, whether it's from private

157
00:17:34.760 --> 00:17:41.760
or public, it is economically more efficient to give the welfare out in the form of money

158
00:17:42.120 --> 00:17:48.640
than to give it out in the form of services. Or money gifts are more efficient than gifts

159
00:17:48.640 --> 00:17:54.640
in kind. It's an economic aphorism or an axiom in economics.

160
00:17:54.640 --> 00:17:59.240
Let me try to illustrate this in several different ways.

161
00:17:59.240 --> 00:18:04.520
During the Bennett downsizing of government, he closed the following operations.

162
00:18:04.520 --> 00:18:05.680
This is only a partial list.

163
00:18:05.680 --> 00:18:07.240
He closed many more.

164
00:18:07.240 --> 00:18:13.680
The Janus Child Care Center, the Consumer Association of B.C., Planned Parenthood, Health Collective,

165
00:18:13.680 --> 00:18:19.120
Rape Relief, Rape Crisis Center, Family Places, Vancouver Transition House, Legal Aid and

166
00:18:19.120 --> 00:18:25.040
and Postpartum Depression Center either closed or reduced the funding toward these groups.

167
00:18:25.040 --> 00:18:31.920
Which people were hurt by these closures or these downsizing? Who were the real beneficiaries

168
00:18:31.920 --> 00:18:38.920
of these programs? Well, one hypothesis is that it's the poor, the needy, the poverty-stricken.

169
00:18:40.640 --> 00:18:45.240
I think that this hypothesis is untenable and I'll try to prove to you why it is untenable

170
00:18:45.240 --> 00:18:50.200
through a thought experiment. My own hypothesis, it's not original with me, is that the people

171
00:18:50.200 --> 00:18:55.560
benefited are similar to the people in this room. White collar, highly educated, articulate,

172
00:18:55.560 --> 00:19:02.560
members of the new class, mainly Marxist or leftist intellectuals. Why do I say this?

173
00:19:02.840 --> 00:19:09.840
Let me read another quote to you. Quote, the poor or in the minority are less likely to

174
00:19:09.840 --> 00:19:27.840
It is unlikely, then, that the poor will be very effective in the competition for political influence. Indeed, if the poor had the skills and attributes that are necessary for effective political action, they would not be poor.

175
00:19:27.840 --> 00:19:37.840
So while the political demands of the poor will no doubt push in the direction of increasing the funding for poverty programs, the magnitude of this influence will probably be small.

176
00:19:37.840 --> 00:20:07.840
A more effectively organized and politically potent group with a vested interest in expanding government programs to aid the disadvantaged is made up of those whose employment depends upon these programs. These people include the several million people who are employed either directly by government welfare agencies or who, as private contractors and academic researchers, assist and advise these agencies. With the job security and income of these people tied to the funding of poverty and poverty-related programs,

177
00:20:07.840 --> 00:20:12.800
have a common and dominant interest in the continuation and expanding of this funding.

178
00:20:12.800 --> 00:20:17.900
When this focused interest is coupled with the relative ease with which people can organize

179
00:20:17.900 --> 00:20:22.840
for political action through their employee organizations, poverty professionals become

180
00:20:22.840 --> 00:20:27.460
much more effective at obtaining political funding for poverty programs than the poor

181
00:20:27.460 --> 00:20:34.460
themselves. Just common sense. In order to prove this to you even the more, let me give

182
00:20:37.840 --> 00:20:40.840
Put forth the following mental experiment.

183
00:20:40.840 --> 00:20:49.840
Suppose we take all the money that used to be spent on Janus, child care, rape relief, legal aid, post-partum depression, this, that and the other.

184
00:20:49.840 --> 00:20:53.840
Several millions of dollars.

185
00:20:53.840 --> 00:20:59.840
And suppose we consider all the people that used to receive the money in, oh, say, 82 or 83.

186
00:20:59.840 --> 00:21:01.840
And we divide the one by the other.

187
00:21:01.840 --> 00:21:10.840
And we come up with some figure, namely that on a per capita basis, each person got $10,000 worth, say, of services of this sort.

188
00:21:10.840 --> 00:21:15.840
And now we do the following experiment. We go over to some lady and we say,

189
00:21:15.840 --> 00:21:24.840
Look, Mrs. Jones, previously, before the downsizing, you would have got $10,000 worth of services of rape relief in this crisis and that and the other thing.

190
00:21:24.840 --> 00:21:30.840
And we're going to propose the following to you. We're going to give you the $10,000 right here. Here's a check.

191
00:21:30.840 --> 00:21:40.840
Now, you can spend it on anything you want. You can spend it on a new car, a new hat, a food, a vacation, or on rape relief or crisis centers or whatever it is.

192
00:21:40.840 --> 00:21:49.840
What proportion do you people think in this room that the typical recipient would spend on these crisis centers?

193
00:21:49.840 --> 00:21:58.440
Centers. 90%? No. 80, 70, 60? Whenever I've asked this question, the typical response

194
00:21:58.440 --> 00:22:04.980
I get is, oh, 3%, 5%, something like that, which I think is obviously true. The point

195
00:22:04.980 --> 00:22:10.500
is then that if the lady would only spend 5% of the money had she had it for herself on

196
00:22:10.500 --> 00:22:16.660
these crisis centers, then she is only benefiting from them to the tune of 5%, to the extent

197
00:22:16.660 --> 00:22:46.660
of 5%. If she would take the money on her own and spend it elsewhere, this shows that at least in her mind, she values the other things more importantly than the crisis centers or what have you. Other examples of the giving out of services instead of money would include health care, daycare and public schooling. These are all

198
00:22:46.660 --> 00:22:56.660
There are also cases where we give people, not the money and let them choose for themselves, but rather we give them the services themselves and we say, you know, here they are, go use them.

199
00:22:56.660 --> 00:23:03.660
The poor are much better off with the money rather than the free services, which aren't free, which cost money.

200
00:23:03.660 --> 00:23:11.660
If any of you are economists in the room, you know that by indifference curve analysis we can show this in a very pristine and pure way.

201
00:23:11.660 --> 00:23:18.660
The only case where these services are worth as much as the money is if the poor would have taken the money and spend it on the services.

202
00:23:18.660 --> 00:23:21.660
If they spend any less, then to that extent they lose out.

203
00:23:21.660 --> 00:23:25.660
And the only possible objection is one of paternalism.

204
00:23:25.660 --> 00:23:28.660
We know better than the poor what's best for them.

205
00:23:28.660 --> 00:23:31.660
So the hell with their decisions. Yeah, they want to buy a TV set.

206
00:23:31.660 --> 00:23:38.660
Well, a TV set isn't what they need. They need counseling services, which we happen to be the providers of.

207
00:23:38.660 --> 00:23:41.660
Notice the danger of this kind of an argument.

208
00:23:41.660 --> 00:23:44.660
It's certainly incompatible with allowing them the right to vote.

209
00:23:44.660 --> 00:23:48.660
I mean, if they're so stupid that they can't make up their minds to spend their money intelligently,

210
00:23:48.660 --> 00:23:50.660
why are we allowing them to vote anyway?

211
00:23:50.660 --> 00:23:53.660
Why don't we get a leash and let them, you know, walk them like a dog?

212
00:23:53.660 --> 00:23:56.660
I mean, this is a very demeaning way to treat people.

213
00:23:56.660 --> 00:24:02.660
And yet it's the only conceivable objection to the point that I'm making.

214
00:24:02.660 --> 00:24:06.660
Another point with regard to the welfare state that I'm just itching to make to you people

215
00:24:06.660 --> 00:24:12.340
People is the internationalized welfare state. Here we have foreign aid, which is a pejorative

216
00:24:12.340 --> 00:24:18.940
word because it assumes that some aid is being given. Actually, a non-pejorative terminology

217
00:24:18.940 --> 00:24:22.700
would be government-to-government transfers. That's a much more neutral and accurate way

218
00:24:22.700 --> 00:24:29.820
to describe it. Unfortunately, the usual function is to prop up dictators by undergirding their

219
00:24:29.820 --> 00:24:36.340
crazy economic planning. For example, in the Soviet Union, the land that's been held in

220
00:24:36.340 --> 00:25:06.340
The Public Sector is 97% and it accounts for 75% of the crops. The land that is privately held is only 3% and it accounts for 25% of the crops. In Ethiopia, the reason we have a famine is because of the Marxist dictatorship and the price controls on agriculture. There are three M's, M as in Mary, that I would offer for your consideration as a way to summarize foreign aid. And the three M's are Mercedes, Monuments and Machine Guns. That's what the money really

221
00:25:06.340 --> 00:25:13.340
It exacerbates conflict. In many of these recipient countries are tribal. If the government is limited to the night watchman state of Adam Smith, it really doesn't matter who is the government. But when the government is the be-all and end-all, and foreign aid might only be one or two percent here, but there it's a gigantic gap.

222
00:25:36.340 --> 00:26:06.340
I want to conclude by discussing the question of whether welfare is a right.

223
00:26:06.340 --> 00:26:19.340
And I deny the contention that welfare, education, health care, daycare are rights. I think this is a perversion of language.

224
00:26:19.340 --> 00:26:29.340
In order to show what a monstrous perversion of language we get into when we consider these things as rights,

225
00:26:29.340 --> 00:26:37.340
I have to take a break for drugs. It's not steroids though, it's just cough drops.

226
00:26:37.340 --> 00:26:42.340
I want to contrast the negative rights of classical liberalism with the new class idea of positive rights.

227
00:26:42.340 --> 00:26:49.340
You know, right to food, right to clothing, right to shelter, right to medical care, right to education, right to daycare, what have you.

228
00:26:49.340 --> 00:27:19.340
Now, traditionally, the negative rights were the right to be free of violence. And this was consistent with private property rights and the non-aggression axiom. Namely, you can do anything you want as long as you do not invade anyone else's person or property. And the philosophy undergirding this is limited government or a safety net under income, police, army, courts, fire protection, roads. That's the government's

229
00:27:19.340 --> 00:27:28.340
In contrast, we have the positive rights, the right to food, clothing, shelter, meaningful experiences, whatever.

230
00:27:28.340 --> 00:27:34.340
Here are communal rights and you need a socialist state to enforce these kinds of positive rights.

231
00:27:34.340 --> 00:27:43.340
Rights, no matter whether they are of the positive or negative sort, operate in such a way that if I have a right, you have an obligation.

232
00:27:43.340 --> 00:27:48.340
If I have a right to be left alone, you have an obligation to keep your mitts off me.

233
00:27:48.340 --> 00:28:00.340
If I have a right to food, you have an obligation to cough up the food. If I have a right to clothing, shelter, daycare, you have an obligation to give it to me.

234
00:28:00.340 --> 00:28:08.340
So rights, whether they're positive or negative, work in that way that if I have a right to it, you've got an obligation to fulfill it.

235
00:28:08.340 --> 00:28:17.200
Now, I want to show you six points of contrast to show that the classical liberal concept

236
00:28:17.200 --> 00:28:22.780
of rights, of negative rights, just rights to be left alone, are very different than

237
00:28:22.780 --> 00:28:32.000
the positive rights. First is time. Negative rights are timeless. The caveman had a right

238
00:28:32.000 --> 00:28:37.500
a million years ago to be left alone. The spaceman a hundred million years from now

239
00:28:37.500 --> 00:28:41.980
Now, we'll have an equal right not to be raped, murdered or pillaged.

240
00:28:41.980 --> 00:28:48.380
And we nowadays here have a right to go unmolested as we walk down the street.

241
00:28:48.380 --> 00:28:51.420
So rights are invariant to time.

242
00:28:51.420 --> 00:28:52.420
That is negative rights.

243
00:28:52.420 --> 00:28:54.500
But now take positive rights.

244
00:28:54.500 --> 00:28:59.500
Does the caveman have a right to a 1988 level of food, clothing, shelter, medical care?

245
00:28:59.500 --> 00:29:02.740
I mean, it's absurd.

246
00:29:02.740 --> 00:29:07.860
The caveman, I mean, to say that a caveman had these rights is ludicrous.

247
00:29:07.860 --> 00:29:12.500
Caveman has no right to running water or electricity, I mean, it was impossible in those days to

248
00:29:12.500 --> 00:29:13.500
give it to him.

249
00:29:13.500 --> 00:29:18.740
So notice it's not a right, it's something different, because it is time-dimensional,

250
00:29:18.740 --> 00:29:22.260
whereas negative rights are time-universal.

