As bad as the Conservative government's crime reform agenda is and has been, there is one bright spot that I think should be noted. The Conservatives are planning on altering the criminal code to allow greater discretion for the individual to defend himself or herself against an aggressor.
As things stand now it is deeply ambiguous who would get in more trouble. The person that tried to rob you, or you for punching out the person who tried to rob you. Correcting this, and freeing the individual to defend his or her own self and property is an important positive move.
Showing posts with label Conservative Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservative Party. Show all posts
The Conservatives thinks that growing pot is worst than raping a child
Of course my title isn’t true. I am willing to bet that 99.9% of all Conservatives, much like 99.9% of all sane decent human beings, would agree that raping a child is worst than growing pot. So it is incredibly puzzling to me why the Conservative government would want to create a justice system that views pot growers as being worst than child rapists. As Ethan Baron of the Province points out, the proposed sentencing guidelines for pot growers is harsher than for a pedophile:
As I suggested above, I don’t think that Conservatives take rape, especially pedophilia, lightly. But you do have to question why pot growers should be viewed even more harshly. Unlike a pedophile a drug dealer is not performing an act of aggression; a drug dealer does no violate the harm principle.
We can debate if not violating the harm principle is enough to say something should be legal, but surely we can agree that crimes that actively hurt people should be viewed as worst under the law?
Producing six to 200 pot plants nets an automatic six-month sentence, with an extra three months if it's done in a rental or is deemed a public-safety hazard. Growing 201 to 500 plants brings a one-year sentence, or 1½ years if it's in a rental or poses a safety risk.
The omnibus legislation imposes one-year mandatory minimums for sexually assaulting a child, luring a child via the Internet or involving a child in bestiality. All three of these offences carry lighter automatic sentences than those for people running medium-sized grow-ops in rental property or on someone else's land.
A pedophile who gets a child to watch pornography with him, or a pervert exposing himself to kids at a playground, would receive a minimum 90-day sentence, half the term of a man convicted of growing six pot plants in his own home.
The maximum sentence for growing marijuana would double from seven to 14 years, the same maximum applied to someone using a weapon during a child rape, and four years more than for someone sexually assaulting a kid without using a weapon.
As I suggested above, I don’t think that Conservatives take rape, especially pedophilia, lightly. But you do have to question why pot growers should be viewed even more harshly. Unlike a pedophile a drug dealer is not performing an act of aggression; a drug dealer does no violate the harm principle.
We can debate if not violating the harm principle is enough to say something should be legal, but surely we can agree that crimes that actively hurt people should be viewed as worst under the law?
How will the Conservatives say no to new spending?
Three weeks ago I wrote a post that argued that the Conservative Party will have trouble resisting the calls for more “stimulus” spending because they have lost the credibility to offer an alternative (i.e. conservative) perspective. It has become the accepted wisdom of Canada’s political class that deficit spending can improve the economy. This is despite the lack of credible evidence proving this wisdom to be right. In fact there is considerable evidence that deficits are harmful in the long run and that government debt can cripple an economy. The Conservative Party can’t make these points, however, because it has publicly declared its faith in Keynes’ folly.
Yesterday Stephen Harper made a speech saying that the federal government will be “flexible” about its financial plan. This, more than any other statement thus far made, has opened the door to the possibility of more spending. Once that door has cracked open the pressure will be enormous for the Conservative Party to commit themselves to more years of deficit.
Lacking any credible intellectual defenses against this inevitable pressure, the Conservative Party will certainly succumb. The Conservatives’ only hope would be if the economy improves before they have to put forth an economic update in the late fall. It is only by arguing that it is not needed, as oppose to arguing that it is not useful, will the Conservatives be able to resist and keep to their already flawed plan to return to surplus.
As I said three weeks ago:
We are screwed.
Yesterday Stephen Harper made a speech saying that the federal government will be “flexible” about its financial plan. This, more than any other statement thus far made, has opened the door to the possibility of more spending. Once that door has cracked open the pressure will be enormous for the Conservative Party to commit themselves to more years of deficit.
Lacking any credible intellectual defenses against this inevitable pressure, the Conservative Party will certainly succumb. The Conservatives’ only hope would be if the economy improves before they have to put forth an economic update in the late fall. It is only by arguing that it is not needed, as oppose to arguing that it is not useful, will the Conservatives be able to resist and keep to their already flawed plan to return to surplus.
As I said three weeks ago:
We are screwed.
We are losing the war of ideas
Last Friday I wrote a post that argued that the Conservative Party has damaged the conservative movement when it comes to the debate between fiscal restraint and “stimulus” spending. By advocating for deficit spending in the 2009/2010 budget and then claiming that this budget was fundamental in saving the economy, the Conservatives have left themselves no room (or at the most a very little bit of room) to argue any other position when the next recession hits. Why not more stimulus spending if it worked so well last time (although it didn’t)? I concluded by saying that Keynesian economics now dominates the fiscal policy debate in Canada because of the actions of the Conservative Party.
