RESPONSE TO CONSERVATIVE, PROGRESSIVE THOUGHT OPINION LETTERS
(These thoughts are purely the blunt, no nonsense personal opinions of the author about financial fairness and discrimination and are not intended to provide personal or financial advice.)
The following post is in reply to two response letters to first August 2, 2017 (why-conservatives-and-progressives-think-the-way-they-think) letter published in a local newspaper . The two response letters appear at the end of this blog post. This reply letter was published in local newspaper in abbreviated format on August 16, 2017.
BLOG AUTHOR’S RESPONSE LETTER-August 16,2017
Two response letters on blog author’s August 2, 2017 letter on conservative versus progressive thought only perpetuates bafflegab where imbalance between the two results in wealthy conservative types or anarchists ruling the universe.
One example of inequality of Canadian values is housing. One condo development in housing complex includes 1 bed, 1 bath, 1 patio 552 sq. ft. micro-condo with starting price of $299,900 or $543 per sq. ft. Three bed, 2.5 bath, 2 patios, 2 and 3 story 1830 sq. ft. condos in same complex are priced from $649,900 to $749,900 or $355 to $409 per sq. ft. Ultra-deluxe model master bedroom suite covers entire third 600 sq. ft. floor. Third bedroom is bigger than total square footage of $299,900 condo and sells for $150 to $200 less per square foot for two-thirds more space. Where is the critical thinking of ripple effects where owners (most likely to be singles) of micro-condos have to proportionately pay more house taxes, education taxes, mortgage interest, insurance and real estate fees on less house and likely less take home pay for their biggest lifetime expense?
Vancouver 100-square-foot apartments rent for $570 a month (again most likely to be occupied by singles). Renters in the 50 units share 11 bathrooms and laundry facilities over the four floors (approximately 12 units and 3 bathrooms per floor)..
Which of you conservatives who spout family values as a personal issue believes your daughter should go traipsing outside of her apartment to use bathroom in middle of the night? Which of you believes it is humane to stick anyone into a 100 square foot or smaller units (90 square foot units in Vancouver) plus charge excessive rents? Who makes the decisions behind loan-shark or pay day loan type pricing where financial targeting of the most vulnerable occurs? It is private enterprise, land developers and cities (government) that make these decisions, not unions. Where does conservative bafflegab of neighbor helping neighbor, personal discipline, caring, responsibility and respect as stated in one of the letters fit into these decisions?
Free market enterprise and private businesses under the guise of ‘it is what the market can bear’ purposefully ‘rob’ from the poor to pay themselves and to ensure Wall Street ideology is maintained, used and controlled by lobbyists and wealthy who benefit most from Wall Street. The act of making disadvantaged pay more for less housing and reducing apartments to the size of jail cells (as just one example) (empty-house-speculator-syndrome) has now normalized these scenarios to where it becomes acceptable to do this. It becomes acceptable to first make singles and poor families pay more and then to (or at same time) offer them charity when there is nothing left for private enterprise to financially extract from them. The charity logic offered in one of the letters completely turns upside down the financial principles where everyone should be able to live on their incomes first and then charity kicks when these incomes fail.
Families (parents), governments, society, corporations, businesses to date have failed to provide support and responsibility that is needed to ensure all Canadian citizens are able to financially take care of themselves without financial parental aid, inheritances of wealthy parents and without bias of gender, race, marital status or income level. Many Canadians are fed up with the infighting of politicians and the Trumpian corporate and family greed of the wealthy where wealthy always pay less and get more and never pay their fair share.
There are only so many words one can submit for opinion letters so there was no space to mention moderate or balanced positions. The original newspaper letter was expanded in blog post by stating: “It also should be said that extremes on either side whether conservative or progressive can have dire consequences. Far right conservatism can lead to authoritarian governance and far left progressiveness can lead to communism type governance where freedoms are taken away under guise of all persons are equal. It also is wrong for governments to hand out tax credits without looking at assets and wealth so that wealthy get tax credits or financial loopholes they don’t need (tax free savings accounts with no limits, OAS Clawbacks that don’t work, and pension income splitting implemented by the Conservatives and perpetuated by the Liberals selective-democratic-socialism). It is all about balance!” Where is the balance?
You want me to get to know you as a conservative. How about getting to know me as a person without making me pay more while getting less?
(end of blog post)
READER LETTER #1-August 9, 2017
This is written in response to August 2 letter. Initially I was with the contributor about how conservatives tend to lean towards the stern father archetype and progressives towards the nurturing mother archetype. But almost right away the writer does not lay out the positions and instead appeals to emotion as opposed to the intellect.
Conservatives want structure and order so they tend to be wary of rapid change and prefer it to happen slowly. Progressives are more creative and prefer rapid change as a lack of change causes them to fear society is stagnating. The extreme of these positions is totalitarianism and anarchy respectively, so in a healthy democracy it is not one or the other, but a combination of the two.
Yet the writer does not make this point and instead goes on about how compassionate progressives are, but you have to look at the words carefully. Using the government to affect change is not compassionate, you are merely using the cudgel of the state to force people to form to your ideology. There is no agreement no consensus, merely coercion.
At the end of the day, you have to ask what is the role of the government? Are they there to provide a framework to engage in mutual cooperation with their fellow human being or is the government there to regulate the lives of their subjects?
READER LETTER #2-August 9, 2017
The writer of August 2 letter has no idea how conservatives think. Nearly everything you expound in your letter (including from Professor George Lakoff) is pure drivel. Perhaps you should take some time to really understand what conservatives hold to. Here is just a few examples of what conservatives believe in:
Wealth is created through personal initiative, ingenuity, risk taking and sacrifice, not governments. In fact almost of of these attributes are either absent in government or discouraged (particularly in public service unions).
Great strides in most facets of our society, industry, medicine, technology and science have not come as a result of government initiatives but individual and private pursuits. Think Microsoft, resource development, telecommunications, transportation, agriculture and the internet.
Conservatives believe the free enterprise marketplace promotes diversity, rewards achievement and hard work and fosters the widest choice of ideas. On the other hand big government represents monopoly, increasing regulations, and the narrowing of ideas and choice. It often disparages success in private life and business and its very mantra is to force compliance and uniformity.
Conservatives consider big government as wasteful and often corrupt since career politicians have little regard or understanding of the hard work and sacrifice necessary to create wealth and then seek to confiscate and distribute more of it to get personal credit, secure votes and retain power. Conservatives believe when they build something through hard work, sacrifice and ingenuity, it not only helps their family but the community as well through jobs, taxes and other contributions. Conservatives know that fair pay retains valuable employees, but for a business to remain viable this has to be balanced with maintaining competitive prices and services to the public.
Conservatives believe true charity and caring towards others is a personal issue. Unless it comes from the heart and is voluntary it is not genuine. Using government to take more from some and create entitlements has nothing to do with empathy, caring or being charitable. Bureaucracies are incapable of caring. Genuine charity and and caring only happens with neighbor helping neighbor directly person to person or collectively through voluntary charities and service organizations. Conservatives understand that government safety nets are needed at critical times, but when they become entrenched and permanent they lead to dependency and undermines personal initiative and self-fulfillment, and so often politicians cannot resist the temptation to use such programs to garner more power, control and votes.
Conservatives believe values are taught in the family not through government programs or policies. Personal discipline, caring, responsibility and respect must start in the home. Conservatives do not believe that society’s moral values and conscience derives from government and therefore social engineering or social agendas should not be imposed on anyone by the government.
Please forget your perceived misguided views of conservatives and get to know one.
(This blog is of a general nature about financial discrimination of individuals/singles. It is not intended to provide personal or financial advice.)