Richard's View of Government

The 2005-2006 round of the Media Levy proposal by CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Collective) is now out. According to the copy of the Supplement to the Canada Gazette I received (as a former objector) from the Copyright Board (page 4, top) "The tariffs proposed by CPCC for the year 2005 are identical to the tariffs certified by the Copyright Board for the years 2003 and 2004"

I'll be filing my objection before the deadline of June  9, 2004, and you may think about doing the same. Last round we had 100 objectors initially, which winnowed down to about 30 by the time the hearings actually went ahead - mostly due to the fact that many didn't really understand the objection process and how onerous it might be. The comments of the 70 who dropped out of the formal process were still "heard", and I believe many were taken into consideration - the rest were likely "outside of the jurisdiction of the Board" due to being of the nature of rants against the concept of the levy at all.

This year's round promises to be far different from that of the last one. Last time the increases asked for were downright exorbitant, as was the proposed extension of the levy to media normally used for purposes other than audio (camera flash-cards, etc.)

This year I expect that external factors affecting the market as well as new studies and information on the actual effects of "downloading" on music sales will be the focus of efforts by the objectors to roll back the current levy. I don't think we can rest on our laurels and simply accept the status quo. In addition, there are a number of treaties that Canada is or soon will be signatory to that tilt the playing field farther in the direction of Digital Rights Management facilities and laws that will make private copying all but unfeasible. The CPCC needs to be told (and through them the music industry) "DRM or Levy - pick one."  If, as seems to be the case, they are picking DRM and enforcement, then they must back off on the levy. Too bad for CPCC.

My Web Log at blog.pacdat.net has a Media Levy section where I'll be posting items as I find them. If you have information you want to share or opinions on what I have to say (or articles you want to post yourself) please visit me there.

richard

Some Definitions

Pick your poison - from benevolent dictator to elected representative. Multi-level (local, regional, national) or direct representation. 
 

A dictatorship is not a government since it ignores the precept of doing things in the best interests of the individuals governed. The dictator only does things that are in the dictator's interests. Note that in some instances Kings and Queens were in fact dictators, however most learned that they should in fact be "benevolent dictators" and inject altruism into their governing. The truly benevolent dictator though can be determined because they really don't want the job.
 

The individual must also include the corporation and other legal forms where groups act as one for specific purposes.
 

 

Public Works

A tomb for the emperor is not a beneficial public work. Public works should be done to lower the friction involved in the daily lives of the population. Friction can be anything from bumps in the path they must traverse from dwelling to place of work (roads, railways, transportation in general), to creating places for foreigners to land, meet and do business (airports, shipping ports, etc.)

Public works are of necessity larger than any person can accomplish, so are either the purview of corporations or government. If there is the possibility of competition, then government should encourage it and otherwise keep out of the way.

The concept of "... not in the best interests of the individual to do" means that government should only get involved in public works if the economics (amount of capital, cost/benefit ratio, etc.) doesn't favour corporations getting involved in competitive ways. If there is only room for one entity to do something, then government should either be the one or should ensure that the one that does "get the franchise" does not hold the public up for ransom. This for example is why in some countries the government got into the telephone business (along with the postal system to create the P&T) and in others (notably here in North America) the business was a regulated monopoly for many years.

Policing

In the broad spectrum of a population there are some who will turn to gain at the expense of others. They will steal instead of producing. This friction in the system lowers the overall population's productivity but is next to impossible to deal with by the individual if the society is larger than a few people. A specific policing system is the solution to this problem.

Being able to carry on with daily activities without fear for personal safety allows the individual to be more productive and boosts the overall productivity of the population to the benefit of all. If the cost of providing that secure feeling is less than the gain in productivity, then it is in the population's best interests for the security to be provided. This is the basis for having police (and courts and the rest of the justice system)

At some point the cost of providing "infinite" security approaches the amount that the overall population gains by having security compared to not having it. The cost of policing must be balanced against the cost of not having it. One of the costs of not having security is the cost of mitigating crime. Insurance mitigates crime to some extent by spreading the loss across all those who pay insurance.

Today, my insurance costs are going up faster than my taxes (which pay for policing amongst other things) which leads me to think that we are not spending enough on policing.

Insurance

We here in Western Canada are currently (August 2003) going through the worst forest fire season on record. Hundreds of homes have been burned in "interface fires" where forest meets the city. Government (both provincial and federal) has stated that it will provide relief to those affected which in essence is the same as insurance. We all pay into our governments through taxes and when the time comes, government provides the assistance to those affected by circumstances outside the individuals' control.

Many of the homes had specific fire insurance. At the same time, some of the homes were not insured. Some due to specific decision by their owners and some because private insurance would not provide coverage at a reasonable rate due to lack of local fire fighting facilities in general.

Securing the Country's borders

I can't watch the sea-ports in Nova Scotia to keep thugs and potential conquerors out. The people in New Brunswick can't watch the BC Airport. Someone has to extend security of our chosen land from shore to shore and border to border. The central government's role is to protect the population from outsiders when appropriate. Along the way, a national armed forces can provide a pool of people trained in disaster relief and available as an adjunct to the internal security and civil forces in case of exceptional circumstances - fire (Kelowna/Kamloops this year), flood (Quebec last year), earth quake (any time now). Now that we have world commerce and our diplomats are on foreign soil where they are exposed to other countries' less than civilized behavior, the troops must be called upon to protect there too.

Ensuring the population's economic security

This is a difficult one for me. On the one hand I'm in favour of minimal interference by government in commerce and economics because I believe that anything they do acts as a brake on some part of the economy. On the other hand, sometimes I think the economy needs a brake now and then.

Encouraging the population's longevity

This aspect includes many different areas - from protection against outside forces to inspection of food products to an involvement in the health industry at some level.

This article is a work in progress - I may even move it to a topic of its own - richard