Evidence has come out today that the damage has been done not just among policy wonks but the general population as well. A survey conducted by Abacus Data showed that most people would support further “stimulus” spending in the event of a recession.
I had never heard of Abacus Data before but I lack the technical knowledge to judge the methodology and so I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume that this survey is reasonably accurate. You can see all the details here.
I’m not surprised that the majority of people would be supportive of something where there is no strong national voice arguing against it. Organizations such as the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation are the only ones speaking out against deficit spending in Canada. But the Conservative Party has a far greater reach and pull than either of these organizations. Without the Conservative Party to make the case the debate has become entirely one sided with most of the population.
Conservatives, libertarians, or whatever…we are losing the war of ideas on this issue.
Evidence has come out today that the damage has been done not just among policy wonks but the general population as well. A survey conducted by Abacus Data showed that most people would support further “stimulus” spending in the event of a recession.
The federal government has promised to balance the federal budget by 2015 without raising taxes or cutting transfers to persons, including those for seniors, children and the unemployed, or cutting transfers to other levels of government that support health care and other social programs.
Which of the following statements, if either, come closest to your view? [rotate statements]
The federal government should continue with its plan to reduce the federal deficit even if the economy enters another recession: 33%
The federal government should reconsider its deficit reduction plans and focus instead on job creation and stimulating the economy if the economy enters another recession. 58%
Neither: 11%
I had never heard of Abacus Data before but I lack the technical knowledge to judge the methodology and so I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume that this survey is reasonably accurate. You can see all the details here.
I’m not surprised that the majority of people would be supportive of something where there is no strong national voice arguing against it. Organizations such as the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation are the only ones speaking out against deficit spending in Canada. But the Conservative Party has a far greater reach and pull than either of these organizations. Without the Conservative Party to make the case the debate has become entirely one sided with most of the population.
Conservatives, libertarians, or whatever…we are losing the war of ideas on this issue.
The Conservative Party has screwed itself and the movement
The early days of 2009 were crucial in Canadian financial, economic, and political history. Most people will remember the attempt by the opposition parties to form a coalition government at the end of 2008, but really it was the decision to return to deficit spending that is and will have a longer lasting effect. We can see the ripples of that decision not just in the fact that we are still in deficit but in the way that government spending is currently being debated.
As you may recall, the Conservatives ran in the 2008 election promising to continue a balanced budget. Shortly after the election, even while the world was in a global economic meltdown, the Conservatives still rightly and bravely refused to return to deficit. The economic update that Jim Flaherty brought in a month or so after the election confirmed the government’s commitment to a balanced budget.
Included with that economic update was a change to the party subsidy system that opposition MPs perceived would disadvantage them. They rebelled not so much against the idea of balanced budgets but to save their party coffers.
What happened next was fantastic for the Conservatives.
The public by in large despised the new coalition. Partly it was because of the inclusion of the separatists in a supporting role and partly it was the erroneous idea that Mr. Dion wanted to steal the election. For whatever the reason, the public were not behind the coalition and the Conservatives were enjoying polling numbers that they have never seen since. Mr. Dion was shortly thrown out and the coalition collapsed.
Before the coalition collapsed though, they had scrambled for an excuse to take the reigns of government that didn’t look completely self serving. They came up with the idea that the “real issue” was the government’s lack of action on the economy. Not many people really bought this, but once the coalition crisis was over the opposition parties held on to their assertion that “stimulus” was required.
It was at this point that the Conservatives had a choice. Really they had three choices:
1. They could have refused to go back into deficit and possibly fight an election (although I personally think the disorganized Liberals would have backed down).
2. They could have made the case for a balanced budget but be willing to compromise and bring in a small deficit.
3. They could have taken ownership of the “stimulus” concept and outspend the opposition’s wildest dreams.
The key difference between the third option and the other two is that it concedes that deficit spending is beneficial to the economy. Stephan Harper would not have had to look far to find arguments against this; he could have referenced his own Master’s thesis. Yet he decided to ignore his own intellectual history and embrace ideas that he would have once spat at.
We can speculate on why he did this. My personal feeling is that the coalition crisis scared the hell out of him. He simply did not want to lose power. But such speculation is beside the point. The result was that there were no federal politicians in Canada arguing against the failed Keynesian theory of “stimulating” the economy.
Flash forward to this week.
Once again Canada’s economic outlook is not so good. It isn’t nearly as bad as 2008 or 2009 but it is bad enough that Jim Flaherty is under pressure to introduce more stimulus spending. Now that they are secure with a majority government it looks as if the Conservatives are preparing to resist that pressure, but they lack any real strong arguments against the opposition.