251
00:29:22.260 --> 00:29:26.980
They apply at whatever era, epoch of time that you want to talk about, whereas positive

252
00:29:26.980 --> 00:29:29.380
rights cannot apply that way.

253
00:29:29.380 --> 00:29:35.380
The Realism of It vs. The Utopianism of It

254
00:29:35.380 --> 00:29:43.380
We could, with an act of will, if we all resolved to keep our mitts in our pockets and not to murder, rape or commit mayhem on other people,

255
00:29:43.380 --> 00:29:51.380
like that, have a land, a universe, a world of no negative rights violations.

256
00:29:51.380 --> 00:30:02.380
But could we like that have a land, a world of positive rights obligations being met? No. It's just impossible. People are people.

257
00:30:02.380 --> 00:30:09.380
I don't think it matters for the point of view of welfare theory whether they live in Namibia or Canada or Switzerland.

258
00:30:09.380 --> 00:30:12.380
They all are human beings. They all have the same rights.

259
00:30:12.380 --> 00:30:19.380
And yet it would be impossible, just sheer impossible, to give everyone in the world, all the people in India and China

260
00:30:19.380 --> 00:30:25.380
The same kind of a level of income maintenance that Canadians have in 1988.

261
00:30:25.380 --> 00:30:29.380
So notice that there's a very different way that these things are working.

262
00:30:29.380 --> 00:30:35.380
The first point is that positive rights are not timeless. They are time dimensioned.

263
00:30:35.380 --> 00:30:39.380
And the second point is that they are utopian in the sense that we couldn't have right now.

264
00:30:39.380 --> 00:30:45.380
We'd have to work for it, whereas we could have negative rights right now if we had a sheer act of will.

265
00:30:45.380 --> 00:31:04.380
3rd point is human agency. Consider mother nature. Shipwreck, storm, drought. We just had the tropical storm Gilbert or Mary Lou or Joanne or somebody. I get mixed up. And they just beat the hell out of Jamaica and other countries in the Caribbean.

266
00:31:04.380 --> 00:31:10.880
Well, was there any negative rights violation? No, the idea is gross. I mean, it's just ridiculous.

267
00:31:10.880 --> 00:31:15.880
Nobody violated their rights in the negative sense because you need a human agent to violate negative rights.

268
00:31:15.880 --> 00:31:20.880
But you could say that their positive rights were violated because, look, their houses were smashed to smithereens.

269
00:31:20.880 --> 00:31:25.880
They had no food, they had no shelter, they had no clothing, they had no education.

270
00:31:25.880 --> 00:31:31.880
Notice the ludicrous results that you get if you take positive rights seriously.

271
00:31:31.880 --> 00:31:42.880
Fourth is game theory. If I have more positive rights, you've got less of them. If I have more food, you've got less food.

272
00:31:42.880 --> 00:31:52.880
But, it doesn't work that way in negative rights. If I have more peace and tranquility, it doesn't mean that you necessarily have less.

273
00:31:52.880 --> 00:31:57.880
Notice how differently the two concepts work. The fifth is Occam's razor.

274
00:31:57.880 --> 00:32:04.380
You people, academics, all know what Occam's razor is, the idea that simplicity is revered in science.

275
00:32:04.380 --> 00:32:10.380
Well, we already have a word for positive rights. It's called wealth.

276
00:32:10.380 --> 00:32:17.380
The only reason we concoct this thing called positive rights is because we have this emotional intangible,

277
00:32:17.380 --> 00:32:20.380
that if it's a right, it has to be equal.

278
00:32:20.380 --> 00:32:26.380
And if it's a right, it's good. So let's tie our ideological theories onto something good

279
00:32:26.380 --> 00:32:56.380
The sixth point is charity. In a regime of negative rights, it is possible to have a thing called charity. I just give some money to this poor lady over here, and that's charity. But if there are positive rights, and I say, well, here, there's nothing good that everyone reveres, namely rights, well, it's just not etymologically correct. What people mean by positive rights is nothing different than wealth, and they ought to have the courage of their convictions to say that.

280
00:32:56.380 --> 00:33:00.580
My good lady, here's a dollar, go buy a cup of coffee or something as charity.

281
00:33:00.580 --> 00:33:04.660
She turns on me and says, what do you mean? Wait a second, that's not charity.

282
00:33:04.660 --> 00:33:06.420
I have a right to it.

283
00:33:06.420 --> 00:33:08.020
You have to give it to me.

284
00:33:08.020 --> 00:33:10.560
I'm collecting it as a debt.

285
00:33:10.560 --> 00:33:13.660
So anytime a rich person gives a poor person money,

286
00:33:13.660 --> 00:33:17.700
and he says, my good fellow, here's some charity, the poor person can say,

287
00:33:17.700 --> 00:33:20.180
uh-uh, forget it, that's not charity.

288
00:33:20.180 --> 00:33:22.600
The point is that if you

289
00:33:22.600 --> 00:33:25.740
consistently carry through the philosophy of positive rights,

290
00:33:25.740 --> 00:33:31.900
It's not just that charity will be less or low. Charity will be impossible to give.

291
00:33:31.900 --> 00:33:37.420
We will have, in one fell swoop, eliminated a perfectly good word from the English language.

292
00:33:37.420 --> 00:33:40.900
Now, I'm not saying you might agree that it's good to get rid of charity.

293
00:33:40.900 --> 00:33:44.380
That's not a point I'm making. I'm making a linguistic point.

294
00:33:44.380 --> 00:33:51.180
I'm making a philosophical linguistic point that the very word charity is incompatible with this philosophy,

295
00:33:51.180 --> 00:33:54.860
from which I deduce the fact that since the word charity is a meaningful word,

296
00:33:54.860 --> 00:34:04.860
We all know what charity is. If a doctrine eliminates this word from the English language, there's something wrong with the doctrine.

297
00:34:04.860 --> 00:34:14.860
Okay, it's time to summarize. What, if any, social services should the public sector provide?

298
00:34:14.860 --> 00:34:23.860
Well, my own contention is little or none. In the classical liberal tradition, government was used for defense, judiciary, army, police.

299
00:34:23.860 --> 00:34:53.860
and Police, the Fraser Institute philosophy would add a safety net of government as a last resort, not as a first resort, and I would reiterate the three principles, private charity is preferred to government welfare, limited state welfare is preferable to generous welfare, and third, welfare of whatever kind from whatever direction is more efficient and effective if it's given in the form of money than if it's given in the form of

300
00:34:53.860 --> 00:35:00.860
Objects. Thank you for your attention.

301
00:35:03.500 --> 00:35:06.940
I'd like to thank Dr. Block for an articulate

302
00:35:06.940 --> 00:35:08.780
presentation.

303
00:35:08.780 --> 00:35:13.500
It's your obligation right now to sit on your hands and not raise any

304
00:35:13.500 --> 00:35:14.660
questions

305
00:35:14.660 --> 00:35:17.780
until we've heard from our second speaker

306
00:35:17.780 --> 00:35:19.660
who is Jim Rice.

307
00:35:19.660 --> 00:35:28.660
Dr. Rice is presently an associate professor and director of the graduate program at the McMaster School of Social Work.

308
00:35:28.660 --> 00:35:38.660
He received his BA from Sir George Williams, his BSW and MSW from Calgary, and his PhD from Exeter in 1977.

309
00:35:38.660 --> 00:35:46.660
He completed a review for the McDonald Commission on the social security system in Canada,

310
00:35:46.660 --> 00:35:52.660
which noted both its resilience and the recent pressures which are assailing it.

311
00:35:52.660 --> 00:35:59.460
He has just finished a two-year study of seriously impoverished families in the Hamilton area

312
00:35:59.460 --> 00:36:07.460
and has just begun a study of the child care needs of 2,600 families also in that area.

313
00:36:07.460 --> 00:36:14.460
He has written specifically and recently on the right to income security and is an ideal

314
00:36:14.460 --> 00:36:21.460
No choice to present the second side of the argument. Dr. Rice.

315
00:36:34.340 --> 00:36:40.420
Well I wondered where to begin in preparing myself for today's talk. And I'm just going

316
00:36:40.420 --> 00:36:43.420
I'm going to, Walter, reach over your head and get some notes here.

317
00:36:47.420 --> 00:36:55.420
And I, after Mike sent me a letter, I gave today's presentation considerable thought.

318
00:36:55.420 --> 00:37:07.420
And I said, how will I come prepared to defend social welfare, the social security system, in front of the Fraser Institute?

319
00:37:07.420 --> 00:37:09.420
We in the East have heard much of this institute.

320
00:37:09.420 --> 00:37:15.820
Institute. We have heard of its work and of its dedication to espousing a certain line

321
00:37:15.820 --> 00:37:22.540
of analysis in its examination of our society. And I wanted to come prepared in a way that

322
00:37:22.540 --> 00:37:29.420
would bring honor to my own discipline. I wanted to come prepared in a way that would

323
00:37:29.420 --> 00:37:38.420
allow me to speak with a clear voice, allow me to be a guardian of something that I believe

324
00:37:39.420 --> 00:38:09.420
quite deeply in. And your presentation has provided me with a couple of opportunities, I think, to speak to issues that you raise. Let me begin by just saying that I remember a presentation by someone from the Secretary of State when I was, I think, 14 years old. I was in public school and they came along much like this, much like this meeting.

325
00:38:09.420 --> 00:38:15.580
They came along and they said, we'd like to talk to you about the United Nations Declaration

326
00:38:15.580 --> 00:38:17.360
of Human Rights.

327
00:38:17.360 --> 00:38:23.220
And the person who spoke at that conference spoke in an extremely powerful way.

328
00:38:23.220 --> 00:38:28.660
They made me feel, as a Canadian, very proud.

329
00:38:28.660 --> 00:38:35.700
I felt honored that my country had been one of the signatories to what they described

330
00:38:35.700 --> 00:38:44.880
as a unique set of rights that were developed in 1948 and that represented a landmark in

331
00:38:44.880 --> 00:38:54.280
the development of societies and that Canada was a signatory to that declaration.

332
00:38:54.280 --> 00:38:56.860
And I felt very proud.

333
00:38:56.860 --> 00:39:01.740
In fact, I must say it was the first time I was ever moved by a public address, 14 year

334
00:39:01.740 --> 00:39:05.800
The rules aren't moved by public addresses, moved by a public address to actually have

335
00:39:05.800 --> 00:39:12.280
goosebumps, to sit there and say that this is something that affected me.

336
00:39:12.280 --> 00:39:21.280
And here I am now, some number of years later, being asked to come to Victoria and to speak

337
00:39:21.280 --> 00:39:28.440
about how well Canada has done in the provision of rights for income security in the 40 years

338
00:39:28.440 --> 00:39:31.540
since the signing of that declaration.

339
00:39:31.540 --> 00:39:42.020
And so I'm finding it quite an interesting idea to be here to speak about these rights.

340
00:39:42.020 --> 00:39:47.980
I'd like to begin maybe by addressing the notions, they say in a debate you should always

341
00:39:47.980 --> 00:39:53.740
speak to the last speaker, that you should try and pick up the points that they've provided

342
00:39:53.740 --> 00:39:55.260
you to debate against.

343
00:39:55.260 --> 00:40:00.460
So I would like to pay respect to Walter in doing that and I would like to pick up on

344
00:40:00.460 --> 00:40:04.460
and the question of negative and positive rights.

345
00:40:04.460 --> 00:40:08.460
And I think it's a very important issue for us to think about

346
00:40:08.460 --> 00:40:16.460
in terms of how well we're doing in providing income security for citizens in Canada.

347
00:40:16.460 --> 00:40:21.460
And to ask on one side about the negative rights of freedom

348
00:40:21.460 --> 00:40:26.460
and the ability to act as a free entity.

349
00:40:26.460 --> 00:40:40.460
On the other hand, the positive rights that say that we, as individuals, have some sort of social guarantee that we will live a good life, that we have a right to a good life.

350
00:40:40.460 --> 00:40:49.460
And on the negative side, we have, if my reading serves me well, we can go back to John Stuart Mill,

351
00:40:49.460 --> 00:41:15.460
in the classical book and in that classical statement put forward that premise that you have all of the liberty that you need up to the point that it infringes with my life and that this was a fundamental principle that we fought for as we fought for freedom from the sovereign.

