[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

That highway needs twinning badly, but the problem with tolls (and taxes) is governments get addicted to the revenue so even after the highway is paid for I fear the toll would not be removed.

Just like Income Tax.

[bootlegga]

Psudo Psudo:

That's a little too simplistic a rule for me. It ignores situations like where utilities are not monopolies, or the possibility of, say, electrical infrastructure being government owned but electricity providers being private companies. It's not really a principle or a consistent standard, but a set of personal preferences.

It's not a personal preference, I'm opposed to a corporation having an unregulated monopoly over a something people have to have. The history of corporations with unregulated monopolies is nothing less than a horror story.

[CommanderSock]

Psudo Psudo:

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

Small government conservatism is a facade.

Small government is a principle we've compromised too often. If we hadn't done so, the Tea Party movement might never have existed. But even if we pursued small government exactly to the morally optimum extent, there would still necessarily be exceptions to protect human rights. Conservatives are not anarchists.

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

Rand Paul is all about small government, yet wants to outlaw abortion. Small government?

If some historic figure had said "So-and-so is all about small government, yet wants to outlaw slavery," would you agree as heartily? Both issues seek to limit who is human as a qualification for human rights. Even if you don't see medically induced abortion as a violation of anyone's rights, understand it's that the only reason anyone opposes abortion and it's ridiculous to treat such a cheaply enforced human rights regulation as a big government issue.

Even for single-issue feminists, a comparison could be made between the abortion issue and rape law a century ago, which assumed all sex was consensual unless there was proof (typically witness testimony) otherwise. They didn't want to waste time and money prying into people's personal lives unless they were certain a crime had been committed, so severely beaten women were assumed to have been prostituting and blamed for their own victimization. Yes, our current policy of actively pursuing rape claims every time is far more expensive, but it is also far more just. It's cost is grains of sand compared to the endless beach of welfare and military spending, and is in any light not even a remotely relevant counter to the absolute necessity of seeking justice.

[edited for grammar]

I don't see how kidnap and forced chattel slavery (based specifically on skin colour) has anything to do with aborting fetuses.

But then I have a different worldview. I was raised in a society where a fetus is nothing but an internal organ until it's out of the woman. So in this respect, I understand that your worldview and mine are irreconcilably different (and it's a good thing, it makes for good forum discussions).

Point is that conservatives in the US have no problem legislating morality and expanding the government's role in everyday life, yet seem to want less government intervention at the same time.

On a side note, even slavery in the US was a big government venture. For its existance the constitution had to be modified so that blacks were considered 3/5 of a human so that the southerners ratify it. That's as big government as you can get, had they kept race out of it, the whole race fiasco would have probably been squashed by the courts back in 1776 on the grounds that forceful imprisonment and enslavement was a constitutional violation. But big government legislation was used to crush any such prospects early on. And this was primarily because big corporations/wealthy southern tycoons could benefit from tropical disease resistant labour for free (therefore depressing wages for all in the region, sounds familiar right).

Jim Crow was big government, anti interracial marriage laws were big government, anti homosexuality laws are big government, anti prostitution, anti drug laws, etc etc. They are for the most part, victimless crimes. There is no need to legislate against victimless crimes. It just expands to role of government to unnecessarily large proportion. What you are left with is the bloated monster you have today.

Let the Chinese and Muslims legislate morality (they block porn in China for example). In the west, we're better than that.

[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Thanos Thanos:

bootlegga bootlegga:

"Psudo" wrote:

The internet is similar to roads and utilities in that the line between private service and public infrastructure is rather blurry. I'd be interested to hear a specific principle that says where the line should be drawn that isn't "Everything should be public." or "Everything should be private."

Well, I'd argue that utilities should be public entities (or at the very least - heavily regulated) as they are almost always a monopoly in the jurisdiction(s) they serve.

And while other provinces allow private (toll) roads, Alberta doesn't, and I prefer it that way.

Agreed. I could see it as a temporary measure for new construction (Hwy 63 could be fully financed and twinned from end-to-end in about two years if they set up a toll system). But I wouldn't want it for basic maintainence or small improvement projects. It's all be too intrusive, too annoying, and way too likely to be abused by local and provincial politicians.

That highway needs twinning badly, but the problem with tolls (and taxes) is governments get addicted to the revenue so even after the highway is paid for I fear the toll would not be removed.

I agree that 63 needs to be twinned. Frankly, I don't know why we've even delayed in doing so - especially given the projected growth in production in Fort Mac over the next decade.

I'd hope that instead of getting addicted to the revenue stream, we'd do what BC did with the Coquihala - charge a toll until it was paid off and then make it a public highway.

[bootlegga]

martin14 martin14:

Just like Income Tax.

Yep, courtesy of a Conservative - and you know a Liberal will never get rid of a tax once its in place. Still, it could be worse, the NDP could be running the show.

[martin14]

bootlegga bootlegga:

martin14 martin14:

Just like Income Tax.

Yep, courtesy of a Conservative - and you know a Liberal will never get rid of a tax once its in place. Still, it could be worse, the NDP could be running the show.

God hates us, but not that much.

[Psudo]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'm opposed to a corporation having an unregulated monopoly over a something people have to have. The history of corporations with unregulated monopolies is nothing less than a horror story.

I agree completely. But you didn't say "things people have to have" the first time, you said "utilities." People don't inherently need natural gas, cable TV, a cell phone, or broadband internet service but they're all utilities. People can even get off the grid and not need electrical power. Even for things that are absolute needs, there won't necessarily be a monopoly on utilities. Housing is an absolute necessity that is very typically provided by private landlords, but housing monopolies are not common occurrences. "No monopoly without democratic representation." is a great principle, but there are still a lot of open questions about utilities remaining.

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

Point is that conservatives in the US have no problem legislating morality and expanding the government's role in everyday life, yet seem to want less government intervention at the same time.

Every ideology except for anarchy wants government involved somewhere. US conservatives tend to like moral regulation more than fiscal regulation and a non-zero amount of both, but "some government" is not necessarily "big government." Banning abortion is not any more of a big government plan than banning slavery, and certainly banning slavery is justified. Regardless of whether it's morally justified, banning abortion is not inherently discredited as a big government plan.