Mr. Flaherty has said that it is more important to balance the budget and really the economy isn’t all that bad anyway. So the natural response is, “well how bad does it have to get before you stimulate?” The Conservatives want to say never, but they can’t. They have already conceded that there are times that “stimulation” is needed.
So instead of being able to debate with conservative ideas, the Conservative Party is stuck pussy footing around the issue and vaguely assuring that maybe they would stimulate if things were very bad, but well maybe not, it depends, you see, on conditions and we don’t really know what is going on, so we have to wait and see, and really we don’t want to leave the deficit for our children to pay for so we need to be very careful about more spending and…so on.
This is how the Conservatives have screwed the conservative movement and themselves. They have made it impossible for them to put forth a genuinely conservative response to the likely coming recession. They may be able to resist the pressure to spend more but they have to do so while at least pretending that it is a viable option. Thus fiscal conservatism is completely thrown out the window.
This problem will persist for years if not for decades. Every time there is an economic downturn there will be pressure to spend money trying to “stimulate.” Every time, whether in opposition or government, it will be impossible for the Conservatives to convincingly argue against it without renouncing the actions of Stephan Harper and Jim Flaherty.
So thanks to the Conservative Party of Canada, Keynes and his big spending admirers now have a death grip on Canadian fiscal policy.
We are screwed.
As you may recall, the Conservatives ran in the 2008 election promising to continue a balanced budget. Shortly after the election, even while the world was in a global economic meltdown, the Conservatives still rightly and bravely refused to return to deficit. The economic update that Jim Flaherty brought in a month or so after the election confirmed the government’s commitment to a balanced budget.
Included with that economic update was a change to the party subsidy system that opposition MPs perceived would disadvantage them. They rebelled not so much against the idea of balanced budgets but to save their party coffers.
What happened next was fantastic for the Conservatives.
The public by in large despised the new coalition. Partly it was because of the inclusion of the separatists in a supporting role and partly it was the erroneous idea that Mr. Dion wanted to steal the election. For whatever the reason, the public were not behind the coalition and the Conservatives were enjoying polling numbers that they have never seen since. Mr. Dion was shortly thrown out and the coalition collapsed.
Before the coalition collapsed though, they had scrambled for an excuse to take the reigns of government that didn’t look completely self serving. They came up with the idea that the “real issue” was the government’s lack of action on the economy. Not many people really bought this, but once the coalition crisis was over the opposition parties held on to their assertion that “stimulus” was required.
It was at this point that the Conservatives had a choice. Really they had three choices:
1. They could have refused to go back into deficit and possibly fight an election (although I personally think the disorganized Liberals would have backed down).
2. They could have made the case for a balanced budget but be willing to compromise and bring in a small deficit.
3. They could have taken ownership of the “stimulus” concept and outspend the opposition’s wildest dreams.
The key difference between the third option and the other two is that it concedes that deficit spending is beneficial to the economy. Stephan Harper would not have had to look far to find arguments against this; he could have referenced his own Master’s thesis. Yet he decided to ignore his own intellectual history and embrace ideas that he would have once spat at.
We can speculate on why he did this. My personal feeling is that the coalition crisis scared the hell out of him. He simply did not want to lose power. But such speculation is beside the point. The result was that there were no federal politicians in Canada arguing against the failed Keynesian theory of “stimulating” the economy.
Flash forward to this week.
Once again Canada’s economic outlook is not so good. It isn’t nearly as bad as 2008 or 2009 but it is bad enough that Jim Flaherty is under pressure to introduce more stimulus spending. Now that they are secure with a majority government it looks as if the Conservatives are preparing to resist that pressure, but they lack any real strong arguments against the opposition.
Mr. Flaherty has said that it is more important to balance the budget and really the economy isn’t all that bad anyway. So the natural response is, “well how bad does it have to get before you stimulate?” The Conservatives want to say never, but they can’t. They have already conceded that there are times that “stimulation” is needed.
So instead of being able to debate with conservative ideas, the Conservative Party is stuck pussy footing around the issue and vaguely assuring that maybe they would stimulate if things were very bad, but well maybe not, it depends, you see, on conditions and we don’t really know what is going on, so we have to wait and see, and really we don’t want to leave the deficit for our children to pay for so we need to be very careful about more spending and…so on.
This is how the Conservatives have screwed the conservative movement and themselves. They have made it impossible for them to put forth a genuinely conservative response to the likely coming recession. They may be able to resist the pressure to spend more but they have to do so while at least pretending that it is a viable option. Thus fiscal conservatism is completely thrown out the window.
This problem will persist for years if not for decades. Every time there is an economic downturn there will be pressure to spend money trying to “stimulate.” Every time, whether in opposition or government, it will be impossible for the Conservatives to convincingly argue against it without renouncing the actions of Stephan Harper and Jim Flaherty.
So thanks to the Conservative Party of Canada, Keynes and his big spending admirers now have a death grip on Canadian fiscal policy.
We are screwed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)