352
00:41:15.460 --> 00:41:20.120
It wasn't each other that we were fighting. We weren't fighting so that I could be free

353
00:41:20.120 --> 00:41:26.460
of you. We fought for negative rights so that we could be free of the sovereign to live

354
00:41:26.460 --> 00:41:31.960
in a free society. A powerful argument, a wonderful argument, and an argument worth

355
00:41:31.960 --> 00:41:38.960
taking seriously. That we shall be free individuals. The difficulty with Mill's statement is that

356
00:41:38.960 --> 00:41:49.360
statement is that we cannot find any area in human endeavor where I am free of you and

357
00:41:49.360 --> 00:41:56.360
you are free of me. At every point of our analysis, our lives intersect and we touch

358
00:41:56.360 --> 00:42:03.680
each other. There is no concept that we can think of, be it education or health or housing

359
00:42:03.680 --> 00:42:08.680
or employment or jobs or security or police or firemen or armies.

360
00:42:08.680 --> 00:42:16.800
There is no area in our life that we can think of in any rational way that separates your

361
00:42:16.800 --> 00:42:19.600
activities from my activities.

362
00:42:19.600 --> 00:42:27.840
So although in principle, although in theory we may talk about the right to freedom, that

363
00:42:27.840 --> 00:42:39.840
Negative right, we discover that there is no fact in which it can be allowed to have free reign.

364
00:42:41.440 --> 00:42:47.280
I think this is quite important for us to think about, that negative rights are important for

365
00:42:47.280 --> 00:42:53.920
the structuring of society. They're an extremely important principle for us separating ourselves

366
00:42:53.920 --> 00:43:01.520
from the sovereign, but they're a very poor principle for organizing the way that we live.

367
00:43:01.520 --> 00:43:10.420
That is, we need it to be set out here as an idea and then to understand its implication

368
00:43:10.420 --> 00:43:16.320
as policy analysts, as people concerned about, other people in our society, about how we

369
00:43:16.320 --> 00:43:18.400
interact.

370
00:43:18.400 --> 00:43:31.400
The second notion I think that was identified in the notion of negative rights was that wealth, wealth in negative rights, represents welfare.

371
00:43:31.400 --> 00:43:39.400
That is, all you have to do is leave people to be free and they in fact will create their own wealth.

372
00:43:39.400 --> 00:43:48.400
And I think, again, this is a very important notion that we must take seriously, but we must examine it carefully.

373
00:43:48.400 --> 00:43:55.400
Not as has been suggested in some abstract way, but in some real way that affects us.

374
00:43:55.400 --> 00:44:06.400
I think it was Adam Smith who said that wealth flowed from four factors, land, labor, capital and cooperation.

375
00:44:06.400 --> 00:44:16.400
It was conveniently and has been conveniently forgot by economists, particularly economists who wish to shape a certain notion of production,

376
00:44:16.400 --> 00:44:24.400
that the fourth factor in the production of the wealth of the nation, cooperation, would go unattended to.

377
00:44:24.400 --> 00:44:33.400
And that the three factors of production, land, labor and capital, would capture all that wealth produced.

378
00:44:33.400 --> 00:44:46.400
And I too, like Walter, am prepared to have wealth represent welfare when cooperation has an equal voice at the table of distribution.

379
00:44:46.400 --> 00:45:00.400
When wealth, when cooperation can make its demand upon wealth, then I believe we can talk about wealth representing welfare.

380
00:45:00.400 --> 00:45:16.400
The third notion, contained in the negative rights, talked about by Walter, was the notion of individual production, at least implied.

381
00:45:16.400 --> 00:45:36.400
And this is that we are self-reliant individuals able to take care of ourselves, that in fact there's no need for us to interact in a way that would allow us or necessitate us from taking care of each other.

382
00:45:36.400 --> 00:45:44.580
I believe that in our productive capacity, where we actually produce wealth, we have

383
00:45:44.580 --> 00:45:48.860
no choice but to interact and cooperate.

384
00:45:48.860 --> 00:45:57.040
So I would put it to you in this way, that on the negative side of rights, in the notion

385
00:45:57.040 --> 00:46:05.800
of freedom, self-actualization, and the production of wealth based on land, labor and capital,

386
00:46:05.800 --> 00:46:14.080
That the argument has yet to be made that we are not in need of a social welfare system.

387
00:46:14.080 --> 00:46:23.360
That is a system that identifies and recognizes that we are an interdependent society.

388
00:46:23.360 --> 00:46:29.320
And therefore, it is on that base that I would set aside the negative rights, not in denying

389
00:46:29.320 --> 00:46:35.460
them, not in saying that these are not notions that we can think about, but simply in saying

390
00:46:35.460 --> 00:46:41.140
to you, they are not useful notions around which one can organize a society.

391
00:46:41.140 --> 00:46:48.100
They do not provide a useful line of analysis around which one can organize a society that

392
00:46:48.100 --> 00:46:55.300
distributes the fruits of the wealth of the nation in a way that is fair and equitable

393
00:46:55.300 --> 00:47:05.420
when you leave out certain other factors that appear to me to be a description of reality.

394
00:47:05.420 --> 00:47:35.420
I was unable, and I am unable, to comment about the blacks in America. I think it was an interesting story. I can talk a little bit about poor people in Hamilton. Most of them were white and women. And these were women who had come through our education system and who were, in a sense, participating members of our society, but who had, for many reasons,

395
00:47:35.420 --> 00:47:50.420
I believe in the same way that blacks have been excluded from the productive process in America, although I must say I can't speak clearly about that because I've not studied issues of black families.

396
00:47:50.420 --> 00:48:08.420
But I can tell you that in the Canadian situation, we had families who were disabled, not so much by the welfare they received, but by the social situation in which they found themselves.

397
00:48:08.420 --> 00:48:17.420
and the social system which was to provide them, the market system which was to provide them with job opportunities or access.

398
00:48:17.420 --> 00:48:21.420
They were closed out of that entire system.

399
00:48:21.420 --> 00:48:32.420
They could not go down to Firestone Retire Company and get a job or to Kmart or to many of the opportunities in Hamilton that were there.

400
00:48:32.420 --> 00:48:39.100
They simply did not have the skills or the education or the knowledge or the experience to take advantage.

401
00:48:39.100 --> 00:48:46.420
They were disadvantaged in many ways, some physically, some emotionally, some disadvantaged psychologically,

402
00:48:46.420 --> 00:48:51.460
some disadvantaged because of their connection to children.

403
00:48:51.460 --> 00:49:03.340
These women were excluded from the system that was described as excluding blacks in America.

404
00:49:03.340 --> 00:49:11.980
I don't believe that, personally, that people are excluded by the form of provision that

405
00:49:11.980 --> 00:49:18.980
that they receive through the welfare system.

406
00:49:25.680 --> 00:49:31.140
Let me then talk for a moment. I've tried to address at least, Walter, two of the points

407
00:49:31.140 --> 00:49:38.140
that you raised. Let me move from you to me and talk then about my evaluation of the welfare

408
00:49:38.140 --> 00:49:57.140
And I asked myself, Jim, how are we doing? Give your country a mark. Are we an A? Are we a B? Are we a C? Are we a D? Are we an F in the way that we're treating our fellow citizens?

409
00:49:57.140 --> 00:50:03.340
And the first thing that came clear to me, and I'm sure it's clear to you, is that there is no right,

410
00:50:03.340 --> 00:50:08.500
Walter said it clearly, there is no right in our country to social security.

411
00:50:08.500 --> 00:50:11.580
There is no right.

412
00:50:11.580 --> 00:50:20.060
There are some programs, there is legislation, there is an implied social contract, but there are no rights.

413
00:50:20.060 --> 00:50:24.860
So as far as rights to social security, we've got an F.

414
00:50:24.860 --> 00:50:29.100
There are no rights.

415
00:50:29.100 --> 00:50:33.500
Let us then say, wow, Jim, soften your marking scale.

416
00:50:33.500 --> 00:50:35.460
It's awfully punishing.

417
00:50:35.460 --> 00:50:38.060
You've taken an awfully hard line on this.

418
00:50:38.060 --> 00:50:39.820
And we can back up a little to say,

419
00:50:39.820 --> 00:50:42.380
all right, we will include the social contract

420
00:50:42.380 --> 00:50:44.660
as a soft notion of rights.

421
00:50:44.660 --> 00:50:48.740
How are we doing if we include the social contract?

422
00:50:48.740 --> 00:50:50.940
And I said, well, it depends on where

423
00:50:50.940 --> 00:50:52.820
you stand in the system.

424
00:50:52.820 --> 00:50:59.820
If you're at the bottom, it stinks. It's an F. If you're in the middle income group, it's not too bad.

425
00:50:59.820 --> 00:51:04.820
You kind of get what you pay for. And if you're at the top, it stinks.

426
00:51:04.820 --> 00:51:12.820
Because you feel like you're paying for it. You feel like you are the person carrying the system on your back.

427
00:51:12.820 --> 00:51:22.820
So, from two points of view, our right to social security appears to me to be failing.

428
00:51:22.820 --> 00:51:27.820
I said, oh Jim, that's an awfully negative message. Could you lighten it up a little?

429
00:51:27.820 --> 00:51:38.820
Could you go to Vancouver with some good news, at least feeling good about yourself, about the discipline you're in?

430
00:51:38.820 --> 00:51:46.820
And it made me reflect on what has been called the failure of the welfare state.

431
00:51:46.820 --> 00:51:50.820
Well, that's awful negative, I said, Jim, the failure of the welfare state.

432
00:51:50.820 --> 00:51:56.820
But it made me think about what is it that we can do as social policy analysts,

433
00:51:56.820 --> 00:52:02.820
what is it that we can do that can address some of the failures that we're seeing now?

434
00:52:02.820 --> 00:52:07.820
The fact that our social security system is allowing people to plunge through holes

435
00:52:07.820 --> 00:52:17.820
Are there any indexes, any indices that you can look at, Jim, and bring them forward to the audience and say,

436
00:52:17.820 --> 00:52:24.820
here's an indices that indicates that we're doing well, or that our social security system is working?

437
00:52:24.820 --> 00:52:36.820
And I think that it's fair to say that the Canadian social security system has stopped 25% of our population

438
00:52:36.820 --> 00:52:49.820
I think this is quite important. It's held them in poverty, but it's stopped them from falling into abject poverty.

439
00:52:49.820 --> 00:52:57.820
I remember talking to my grandmother, whose greatest fear was growing old and living in poverty.

440
00:52:57.820 --> 00:53:06.820
My grandmother, she's dead now, but it's now my mother's fear, has been caught up, if you will, by the social security system.

441
00:53:06.820 --> 00:53:13.820
She never earned enough money to do the classical thing, and that was to save for her own retirement.

442
00:53:13.820 --> 00:53:21.820
She never earned enough money to save for her own retirement, so she feels quite pleased that there's a social security system to catch her.

443
00:53:21.820 --> 00:53:32.820
I think in the same way unemployment insurance has caught and held up 25% of our population from falling into abject poverty, from being pauperized.

444
00:53:32.820 --> 00:53:36.820
So I think we've done quite well in that sense.

445
00:53:36.820 --> 00:53:56.820
The difficulty is we've not yet developed the skills or we've not yet developed the analysis as policy analysts that allow us to develop a system which will rise people out of poverty and provide them with a stake in our society.

446
00:53:56.820 --> 00:53:58.820
We've not yet done that.

447
00:53:58.820 --> 00:54:08.820
I've heard it said that if we abandon the system, the production of wealth as we have it now in a capitalist society will do it for us.

448
00:54:08.820 --> 00:54:14.820
I've heard none or seen no evidence that this is in fact true.

449
00:54:14.820 --> 00:54:24.820
In fact, it appears to me that the capitalist system has gloried, grown, prospered, expanded because of the existence of the welfare system.

450
00:54:24.820 --> 00:54:33.820
because the working 25% did not fall through and in fact were the engine of the capitalist system.

451
00:54:33.820 --> 00:54:42.820
So the news is quite good there that we've stopped the plummet.

452
00:54:42.820 --> 00:54:47.820
But I put the challenge to me, mostly to me and partly to you,

453
00:54:47.820 --> 00:54:53.820
that as people concerned about the life space of those who are disadvantaged in our society,

454
00:54:53.820 --> 00:55:08.820
We have not done well in articulating a new vision for their right, their constitutional or charter right, to have resources in our society.

455
00:55:08.820 --> 00:55:12.820
We have not done well. And we need to do better.

456
00:55:12.820 --> 00:55:17.820
We need in this room and in rooms like this across the country to develop a vision,

457
00:55:17.820 --> 00:55:28.820
to articulate a vision connected with a theory, not an economic theory, they've not served us well, they've in fact served us poorly.

458
00:55:28.820 --> 00:55:37.820
But a vision and a theory that allows us to understand each person's right to resources,

459
00:55:37.820 --> 00:55:46.820
so that we can think about building a social system that responds to these rights, not out of charity.

460
00:55:46.820 --> 00:55:55.820
I wish the word were gone. I would wipe it out of my vocabulary. I would be happy to let it go.

461
00:55:55.820 --> 00:56:05.820
I would much rather us enter the arena, the fight, the struggle to find a theory and an explanation

462
00:56:05.820 --> 00:56:13.820
that allowed us to build a society of cooperation, of integration, of connection, of liberty.

463
00:56:13.820 --> 00:56:19.580
We're back to freedom again, we don't want to lose freedom, but a system which ensured

464
00:56:19.580 --> 00:56:25.140
liberty and freedom for all of those within the social structure.

465
00:56:25.140 --> 00:56:31.300
The GNI coefficient, an interesting measure, an economic measure of the redistribution

466
00:56:31.300 --> 00:56:32.300
of wealth.

467
00:56:32.300 --> 00:56:39.100
The Lorenz curve is kind of a sexist notion of the distribution of resources in our society.

468
00:56:39.100 --> 00:56:47.100
These have all been used as indices of the movement of income from upper income groups to lower income groups.

469
00:56:47.100 --> 00:56:56.100
I want to leave... Have I taken my time? I've got two minutes. I just heard a buzzer.

470
00:56:56.100 --> 00:57:06.100
I'm okay? I would like to just draw for you a couple of other indices that in coming out here I've been thinking about.

471
00:57:06.100 --> 00:57:11.100
I've looked at the limousine to food bank indices.

472
00:57:11.100 --> 00:57:16.100
I don't know if you've noticed it. I actually haven't seen any in Victoria. I haven't been here long enough.

473
00:57:16.100 --> 00:57:22.100
In Tirana and in Hamilton, we have an explosion of limousines.

474
00:57:22.100 --> 00:57:28.100
And these limousines aren't your Cadillac limousines. These limousines are about a block long.

475
00:57:28.100 --> 00:57:32.100
And some of them are so large, they have four wheels at the back.

476
00:57:32.100 --> 00:57:38.900
And I've noted that there's been a correspondence between the growth of limousines and the number of food banks.

477
00:57:38.900 --> 00:57:44.600
This is not scientific. It's not scientific. I've just noticed it. I've just noticed it.

478
00:57:44.600 --> 00:57:49.900
I noticed another indices that's bothering me.

479
00:57:49.900 --> 00:58:00.100
There's been a connection between the development in the East of $400,000 homes and the homeless.

480
00:58:00.100 --> 00:58:08.100
I don't understand it. I'm ignorant of these facts, but as the number of $400,000 homes go up, the number of homeless goes up.

481
00:58:08.100 --> 00:58:17.100
And somehow, they're saying something to me and I'm trying to figure out what it is that they're saying.

482
00:58:17.100 --> 00:58:25.100
I'll leave with this note. If Walter wants to give me $10,000,

483
00:58:25.100 --> 00:58:33.100
I probably wouldn't spend it on my welfare in terms of some of the things he talked about, either.

484
00:58:34.100 --> 00:58:40.100
I probably would buy a new car. I don't know if I'd buy a limousine, Walter, but I would buy a new car. Maybe.

485
00:58:40.100 --> 00:58:45.100
But he made an interesting point that we need to hear carefully.

486
00:58:45.100 --> 00:58:53.100
He said that these people would be prepared to spend 3 to 5 percent of the $10,000 on providing rape crisis centers

487
00:59:23.100 --> 00:59:42.100
I think we would, Walter, have a relatively humane provision of social services with a relatively adequate array of responses to social problems that we're facing.

488
00:59:53.100 --> 01:00:07.100
Thank you very much Jim for the other side of the question. It's now up to the audience to have at it and I hope you've been inspired to ask questions I see you have.

489
01:00:07.100 --> 01:00:17.100
I'm going to ask you if you have a question to come to the microphone and here we go.

490
01:00:17.100 --> 01:00:34.100
Walter has just said about responding to each other. Maybe we'll take a couple of questions and perhaps conclude with the panelists having the opportunity to respond. I don't want to lose the audience. Go ahead, sir.

491
01:00:34.100 --> 01:00:43.740
First of all, I'd like to declare myself as a happy and successful participant in free

492
01:00:43.740 --> 01:00:44.740
enterprise.

493
01:00:44.740 --> 01:00:51.860
I'm not a Marxist or a radical leftist, but I say to you that it's irrelevant to me whether

494
01:00:51.860 --> 01:00:57.380
or not a caveman has a right to 1988 levels of food and comfort.

495
01:00:57.380 --> 01:01:02.820
The real question to me as a member of this community is whether a child born or living

496
01:01:02.820 --> 01:01:08.140
Banking in our community in 1988 has a right to food and comfort.

497
01:01:08.140 --> 01:01:13.740
Secondly, I'd like to question what is the sort of involvement you have had in the lives

498
01:01:13.740 --> 01:01:20.060
of the poor to make you think that welfare is currently a first resort rather than a

499
01:01:20.060 --> 01:01:22.540
last resort.

500
01:01:22.540 --> 01:01:28.140
The current levels of welfare incomes in our country must not be glorified as a wonderful

501
01:01:28.140 --> 01:01:44.220
Thirdly, quite apart from questions of philosophy, if you are in need and I give to you, or I

502
01:01:44.220 --> 01:01:51.140
am forced to give to you, some of what I have, my response as an ethical and moral being

503
01:01:51.140 --> 01:01:55.220
is not that I have less because you have more.

504
01:01:55.220 --> 01:02:01.540
The issue is whether you now have enough to live your life in dignity.

505
01:02:01.540 --> 01:02:08.540
And finally, having worked in the past with a decidedly unglamorous segment of the community,

506
01:02:08.540 --> 01:02:15.340
the chronically mentally ill, I have seen firsthand the dynamics of our economic system

507
01:02:15.340 --> 01:02:18.700
on the marginally able employee.

508
01:02:18.700 --> 01:02:26.320
I am not impressed by arguments of untrammeled freedom when it means, in effect, the freedom

509
01:02:26.320 --> 01:02:29.380
to be hungry and homeless.

510
01:02:29.380 --> 01:02:36.060
Where are all the jobs to allow everyone in our society to achieve their own wealth?

511
01:02:38.900 --> 01:02:51.900
My comment is to Dr. Black.

512
01:02:51.900 --> 01:02:55.220
I wasn't saying that the caveman was relevant to today.

513
01:02:55.220 --> 01:03:01.340
I was just trying to illustrate the difference between positive and negative rights.

514
01:03:01.340 --> 01:03:09.480
that negative rights or rights are timeless. If a person has a right, if human beings have

515
01:03:09.480 --> 01:03:18.360
a right, that right is not time articulated. It continues forever back to the past and

516
01:03:18.360 --> 01:03:23.180
to the future. If it's right, if it's wrong for me to kill someone and violate someone's

517
01:03:23.180 --> 01:03:27.420
negative rights now, it was wrong for me to do it 10,000 years ago and it's wrong for

518
01:03:27.420 --> 01:03:57.420
The reason I brought up the caveman is to show you that it operates very differently. If you want to say that a Canadian has a right to, you know, $400 a month in terms of goods in 1988 dollars, this was impossible to give to a caveman because we didn't have the wherewithal. Therefore, I appeal to your sense of logic to relearn your sense of logic.

519
01:03:57.420 --> 01:04:07.420
There's nothing wrong with wealth distribution. It's much more honest. But to call it a right seems to me to be hypocritical and dishonest.

520
01:04:07.420 --> 01:04:17.420
Now, one evidence you ask, well, what evidence do I have that welfare is considered a first resort? One evidence is furnished by Jim.

521
01:04:17.420 --> 01:04:26.420
One evidence is furnished by Jim. Jim, if I can quote him, I don't know if I get the exact quote, but certainly a paraphrase of what he said.

522
01:04:26.420 --> 01:04:34.420
He said, take the word charity or the concept charity. I would stomp on it or, you know, get rid of it. It's a bad thing.

523
01:04:34.420 --> 01:04:41.420
Well, if we don't have charity or the possibility of charity, which he wants to get rid of,

524
01:04:41.420 --> 01:04:48.420
and I saw the people's faces in the audience and it was pretty much sympathetic to what he was saying about charity.

525
01:04:48.420 --> 01:04:54.420
Well, then that shows that welfare or government welfare is a first resort, not a last resort.

526
01:04:54.420 --> 01:04:59.420
What I mean by government welfare as a last resort is first you apply to charity.

527
01:04:59.420 --> 01:05:07.420
You try the voluntary system. You try the system where people interact on a voluntary and peaceful means.

528
01:05:07.420 --> 01:05:14.420
Only if that fails, for extreme hardship, do you go to a coercive system, a government tax system.

529
01:05:15.980 --> 01:05:22.980
With regard to the homeless and the marginal employees, these are both examples of exactly

530
01:05:24.300 --> 01:05:28.820
what I was talking about. Government ruining the thing in the first place and then posing

531
01:05:28.820 --> 01:05:35.820
as the savior. Take the case of the people in Hamilton who can't get jobs. As far as

532
01:05:35.820 --> 01:05:43.820
As far as I'm concerned, this is almost entirely, not completely entirely, but almost entirely traceable to the minimum wage law.

533
01:05:43.820 --> 01:05:46.820
Now, we just had a battle in this province over the minimum wage law.

534
01:05:46.820 --> 01:05:50.820
It used to be $3.65 an hour. Now it's $4 an hour.

535
01:05:50.820 --> 01:05:56.820
And Premier van der Zandt was once publicly musing that he'd get rid of the whole thing entirely.

536
01:05:56.820 --> 01:05:59.820
And then he raised it instead of getting rid of it.

537
01:05:59.820 --> 01:06:08.820
Well, a little bit of an economics lesson in the economics of minimum wage, if I could do that to answer this question, then I'll get to the homeless.

538
01:06:08.820 --> 01:06:13.820
The minimum wage law is not an employment law. Strictly speaking, it's an unemployment law.

539
01:06:13.820 --> 01:06:23.820
It stipulates that anyone who will not be paid $4 an hour in this province, and in the province of Ontario it's $4.65 or even $4.75,

540
01:06:23.820 --> 01:06:28.820
anyone who cannot be paid this amount, it's illegal to hire them at all.

541
01:06:28.820 --> 01:06:35.820
It says that if I would offer Jim a job for $3 an hour, he could go to jail and I would certainly go to jail.

542
01:06:35.820 --> 01:06:39.820
I mean, I would go to jail. It's illegal to do that.

543
01:06:39.820 --> 01:06:43.820
Now, why is it that an employer wants to hire an employee?

544
01:06:43.820 --> 01:06:48.820
I put it to you that the reason the employer wants to hire an employee is because of his productivity.

545
01:06:48.820 --> 01:06:50.820
He wants to get something out of him.

546
01:06:50.820 --> 01:06:53.820
He wants him to make widgets so that he can sell the widgets to consumers.

547
01:06:53.820 --> 01:07:00.680
Well, suppose you get a teenager or a single woman with very little skills whose productivity

548
01:07:00.680 --> 01:07:06.500
level is $3.00 an hour. What do you think the effect of a law requiring that she be

549
01:07:06.500 --> 01:07:12.880
paid $4.00 an hour will be? Well, obviously, if the woman can create $3.00 an hour's worth

550
01:07:12.880 --> 01:07:16.820
of widgets and you have to pay her $4.00 an hour, you're going to lose a dollar an hour

551
01:07:16.820 --> 01:07:22.120
for every hour you employ her. You might employ one or two out of charitable impulses, but

552
01:07:22.120 --> 01:07:27.120
Dr. Block, just excuse me for a moment. The last questioner did raise a number of issues. And I'm wondering, given the number of questioners that we have here, that we ask future questioners to ask only one question. And if I could be so rude as to interject right now and have the next question.

553
01:07:27.120 --> 01:07:44.120
The last questioner did raise a number of issues, and I'm wondering, given the number of questioners that we have here, that we ask future questioners to ask only one question. And if I could be so rude as to interject right now and have the next question.

554
01:07:44.120 --> 01:07:46.120
Could I just take 30 seconds for the homeless?

555
01:07:46.120 --> 01:07:47.120
Yes.

556
01:07:47.120 --> 01:07:53.120
Studies have been shown that the reason we have more $400,000 homes and more homeless, or the reason that we have homeless period is because of rent control.

557
01:07:55.620 --> 01:08:01.620
There is an econometric regression evidence that shows that those provinces or cities or places that have rent control and make it impossible for landlords to supply low cost housing increase the rate of homeless.

558
01:08:11.320 --> 01:08:16.320
So here is another example of government causing the problem which we are now expecting government to solve.

559
01:08:17.120 --> 01:08:47.120
Dr. Black, I have a comment. The Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C. and many of the organizations you mentioned are affiliated members, do not want the government to take over the food banks. They believe that the government should give hungry people an adequate income so that there will be no need for food banks. And that's what we're wanting to correct you.

560
01:08:47.120 --> 01:09:06.120
I take it as something that supports what I said. I agree with the person who just made the comment that that is true, that they do not, that they do want the government to take over that role, not of providing food banks but of providing enough income so that food banks won't be needed.

561
01:09:06.120 --> 01:09:14.120
That's precisely the point that I was making, that they don't want food banks, they don't want to expand food banks to take over the government, they want it the opposite way.

562
01:09:14.120 --> 01:09:44.120
I have a question for Dr. Rice, I believe. The question is, what is your definition of cooperation, because it seems to me that cooperation is voluntary interaction by individuals united for a common goal. But you said that cooperation can make its demand upon wealth. But when you begin to speak of demanding, you're talking about compulsion.

563
01:09:44.120 --> 01:09:46.120
not cooperation.

564
01:09:46.120 --> 01:09:55.120
I mean, if we analyze this sentence, you know, a little deeper, it's interesting because, you know, of course cooperation doesn't demand upon wealth, cooperation is a concept.

565
01:09:55.120 --> 01:09:58.120
You can't demand upon anything, you know, wealth is a concept.

566
01:09:58.120 --> 01:10:09.120
But what you mean to say, I believe, is that one group of people in the name of cooperation, of this concept of cooperation, demands and coerces a second group of people.

567
01:10:09.120 --> 01:10:12.120
That's not cooperation. It seems to me that's compulsion.

568
01:10:12.120 --> 01:10:20.120
So how do you define cooperation? What do you mean by cooperation making its demand upon wealth?

569
01:10:23.120 --> 01:10:33.120
Just quickly, in the same way that the factors of labor, capital and land contribute to the wealth of the nation

570
01:10:33.120 --> 01:10:44.620
and therefore have a reasonable demand upon that wealth. That is, can claim their share of it, and in fact do claim their share.

571
01:10:44.620 --> 01:10:51.620
Even though we know it's not a fair contest in the claiming, they each make their claim.

572
01:10:51.620 --> 01:11:01.620
The difficulty is there is not three factors of production, but four factors of production that have to be paid for out of the wealth of the nation.

573
01:11:01.620 --> 01:11:04.620
The fourth factor is the factor called cooperation.

574
01:11:04.620 --> 01:11:10.620
And what we've done in structuring our society is forget about the factor of cooperation.

575
01:11:10.620 --> 01:11:15.620
My argument is if we took that into consideration along with the other three,

576
01:11:15.620 --> 01:11:19.620
not a rejection of the other three at all, but along with the other three,

577
01:11:19.620 --> 01:11:24.620
we would have an entirely different distribution of resources than we have now.

578
01:11:24.620 --> 01:11:30.620
That different distribution of resources would change the nature of welfare in our society.

579
01:11:31.620 --> 01:11:33.620
What's the definition? Cooperation?

580
01:11:33.620 --> 01:11:35.620
You gave a lovely definition of it.

581
01:11:45.620 --> 01:11:49.620
I have read a reasonable amount from the Fraser Institute,

582
01:11:49.620 --> 01:11:57.620
I have never had the dubious pleasure of meeting one of you in real life and I was looking forward to it.

583
01:11:57.620 --> 01:12:05.620
I am disappointed. I had hoped that you would be more logic, but you make leaps in logic I just cannot follow.

584
01:12:05.620 --> 01:12:16.620
I had hoped for an insight and a way of thinking that I could follow and that I could connect with. There is no connection.

585
01:12:16.620 --> 01:12:29.620
I find you ignore emotions, ignore progress, ignore inequality, ignore responsibilities most of all.

586
01:12:29.620 --> 01:12:41.620
And I was very glad we had a second speaker because that reassured me in my values and I needed that very much

587
01:12:41.620 --> 01:12:52.840
very much because being left with no connection and no logic left me no vision of, no impression

588
01:12:52.840 --> 01:13:00.500
of your kind of vision how the world would work. And I disagree with your observation

589
01:13:00.500 --> 01:13:08.020
that government is the evil. I thought government was us trying to protect us, trying to promote

590
01:13:08.020 --> 01:13:18.020
I would like to ask you, what is your vision? Who would give us the rights we feel we need to be decent people?

591
01:13:18.020 --> 01:13:31.020
Who would or what force would create a world where we can indeed be decent and respectful people?

592
01:13:31.020 --> 01:13:54.020
Well, that's a rough question of what force would guarantee it. I guess the force of logic or rationalism or ethics, because to me what a decent world is, is that people leave each other alone, allow them to do anything they want consistent with upholding their own rights.

593
01:13:54.020 --> 01:14:00.020
It's not that I'm against cooperation. On the contrary, I regard the marketplace as a cooperative tool.

594
01:14:00.020 --> 01:14:04.020
It's a competitive tool, but it's also a way that we cooperate with each other.

595
01:14:04.020 --> 01:14:12.020
I mean, when you think of the thousands of different people that cooperated in making just a graphite pencil,

596
01:14:12.020 --> 01:14:17.020
the lead comes from different places, the wood, the binding, the rubber, everything.

597
01:14:17.020 --> 01:14:25.020
People cooperate through the market to do things that could not be done without the market.

598
01:14:25.020 --> 01:14:33.020
I think I've misled you if you came away with the impression that I consider the government as evil incarnate.

599
01:14:33.020 --> 01:14:38.020
I think the government is like a fire. As long as the fire is in the fireplace, it warms us.

600
01:14:38.020 --> 01:14:43.020
It warms our house. It warms. It heats our food. It's a good thing.

601
01:14:43.020 --> 01:14:50.020
Only when the fire gets out of the fireplace and starts consuming the house that the fire becomes an evil.

602
01:14:50.020 --> 01:14:53.020
So I think government in its proper limited role is a very good thing.

603
01:14:53.020 --> 01:14:57.020
It's just I'm opposing excessive government.

604
01:14:57.020 --> 01:15:00.020
I don't think government is necessarily us.

605
01:15:00.020 --> 01:15:04.020
I'm not that much a believer in democracy to believe that government is us.

606
01:15:04.020 --> 01:15:07.020
After all, Hitler came in through a democratic process.

607
01:15:07.020 --> 01:15:10.020
He won a plurality of a democratic vote.

608
01:15:10.020 --> 01:15:15.020
Therefore, I can't say that anything that comes about through democracy is, per se, good.

609
01:15:15.020 --> 01:15:19.020
I don't think government is us. Government is shifting majorities.

610
01:15:19.020 --> 01:15:24.020
And sometimes these majorities are immoral, as when, well, I don't have to convince us,

611
01:15:24.020 --> 01:15:28.020
majorities have done evil things.

612
01:15:28.020 --> 01:15:33.020
With regard to equality, I'd like to discuss that just briefly.

613
01:15:33.020 --> 01:15:38.020
I think there's an awful lot of hypocrisy that goes on in these Sunday night discussions.

614
01:15:38.020 --> 01:15:42.020
You have people that might not have limousines, but have late model automobiles.

615
01:15:42.020 --> 01:15:46.020
They live in homes that would be the envy of people around the world.

616
01:15:46.020 --> 01:15:54.020
They have wristwatches, they have TV sets, VCRs, Nintendos, all sorts of fripperies and frivolities.

617
01:15:54.020 --> 01:15:58.020
And they piously mouth off about, well, the poor.

618
01:15:58.020 --> 01:16:03.020
Well, how do they reconcile their views with the fact that they still have that money?

619
01:16:03.020 --> 01:16:10.020
If they really, seriously believed in this stuff, how do they have all this wealth? Why don't they give it away?

620
01:16:10.020 --> 01:16:14.020
I think there's certainly an element of hypocrisy there.

621
01:16:14.020 --> 01:16:20.020
Another element of hypocrisy is distinguishing between Canadians and people in India or Afghanistan or Ethiopia.

622
01:16:20.020 --> 01:16:24.020
Why is it that a Canadian is more deserving of welfare than any other person?

623
01:16:24.020 --> 01:16:31.020
I mean, if we're talking about human rights, surely the person who's in Bangladesh is just as much human as a poor person in Canada.

624
01:16:31.020 --> 01:16:48.020
Why that hypocrisy? Another hypocrisy. Why just with wealth? Why just with money? Suppose we had a machine that could transfer beauty, or IQ points, or hair. I mean, Jim has got a lot more hair than I. Is that fair?

625
01:16:48.020 --> 01:16:59.020
Suppose we had a machine that could transfer hair from his head to mine, or IQ from him to me, since he's so much smarter or more beautiful, or has a greater musical appreciation.

626
01:16:59.020 --> 01:17:06.020
Would we force him into that machine and make him disgorge excessive IQ points, or excessive beauty, or more hair than I have?

627
01:17:06.020 --> 01:17:13.020
Well, that's real equality. I mean, equality in terms of money is just sort of wimpish.

628
01:17:13.020 --> 01:17:23.020
Let's talk about real He-Man type of equality, stuff that leads us into a Brave New World kind of a situation.

629
01:17:23.020 --> 01:17:29.020
That's where the philosophy of forced egalitarianism is leading us to.

630
01:17:29.020 --> 01:17:35.020
Could I interject just for a moment and make sure that we move to the next question?

631
01:17:35.020 --> 01:17:39.020
Just before we do, I'd like to just talk about cooperation for one more moment.

632
01:17:39.020 --> 01:17:45.020
I agree with Walter as he picks up the pen and says that a great deal of cooperation went into making the pencil.

633
01:17:45.020 --> 01:17:48.020
That's an important notion for us to understand.

634
01:17:48.020 --> 01:17:57.020
What it doesn't, however I'm going to suggest, recognize is that not only the people who worked in the company and at the lead mine and all of that,

635
01:17:57.020 --> 01:18:02.020
not only did they cooperate, but their spouses at home cooperated in raising the children,

636
01:18:02.020 --> 01:18:07.020
the people who agreed to be unemployed were unemployed and cooperated in agreeing to be unemployed.

637
01:18:07.020 --> 01:18:15.020
Cooperation went much further than the simple manufacturing process of producing a pencil.

638
01:18:15.020 --> 01:18:21.020
It is that second form of cooperation that demands some compensation within any social order.

639
01:18:21.020 --> 01:18:31.020
And it is that second form of cooperation that we fail to recognize in our social structure as having a legitimate right upon the wealth of the nation.

640
01:18:31.020 --> 01:18:37.020
I make the claim that it has a legitimate right upon the wealth of the nation and this is not yet being addressed.

641
01:18:37.020 --> 01:18:48.020
As to the question about hypocrisy, it's very difficult and it's a demanding challenge

642
01:18:48.020 --> 01:18:58.020
because I sit here in my blue suit and my tie and I do know that there are people in our country who are starving.

643
01:18:58.020 --> 01:19:01.020
And it's a challenge that's hard to look in the eye.

644
01:19:01.020 --> 01:19:06.020
It's a challenge that's very difficult to say, Jim, you live in a very comfortable house,

645
01:19:06.020 --> 01:19:10.020
and some of the people that you know live in no houses.

646
01:19:10.020 --> 01:19:14.020
How do you sleep at night? Not comfortably.

647
01:19:14.020 --> 01:19:19.020
Why at all? Why not change your views or change your actions?

648
01:19:19.020 --> 01:19:22.020
That's no response. That's a fairer response.

649
01:19:22.020 --> 01:19:25.020
Well... The next question, please.

650
01:19:25.020 --> 01:19:34.020
Yeah, I was really torn about getting into the security question, you know, like real security or some kind of minimum security for everyone.

651
01:19:34.020 --> 01:19:39.020
And also the charity, you know, the holier than thou, the, you know, I'll give something to you.

652
01:19:39.020 --> 01:19:47.020
But my third thing I decided was maybe more important because it's real and it's especially relevant to British Columbia.

653
01:19:47.020 --> 01:19:53.020
And I would like to hear from Dr., is it Dr. Rice or Mr. Rice? Jim?

654
01:19:53.020 --> 01:20:06.020
Okay, from Jim on this. Here in V.C. there's a real push for privatization, and this seems to be happening in everywhere where they have this neoconservative politics.

655
01:20:06.020 --> 01:20:21.020
The idea of the entrepreneurial poverty business, or what I assume there was some kind of reference to the poverty professional, I find really, really frightening.

656
01:20:21.020 --> 01:20:34.020
The whole idea that providing welfare services should be balanced with profit is scary.

657
01:20:34.020 --> 01:20:42.020
The problem being is that these institutions then have no moral or no ethic.

658
01:20:42.020 --> 01:20:46.700
Ethic, you know, like John Kenneth Galbraith talked about corporations and when they went

659
01:20:46.700 --> 01:20:54.660
from being a one person, a one person business, they had some ethic and when they went to

660
01:20:54.660 --> 01:21:01.940
this board where no one held the ultimate responsibility, they lost their ethics. Now,

661
01:21:01.940 --> 01:21:06.580
I was talking to a friend yesterday, there's Home for Battered Women going in across the

662
01:21:06.580 --> 01:21:13.580
and then there's the piecemeal thing about privatization that you've got this little society and that little society and that little society rather than some kind of a basic. I wonder if you would comment on this.

663
01:21:36.580 --> 01:21:47.460
I generally believe that any one of the forms of social structure, that is, the provision

664
01:21:47.460 --> 01:21:53.300
for the sake of profit, the provision out of a non-profit notion, or the government

665
01:21:53.300 --> 01:22:00.500
can organize itself to provide a service. I don't believe any one of them are more righteous

666
01:22:00.500 --> 01:22:05.500
So it appears to me that we have to ask a different type of question.

667
01:22:05.500 --> 01:22:11.500
Where do we want the resources to flow that we pay for in protecting certain aspects of a person's life?

668
01:22:11.500 --> 01:22:13.500
And let me just think of the elderly.

669
01:22:13.500 --> 01:22:20.500
Do we want to pay $100 for someone to take care of the elderly and have 10 of those dollars flow into profits?

670
01:22:20.500 --> 01:22:23.500
Well, we may decide that that's an efficient way to do it.

671
01:22:23.500 --> 01:22:28.500
We may decide, however, that we want all $100 to flow to the elderly.

672
01:22:28.500 --> 01:22:35.500
Ethan, though, you didn't answer the ethics part, though. There's no ethics in these profit enterprises.

673
01:22:58.500 --> 01:23:13.500
Many businessmen who would say, excuse me, I'm an ethical person and I run an ethical business and I do it in a way that enhances the quality of life in my community and I happen to believe them. So I cannot speak for the ethics of business.

674
01:23:13.500 --> 01:23:26.500
I'd like to reply to this also. With regard to the holier than now attitude, I don't think that this is a monopoly of private charity. Yes, there are certain private charities that have that holier than now attitude.

675
01:23:26.500 --> 01:23:34.500
And then there are other charities, say the Salvation Army, which I think is completely absent from that as it's possible for human beings to be.

676
01:23:34.500 --> 01:23:39.500
Looking at the other side of the street, there are bureaucrats that have a holier-than-thou attitude also.

677
01:23:39.500 --> 01:23:41.500
And then there are bureaucrats that don't have it.

678
01:23:41.500 --> 01:23:47.500
So I don't think that you can make such a facile equation between holier-than-thou and private.

679
01:23:47.500 --> 01:23:53.500
And that goes for ethics as well. I think there are immoral businessmen that lie and cheat and steal.

680
01:23:53.500 --> 01:24:03.500
And then there are grafters in government, and there are honest businessmen and there are honest bureaucrats, so I don't think a facile equation can be made in that regard either.

681
01:24:03.500 --> 01:24:16.500
With regard to the privatization, countries as disparate as the United Kingdom with a neoconservative government and New Zealand with a socialist government are now engaging in privatization.

682
01:24:16.500 --> 01:24:26.500
Not only that, but countries behind the Iron Curtain, Perestroika, with the Soviets and the Chinese, the Chinese have more free enterprise zones than Canada.

683
01:24:26.500 --> 01:24:38.500
All the world around there is a revolution in thinking in terms of privatization, more reliance on freedom and economic liberty and less reliance on state planning.

684
01:24:38.500 --> 01:24:45.500
The sole exception seems to be the intellectuals in the universities in the West.

685
01:24:45.500 --> 01:25:02.500
I think people have learned the lesson that East Germany and West Germany were just a laboratory experiment, the same people, the same blood, the same country until too long ago, and one of them had to put up a wall and kill people for leaving, and it's the same thing with South Africa.

686
01:25:02.500 --> 01:25:21.500
The blacks keep moving into South Africa. I mean, there were no Jews that moved into Nazi Germany, but the blacks keep coming into South Africa, because bad as apartheid is, and it's very bad, it's better, it's a better system than the frontline states, the black African Marxist dictatorships.

687
01:25:21.500 --> 01:25:51.500
So I think that privatization is a very good thing. It's certainly more efficient. The private enterprise system can do the job usually at one-third or one-half the costs of the government because of the incentives. It's because in the private sector, if you don't produce the widget, you lose profits and ultimately you have to go bankrupt. In the public sector, if you do badly, like in the post office, you have a monopoly, you just raise your revenue through taxes. Now if we privatize the

688
01:25:51.500 --> 01:25:58.500
Post Office, it's guaranteed that we'd have postal service twice as good at half the cost.

689
01:25:58.500 --> 01:26:03.500
So countries all around the world are following this, even the Soviet Union for goodness sakes.

690
01:26:03.500 --> 01:26:12.500
It's only people, as I say, in the western universities who have been somehow unaffected by this revolution in thinking.

691
01:26:12.500 --> 01:26:16.500
I just can't be one statement made, sorry.

692
01:26:16.500 --> 01:26:22.500
I think that private enterprise is efficient and works through a system of competition.

693
01:26:22.500 --> 01:26:34.500
I just think it needs a passing comment that the evidence, the evidence is that there is collusion at every level in the capitalist system.

694
01:26:34.500 --> 01:26:38.500
This notion of competition really must be set to rest.

695
01:26:38.500 --> 01:26:50.500
Since you called me a name, I'll call you a name. This is another lie. This is another lie, another fabrication of the kind of social order.

696
01:26:50.500 --> 01:27:00.500
I don't want to get into name calling because it does none of us any good, but this notion of the myth of competitiveness and therefore the efficiency of the marketplace is a lie.

697
01:27:00.500 --> 01:27:06.500
What they do is raise the price. That's all. It's a simple matter of raising the price.

698
01:27:06.500 --> 01:27:11.500
Now, when you raise the tax, you're gouging, you're stealing, you're taking, you're distorting.

699
01:27:11.500 --> 01:27:17.500
When you raise the price, you're being competitive. This is nonsense to me.

700
01:27:17.500 --> 01:27:23.500
Just excuse me, please. I wonder if we could move to the next questioner, please.

701
01:27:23.500 --> 01:27:28.500
I don't know whether to laugh or cry about some of the things I've heard here today,

702
01:27:28.500 --> 01:27:40.500
Okay, but the discussion about excessive government, and I'm just wondering how responsive the phrase of your attitude is for excessive intervention of government in some aspects.

703
01:27:40.500 --> 01:27:44.500
One of the things that I found interesting was the discussion of the word charity.

704
01:27:44.500 --> 01:28:06.500
In B.C. we are witnessing a phenomenon of an industry promoted, the gambling industry promoted on the basis that this is a mechanism, charity gaming is a mechanism for providing funds for the welfare of those in lower income brackets.

705
01:28:06.500 --> 01:28:25.500
And I'd like to have both of your comments on the legitimacy of this, even as a useful interpretation of the word charity, much less as a mechanism.

706
01:28:25.500 --> 01:28:27.500
Jim, we're talking bingos here.

707
01:28:27.500 --> 01:28:34.500
I know, I know. We're talking the numbers games on the streets of New York, and we're talking lotterio in Ontario.

708
01:28:34.500 --> 01:28:49.500
We're really talking about the profits from gambling. I've tried to think this through and it's very tough from a welfare perspective.

709
01:28:49.500 --> 01:28:58.500
It's like the numbers game goes on on our streets. The numbers game goes on. What do we do about it? We can't close it down?

710
01:28:58.500 --> 01:29:01.500
Well, in British Columbia, the government is promoting it.

711
01:29:01.500 --> 01:29:15.500
We promote it like crazy in Ontario too. I hate to say it, I bought a ticket. I bought a ticket. I did. It was at $10 million and I bought a ticket.

712
01:29:15.500 --> 01:29:30.500
The difficulty is it goes on and if it's going to go on, the state should have a hand in regulating it. That may sound like lunacy.

713
01:29:30.500 --> 01:29:40.500
Well, to my way of thinking, there are lots of things that I personally don't do and wouldn't want my children to do.

714
01:29:40.500 --> 01:29:44.500
Gambling, smoking, drinking alcohol, things like that.

715
01:29:44.500 --> 01:29:48.500
But I think that I'm not a paternalist.

716
01:29:48.500 --> 01:29:57.500
I'm not willing to, at the force of a gun, impose my views on people with regard to things that affect them.

717
01:29:57.500 --> 01:30:06.500
I am willing to use the force of the law to stop rapists and murderers because I think they are transgressing and they are violating other people's rights.

718
01:30:06.500 --> 01:30:22.500
But I think that if an adult ingests tobacco or whatever drug or alcohol or engages in gambling, they are harming themselves and I would engage in my rights of free speech to try to counsel them against it.

719
01:30:22.500 --> 01:30:28.500
I don't think it's proper for a government to use the force of law to stop it.

720
01:30:28.500 --> 01:30:34.500
Now, in a free society, if a church wanted to hold a bingo or a lottery or what have you,

721
01:30:34.500 --> 01:30:41.500
and part of the proceeds, or a lot of the proceeds, much more a percentage of the proceeds than in government would go to the poor,

722
01:30:41.500 --> 01:30:48.500
I see no intrinsic evil or immorality in that, but I do see the government as being a bit hypocritical.

723
01:30:48.500 --> 01:31:18.500
are critical. On the one hand, the government passes laws against private people advertising smoking, and on the other hand, the government subsidizes tobacco growers. On the one hand, the government stops private gambling. Several native people's tribes, Indian tribes, have wanted to have gambling on their tribal grounds, and the government won't allow them to. And yet the government promotes all this, you know, lotteries and, you know, win 10 million and this, that, and the other. So it's just another example of government hypocrisy, and I would certainly

724
01:31:18.500 --> 01:31:48.500
My question is to Dr. Rice. You indicated that at present we have no system to help people out of poverty. Can you comment on your

725
01:31:48.500 --> 01:31:55.500
ideas for how this might come about, how we might change the system.

726
01:31:59.100 --> 01:32:02.340
I believe in the right to property

727
01:32:02.340 --> 01:32:04.180
and I believe

728
01:32:04.180 --> 01:32:07.740
we should develop a new social right and that is

729
01:32:07.740 --> 01:32:09.700
the right of every

730
01:32:09.700 --> 01:32:12.580
Canadian to have access to property

731
01:32:12.580 --> 01:32:17.140
and whether that property is in the form of land or not, I'm not

732
01:32:17.140 --> 01:32:23.140
I wouldn't go so far as to say it should be in the form of land, but it should be in a guaranteed right to resources.

733
01:32:23.140 --> 01:32:36.140
That is, we should have people in our society having a stake in our society, and they should have a guaranteed right to the resources of the wealth of that society, since they are there as a member of it and contribute to its make-up.

734
01:32:36.140 --> 01:32:45.140
I believe it takes all kinds of things to get us through the day. We have to raise kids, and we have to work, and we have to make fun, and we have to do all kinds of things.

735
01:32:45.140 --> 01:32:49.140
All of those activities add to the wealth of our nation.

736
01:32:49.140 --> 01:32:54.140
I believe therefore all of those activities have a right to call upon the wealth of that nation.

737
01:32:54.140 --> 01:33:09.140
And therefore we could rise people up out of poverty by identifying that right and recognizing it as a property right, guaranteed in some constitutional guarantee, a right to property.

738
01:33:09.140 --> 01:33:17.140
I think that property should not be the exclusive domain of certain income classes or social classes in our society,

739
01:33:17.140 --> 01:33:21.140
but should be provided as a right for everyone in our society.

740
01:33:21.140 --> 01:33:23.140
Can I comment on that? Yes.

741
01:33:23.140 --> 01:33:28.140
In 1776, Adam Smith wrote a book called An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations,

742
01:33:28.140 --> 01:33:33.140
where he asked why is it that some nations get rich, become wealthy, and other nations don't.

743
01:33:33.140 --> 01:33:36.140
He was attacking the mercantilism of his day,

744
01:33:36.140 --> 01:34:06.140
which still unfortunately we have with us. My answer to the way that we can cure poverty is by creating wealth and the best way to create wealth or to cure poverty, which is the same thing, is to get that institution out of the way which stops this process and that is the government by creating all sorts of unwise interferences with the market system, it creates poverty, it creates unemployment, it creates homelessness, it creates joblessness, it creates economic inefficiency. The less government

745
01:34:06.140 --> 01:34:14.140
The more intervention we have in the economy, the more we will have a solution for the cause of poverty, as shown, just look around the world.

746
01:34:14.140 --> 01:34:21.140
The countries on the face of this earth that have had the fewest interferences with the market system are the richest.

747
01:34:21.140 --> 01:34:24.140
There are no exceptions or very, very few exceptions.

748
01:34:24.140 --> 01:34:32.140
And the ones that have had the most interferences with the economic system have had the poorest case.

749
01:34:32.140 --> 01:35:02.140
is usually brought up as the one counterexample. It is not. If you consider the Swedish economy very carefully, it is a welfare state. It engages in a vast redistribution of wealth. But in terms of interferences with the economic system, it has no tariffs. It has no interferences with the market of a micro nature of the sort that we have in Canada all too much. So Sweden is not a counterexample. I really don't know of any counterexamples. I mean, Cuba is not rich, and they've got

750
01:35:02.140 --> 01:35:31.140
Well, in some ways you've answered my question, but I'm still going to raise it, Dr. Block.

751
01:35:31.140 --> 01:35:35.420
I disagree really strongly with your interpretation

752
01:35:35.420 --> 01:35:40.420
of the origins of the welfare state in Western democracies.

753
01:35:40.420 --> 01:35:48.860
I think I'm right in remembering correctly that you suggested that it was some kind of socialist invention.

754
01:35:48.860 --> 01:35:59.300
In fact, the welfare state was pioneered originally by a Chancellor of Imperial Germany, Bismarck, hardly a socialist.

755
01:35:59.300 --> 01:36:12.300
Furthermore, the original programs were developed by governments that were either conservative or liberal rather than, as often is claimed, by social democratic governments.

756
01:36:12.300 --> 01:36:25.300
Now the question that interests me is why did these parties who accept the market economy or capitalism intervene in the field of social welfare?

757
01:36:25.300 --> 01:36:31.300
I'll give you my answer and then I'd like to ask you to repeat why you think the welfare state developed.

758
01:36:31.300 --> 01:36:39.300
I think there was a realization among every western nation except the United States

759
01:36:39.300 --> 01:36:48.300
towards the end of the 19th century and earlier in this century that the market mechanism wasn't a fair allocator of resources.

760
01:36:48.300 --> 01:36:56.300
If you leave capitalism unregulated, what you're doing is creating freedom just for a minority of people.

761
01:36:56.300 --> 01:37:03.300
So that the welfare state is an instrument designed to provide everybody with an equal chance to be free,

762
01:37:03.300 --> 01:37:09.300
to make meaningful choices, an equal chance to compete with one another.

763
01:37:09.300 --> 01:37:24.300
Now, I don't know how you can claim that it really is more unfair than the market when the historical record suggests that in fact left to itself the market is a very unfair mechanism.

764
01:37:24.300 --> 01:37:26.300
I'd like your comments, please.

765
01:37:26.300 --> 01:37:29.300
Well, it's a very intriguing question.

766
01:37:29.300 --> 01:37:34.300
I confess that I didn't think I was discussing it in my opening remarks.

767
01:37:34.300 --> 01:37:39.300
What I thought I was discussing is who benefits and who is very much behind this now.

768
01:37:39.300 --> 01:37:42.300
Is it the poor or is it the people in the poverty industry?

769
01:37:42.300 --> 01:37:44.300
And I was saying the latter.

770
01:37:44.300 --> 01:37:46.300
But still, it's a very interesting question.

771
01:37:46.300 --> 01:37:52.300
And I certainly agree with you that Bismarck was the modern creator of the welfare state.

772
01:37:52.300 --> 01:37:57.300
As to whether he was a socialist or not I think is a lot more controversial than you think it is.

773
01:37:57.300 --> 01:38:02.300
I think he was a socialist or an interventionist much more than you might believe.

774
01:38:02.300 --> 01:38:09.300
I take a somewhat of a revisionist history view on this.

775
01:38:09.300 --> 01:38:14.300
You might be aware of a book written by Piven and Cloward on this,

776
01:38:14.300 --> 01:38:21.300
and to some degree I subscribe to their views that this was a creation, if you will,

777
01:38:21.300 --> 01:38:25.300
by the ruling classes or the business gentry, what have you.

778
01:38:25.300 --> 01:38:37.300
Not so much to promote fairness. I didn't read any of that in their book. I read to promote their control of the whole society, which is a lot more believable from my point of view.

779
01:38:37.300 --> 01:38:47.300
See, many people think that if you favor the free enterprise system, you ipso facto favor large businesses. The way I see it, it's not exactly the opposite, but it's almost the opposite.

780
01:38:47.300 --> 01:38:53.300
Some of the biggest enemies of the free enterprise system are large businesses, these corporate welfare bums,

781
01:38:53.300 --> 01:39:00.300
who are using bailouts and subsidies by the hundreds of millions of dollars for every 10 cents received by a poor person.

782
01:39:00.300 --> 01:39:08.300
So I see it in a much more cynical way than many people do. I don't see it in terms of fairness.

783
01:39:08.300 --> 01:39:15.300
But in terms of fairness, I don't know where you get the idea that it's always more fair to take from the rich and give to the poor.

784
01:39:15.300 --> 01:39:20.300
It seems to me that it's very important to ask, how did the rich earn it?

785
01:39:20.300 --> 01:39:25.300
If they earned it honestly by helping the poor in a way that the government never could have helped the poor,

786
01:39:25.300 --> 01:39:28.300
then it seems fair to me to allow them to keep it.

787
01:39:28.300 --> 01:39:35.300
On the other hand, if they earned it through bailouts and subsidies and protections and unfair means,

788
01:39:35.300 --> 01:39:42.300
non-market means, then it's fair to take it from them, not because they have a lot, but because they're thieves.

789
01:39:42.300 --> 01:39:48.300
So I think the reality is a lot more complex than is sometimes thought of.

790
01:39:48.300 --> 01:40:04.300
We have just hit upon something that we agree on, and that is that I also agree that large corporations are in fact a limiting factory in the growth of the economy.

791
01:40:04.300 --> 01:40:05.300
I didn't say all large.

792
01:40:05.300 --> 01:40:10.300
I didn't say all large either. Some. Some. I'm trying to find just one point of agreement.

793
01:40:10.300 --> 01:40:14.300
We've made it. We've got a contact here.

794
01:40:14.300 --> 01:40:21.300
And it may be that smaller social structures are better at producing wealth, the wealth of the nation.

795
01:40:21.300 --> 01:40:28.300
Competitive smaller social structures, competitive social structures are good at producing the wealth of the nation.

796
01:40:28.300 --> 01:40:33.300
They are still not particularly good at distributing those resources.

797
01:40:33.300 --> 01:40:38.300
And you need some other mechanism to help with the distribution.

798
01:40:38.300 --> 01:40:42.300
We have time for two more questions. I think there are two more questions.

799
01:40:42.300 --> 01:40:49.300
Madam Chairman, could I just break in? I must, I'm afraid in this society I don't have the right to set the airline schedules and we're still working on that.

800
01:40:49.300 --> 01:40:53.300
I would like to, on behalf of the BCMA, thank the organizers of this conference and all of the presenters and the questioners.

801
01:40:53.300 --> 01:40:57.300
I think they've all taught me a little bit and I hope I can take it back to our organization.

802
01:40:57.300 --> 01:40:59.300
Excellent, thank you.

803
01:40:59.300 --> 01:41:04.300
That's almost a closing, but we do have one more question.

804
01:41:04.300 --> 01:41:26.300
I just wanted to say that I think that the libertarian view that Walter Block espouses is trying to divert attention from social reality with a sort of series of intellectual distortions, and I only focus in on what I think is the big intellectual distortion.

805
01:41:26.300 --> 01:41:31.700
And that is this whole notion that government only intervenes when it redistributes property,

806
01:41:31.700 --> 01:41:35.500
it doesn't intervene when it acts to protect existing property rights.

807
01:41:35.500 --> 01:41:43.900
And that's the whole vision that you set up to try to convince us that we should have less government.

808
01:41:43.900 --> 01:41:52.100
But in fact, that is a distortion because the existing regime of property depends intricately on government intervention.

809
01:41:52.100 --> 01:41:57.000
Government intervenes and coerces all the time in protecting existing property rights.

810
01:41:57.000 --> 01:42:02.080
If I go for a walk and I walk on a corporation's land and the corporate director who happens

811
01:42:02.080 --> 01:42:06.300
to be there tells me, get off, and we both go to government, government isn't making

812
01:42:06.300 --> 01:42:10.340
a choice as to whether or not one will be coerced or, sorry, government is not making

813
01:42:10.340 --> 01:42:15.300
a choice as to, that can simply be put in terms of protecting one person's freedom

814
01:42:15.300 --> 01:42:16.860
without interfering with another.

815
01:42:16.860 --> 01:42:19.560
Government has to make a choice as to who is being coerced here.

816
01:42:19.560 --> 01:42:24.360
Is it going to be the landowner who's going to be coerced, in a sense, by limiting the property right?

817
01:42:24.360 --> 01:42:29.920
Or is it going to be me who's going to be coerced by being told to remove myself from that property?

818
01:42:29.920 --> 01:42:35.320
Government intervenes in a very coercive way whenever it protects existing property rights.

819
01:42:35.320 --> 01:42:40.400
And once that is realized, this whole gobbledygook about government intervening less is exposed for what it is,

820
01:42:40.400 --> 01:42:46.800
simply an ideological proposition that must be defended on its own terms.

821
01:42:46.800 --> 01:43:01.800
Patrick Monahan has taken the same position with you, I think, as well.

822
01:43:16.800 --> 01:43:22.440
Your government protects extant property rights, it's intervening, but we have to be very careful

823
01:43:22.440 --> 01:43:27.800
to see in any case if the existing property rights are justified. For example, in the

824
01:43:27.800 --> 01:43:32.440
pre-Civil War South, when they were protecting property rights, they were obviously protecting

825
01:43:32.440 --> 01:43:36.580
the wrong property rights, namely the ones with the slaveholders. And that was the sort

826
01:43:36.580 --> 01:43:42.720
of argument I got with Milton Friedman. It wasn't just the slave owners, it was also

827
01:43:42.720 --> 01:43:49.720
If you don't hold it, how can you continually talk in terms about government not intervening in the economy, when what you really mean is government should continue to intervene to support existing countries?

828
01:44:12.720 --> 01:44:42.720
The reason I do that is because I was given a brief, in this debate, a half hour to talk about welfare systems. I can't talk about every subject under the sun. Now, you're raising an entirely different question, one that is easily worthy of a whole panel debate also, namely the question of how do you justify property rights titles. I think it's very important, but I don't think we can justify minimum wage

829
01:44:42.720 --> 01:45:12.720
What you're really talking about is property rights and land, mainly, and all I can say is that I paradoxically, or maybe surprising to you, take a view very similar to your own or at least what I am able to understand. No, I'm serious. And if you want to pursue this further, get the citation and let's communicate. Let's not just leave it to yes, yes, no, no, your mother's this or your father's that. Let's do it seriously and systematically.

830
01:45:12.720 --> 01:45:19.720
Thank you. The last questioner.

831
01:45:19.720 --> 01:45:40.720
I was wondering if you would comment on what you said before about the rich acquiring their money honestly, if they acquired it honestly, and in your vision that would mean if they don't ask for any aid from the government.

832
01:45:40.720 --> 01:46:00.720
Is that your only criterion for honesty, that you would not be disturbed if business were involved in endeavors which would cause harm to humanity, generally?

833
01:46:00.720 --> 01:46:07.320
I mean, you would support any business providing the business did not get government support

834
01:46:07.320 --> 01:46:13.320
and did not cause any, even if it did cause some undue harm to humanity.

835
01:46:13.320 --> 01:46:19.520
For instance, would you support companies that are producing chemicals,

836
01:46:19.520 --> 01:46:24.320
pesticides and various other chemicals that could be harmful to humanity?

837
01:46:24.320 --> 01:46:30.320
Do you feel that they would be performing an honest role in society?

838
01:46:30.320 --> 01:46:38.320
And if you do feel that companies would be performing an honest role in society by doing things that could be potentially harmful,

839
01:46:38.320 --> 01:46:45.320
do you feel that they have any obligation in any way to humanity to help in some other ways?

840
01:46:45.320 --> 01:46:49.320
Would they have any obligation to the people that they might have harmed in some way

841
01:46:49.320 --> 01:47:00.320
through their fulfilling their honest obligation to society by not requiring funds from government, et cetera.

842
01:47:00.320 --> 01:47:06.320
No, that's not exactly my view. Let me explain it in two minutes or so, because I think the chairperson is breathing down my neck.

843
01:47:06.320 --> 01:47:10.320
I don't dare go into my half-hour discussion of ecological and environmental issues.

844
01:47:10.320 --> 01:47:14.320
That's a topic for another day, and if I'm invited back on that topic, I'll elaborate on that.

845
01:47:14.320 --> 01:47:17.320
Well, by extension, it would not only be environmental.

846
01:47:17.320 --> 01:47:21.320
Let me try to answer your question.

847
01:47:21.320 --> 01:47:28.320
I would first of all recommend a series of books by Gabriel Kolko, K-O-L-K-O, who is a devout Marxist,

848
01:47:28.320 --> 01:47:34.320
and yet who I think has got a very good slant on the revisionist history of businessmen.

849
01:47:34.320 --> 01:47:39.320
One book is called The Triumph of Conservatism. It's a magnificent book.

850
01:47:39.320 --> 01:47:45.320
What I oppose businessmen doing is, one, taking favors or subsidies or special privileges from government,

851
01:47:45.320 --> 01:47:51.320
and, two, engaging in fraud. I mean, if they, in effect, steal from people, that's a bad thing.

852
01:47:51.320 --> 01:47:53.320
Only steal, but what about other forms of harm?

853
01:47:53.320 --> 01:47:54.320
Don't you want to let me finish?

854
01:47:54.320 --> 01:47:57.320
Yes, sorry. Okay.

855
01:47:57.320 --> 01:48:01.320
There are some harms that I think businessmen have a right to perpetuate

856
01:48:01.320 --> 01:48:03.320
and others that I think they don't have a right to perpetuate.

857
01:48:03.320 --> 01:48:08.320
For example, the manufacturers of chocolate, I think, create harm

858
01:48:08.320 --> 01:48:11.320
because I believe that chocolate is harmful.

859
01:48:11.320 --> 01:48:16.320
It just, you know, creates heart disease and fatness and obesity and all sorts of other problems.

860
01:48:16.320 --> 01:48:24.320
And yet, I think, at least for adults, if not for children, that that harm is not a rights violation.

861
01:48:24.320 --> 01:48:29.320
With regard to pesticides and pollution, I think that that is a rights violation.

862
01:48:29.320 --> 01:48:33.320
It's a violation of property rights, and it should be stopped, and it should have been stopped, except,

863
01:48:33.320 --> 01:48:36.320
and the only institution that could have stopped it was government.

864
01:48:36.320 --> 01:48:49.320
Only government in a series of court cases in the 1830s and 1840s took the exact opposite view to the upholding of private property rights and took the view that it was legal for these people to pollute, in effect.

865
01:48:49.320 --> 01:48:52.320
And I think that was a mistake and I would oppose that.

866
01:48:52.320 --> 01:48:58.320
So when I say an honest business, to me it doesn't matter whether it's big or small, any more than a person.

867
01:48:58.320 --> 01:49:03.320
You can't determine whether a person is virtuous just looking at his height or his weight.

868
01:49:03.320 --> 01:49:08.320
You can't determine whether a business' virtue is looking at its size. It has to be what does it do?

869
01:49:08.320 --> 01:49:17.320
And whether it colludes or not colludes is just a morally neutral word for me. Collude is just a synonym for agreeing.

870
01:49:17.320 --> 01:49:22.320
I want to know what they're colluding to do. If they're colluding to raise prices, that's fine.

871
01:49:22.320 --> 01:49:26.320
Someone else can outcompete them. And who would we just say what prices they should charge?

872
01:49:26.320 --> 01:49:31.320
If they're colluding to gain favors or privileges from government to prevent competition,

873
01:49:31.320 --> 01:49:36.280
to prevent competition, that's a very different kind of collusion and I would oppose that.

874
01:49:36.320 --> 01:49:41.280
Not because it's collusory or collusive, but because it's doing something improper.

875
01:49:41.320 --> 01:49:46.280
So to answer your question very specifically on the ecological and environmental questions,

876
01:49:46.320 --> 01:49:52.280
I would be much tougher than most people in stopping these abuses of large, small and every other kinds of businesses.

877
01:49:52.320 --> 01:49:57.280
I think that it's government's responsibility and government has not upheld its responsibility.

878
01:49:57.280 --> 01:50:04.280
Would you not also then extend that to causing harm by preventing, by not allowing people enough food, by not allowing people enough, by not allowing people housing if, if the, if business in some way contributed to the fact, you seem to only suggest that it's government that is contributing to all of this.

879
01:50:27.280 --> 01:50:39.280
What if businesses, what control do you think there should be if you feel that businesses are also contributing to the harm of humanity in other areas, not just environmentally?

880
01:50:39.280 --> 01:50:46.280
If businesses contributed to homelessness or to lack of food, I would oppose them depending upon how they did it.

881
01:50:46.280 --> 01:50:52.280
If they just, you know, burned food or clothing that belonged to other people, I would oppose them.

882
01:50:52.280 --> 01:50:56.280
If they burned their own food, that's their business, it's their food.

883
01:50:56.280 --> 01:51:00.280
But look, the people that are preventing people from getting food in this society are the marketing boards.

884
01:51:00.280 --> 01:51:04.280
They're the ones that say to the farmer, look, don't grow over there.

885
01:51:04.280 --> 01:51:07.280
Or in the U.S., the people that have these agricultural price supports.

886
01:51:07.280 --> 01:51:15.280
The people that are preventing housing from being built are the legislators and bureaucrats that uphold rent control and agricultural land reserve laws.

887
01:51:15.280 --> 01:51:20.280
Well, what about during Expo, for instance, when so many of the hotels were turned over to private establishments?

888
01:51:20.280 --> 01:51:32.280
and so many of the previous hotels in which poor people lived were turned over to become hotels for the wealthy during the expo.

889
01:51:32.280 --> 01:51:36.280
Would that upset you that industry or business was doing that sort of thing?

890
01:51:36.280 --> 01:51:37.280
Do you feel something should be done?

891
01:51:37.280 --> 01:51:39.280
No, I don't think anything should be done.

892
01:51:39.280 --> 01:51:42.280
I don't think that the poor have any right to live in any specific place.

893
01:51:42.280 --> 01:51:44.280
I mean, suppose that the oil is...

894
01:51:44.280 --> 01:51:46.280
But yet you would protect the environment though.

895
01:51:46.280 --> 01:51:48.280
You feel the harm to the environment and...

896
01:51:48.280 --> 01:52:18.280
Suppose a diamond mine is discovered right under the downtown east side in Vancouver, which is the place where the poor live. Okay? Maybe not a diamond mine. Let me give you a better example. The cure for AIDS is discovered there. And what they've got to do in order to get the cure for AIDS, which is a resource, is they've got to get all the people off of that land and dig three miles deep and get it. Could I interject for a moment, please? It seems like we've created another debate.

897
01:52:18.280 --> 01:52:48.280
and I think that our time is up and we're not able to do so but the two speakers who have presented I think very eloquently the two sides of the great Canadian debate have asked for just perhaps a moment to conclude and I am going to keep this very limited, I would like them to conclude with what they think is the strongest point of their argument

898
01:52:48.280 --> 01:52:53.280
We'll go briefly in the space of a couple of minutes each, please.

899
01:52:56.280 --> 01:53:01.280
Thank you, Walter.

900
01:53:07.280 --> 01:53:12.280
I think the thing that we have to do as welfare advocates

901
01:53:12.280 --> 01:53:16.280
and people who are concerned about the development of social welfare in Canada

902
01:53:16.280 --> 01:53:46.280
We have to forge a new vision. We have heard the language of the anti-welfare position. We have heard the language. It is a compelling and strong language. It has a deep historical root. Its root is important to us in as much as it led us away from a certain type of tyranny. It has, unfortunately, led us into a new type of tyranny. And I'm just suggesting to you that as people concerned with social welfare, we must find a new vision.

903
01:53:46.280 --> 01:54:16.280
We must find a new vision, we must find a new way of articulating the right to property, the right to the resources of the nation, the right to the wealth of the nation that does maybe three things, provides an adequate livelihood, provides an adequate life, provides it in a way that does not stigmatize those people that utilize, that call upon those property rights and provides it

904
01:54:16.280 --> 01:54:24.280
in a way that allows for the greatest amount of freedom, given the nature of cooperation, as is possible.

905
01:54:24.280 --> 01:54:28.280
That's where I would end.

906
01:54:28.280 --> 01:54:38.280
The reason I asked him to go first is that I went first before and I think it's in proper procedure for debates that we reverse it at the end.

907
01:54:38.280 --> 01:54:42.280
I would agree again on another point that we should forge a new vision.

908
01:54:42.280 --> 01:54:45.280
The vision I would like to forge is slightly different though.

909
01:54:45.280 --> 01:54:49.280
First of all, I don't see my position as anti-welfare. I see my position as pro-welfare.

910
01:54:49.280 --> 01:54:52.280
I'm trying to make it more efficient and more effective and privatized.

911
01:54:52.280 --> 01:54:56.280
I don't think that government welfare is efficient or effective.

912
01:54:56.280 --> 01:55:04.280
Further, I don't see the emphasis on property, on physical land property that only accounts for about 10% of the GNP.

913
01:55:04.280 --> 01:55:11.280
Human capital, skills, training, effort, account for 75% of the GNP, so it's much more important.

914
01:55:11.280 --> 01:55:16.240
The last point I'd like to make is that his criticism of my system, not that it's original

915
01:55:16.240 --> 01:55:21.720
with me, seems to be the claim that the free enterprise system assumes that people are

916
01:55:21.720 --> 01:55:26.160
atomistic, that they don't cooperate, that they're not interdependent.

917
01:55:26.160 --> 01:55:29.880
I never said anything like that and I resist the very notion.

918
01:55:29.880 --> 01:55:34.460
On the contrary, it seems to me that the free enterprise system is a way to voluntarily

919
01:55:34.460 --> 01:55:38.440
channel people's cooperative and dependent influences.

920
01:55:38.440 --> 01:55:44.940
It's the most effective system known to mankind. It's the reason we have the civilization that we now have.

921
01:55:44.940 --> 01:55:51.940
It's the reason that we're now discussing over a Sunday night dinner in opulence what we can do with all this great wealth.

922
01:55:51.940 --> 01:55:58.940
The reason we have the wealth is because of freedom, economic freedom and civil freedom. Thank you.

923
01:55:58.940 --> 01:56:05.140
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank both of our speakers for highlighting some

924
01:56:05.140 --> 01:56:14.540
of the key aspects of the Great Canadian Debate. I think they agree on one thing, and that

925
01:56:14.540 --> 01:56:23.120
is that we need some new vision, that we do have to probe for some new ideas on how to

926
01:56:23.120 --> 01:56:36.120
to resolve some of the questions around do we have a right to inadequate income as Canadians, and if we do, what is the best way to ensure that?

927
01:56:36.120 --> 01:56:48.120
I think the dinner image has been used throughout this debate. I think for me it evoked a lot of my childhood where this argument went on,

928
01:56:48.120 --> 01:56:53.120
and where I did end up with indigestion because I didn't get many new ideas out of it.

929
01:56:53.120 --> 01:57:00.120
I hope that this afternoon, I think we're a microcosm of family dinners and Canadian society

930
01:57:00.120 --> 01:57:03.120
and we presented the different kinds of arguments.

931
01:57:03.120 --> 01:57:12.120
I hope you've come away with a couple of new ideas that might provoke you to argue in different ways the next time round.