GerPol: Regarding the "state" vs. "personal responsibility":
I completely agree with the mass miss-communication. However, it is my belief that the "state" encourages and perpetuates this miss-communication. Aside from human indifference, we hear the twisted messages from beaurocrats and the "state" in general.
One of our biggest communication networks, the CBC, is state-run. The CBC continues to produce and foster the David Suzukis and the Greenpeace's of the world. I used to respect David Suzuki when I was a kid. His shows were informative and educational. Now, they are pure propaganda.
As for the usually benign "state", it becomes malignant when too many people shirk personal responsibility. Take the Walkerton water tragedy, for instance. A "state-employed" Stan Koebel, the manager at the town's utilities commission, knew all along that the water was tainted with E. coli. He didn't tell a soul. The result has been tougher rules. Ironically, the "state" didn't follow its own rules in the first place, so tougher "rules" are not going to help.
Problem is, "state-employed" people do not believe they will ever be personally held responsible for anything. You can be assured that if it was a corporation or a self-employed individual, the lawsuits would have started immediately. But who can "touch" the STATE?
A friend of mine said a couple of years ago that kids who come from disfunctional homes should be removed from those homes, and that teachers should be the ones to say who stays and who goes. Where will these kids be placed? Into state-sanctioned foster homes where they can be sexually abused?
Look what happened to the Indians in Canada. The "state" figured it would take the Indian out of the Indian. The result has been the worst social experiment in hundreds of years, and the "state" (the taxpayers) down the road (you and I) are paying through the teeth for rehabilitation of the victims, their kids, and their grandchildren.
The "state" schools never told me or you about the fact that the Boethuk Indians were completely wiped out in Newfoundland by European explorers. They were hunted down and murdered like wolves. But does the "state" talk about that in elementary history classes? Not on your life.
The "state" said a few years ago that children cannot form "intent" to commit a crime, therefore children under about the age of 14 would not be held accountable. What has happened? We have a generation of teenagers who gang up on their peers and beat them to death, we have a generation of teenagers without direction, without mores and without self-respect. By taking away "expectations", we foster complacency, the "pack" mentality, and disrespect for themselves and authority.
We have a "state" that says alcohol and cigarettes are bad, but a "state" which continues to take in revenue from taxing both. What message are we sending kids? If that isn't miss-communication, I don't know what is.
We have a "state" where the Karla Homolka's of the world live in better conditions than probably 1/3rd of the population. She has learned nothing, and uses her "fame" for her own amusement.
We have a "state" that is finally admitting a good percentage of the sexual abusers and rapists who get counselling actually get BETTER AT ABUSING AND RAPING after the therapy than before.
We have a "state" where criminals are considered the victims, and who have golf courses, fitness gyms, libraries, satellite TV, pool tables, and the state-paid ability to get a formal education while incarcerated. Why is it that I, a law-abiding citizen, can't afford a golf membership or a university education, but my tax dollars are siphoned off to pay for the same for criminals?! I have a problem with that.
Regarding the "creeping" American influence, I believe your fear is based on state-sanctioned fear tactics. We can't just decide that we only want the "good" American stuff, and none of the bad. Indeed, we can protect ourselves from unwanted social mores, but we seem unable to do so.
We rage against the influence of American movies and TV, but we keep our TV's so the kids get off our backs when we get home from work. We look at the ghettos in the inner cities and shake our heads, condemning the families who are trying to raise their kids therein. But we decide that it is more important to have a 1-year old vehicle in the driveway and ceramic tile in the entrance than it is to give $5000. to charities that help the less fortunate.
If we can't have the latest Palm device and cell phone and designer shoes, we think we are deprived. But we forget that we have become the victims of our own vanity.
The "I" syndrome has crept of the foot ball fields and into every day life, this is reinforced by athletes who break the laws and get "special" treatment. These attitudes are a precursor to a more violent society.
Agreed. But is it not possible that the misbegotten belief that the "state" will always take care of us has produced a society of people who have discarded personal responsibility? What of all the young girls who get pregnant because it's "cool"? They know that the "state" will help them take care of their baby, so they don't have to take any personal responsibility.
United we stand divided we fall.
We are a country divided. The northern-most economies are dependent on government hand-outs to sustain themselves. The separatists believe that somehow, someone else is responsible for their unhappiness, not themselves. The young are looking for the "state" for a handout. Immigrants are fed, housed and clothed for 2 years by the "state" while their hearings are scheduled. Their dependency on the "state" is ingrained ever before they become citizens. Fishermen are looking for a hand-out because there aren't any more fish (exaggeration for emphasis). The "state" continues to give out student loans for post-secondary education that are never paid back. Westerners hate Central Canadians because the Heartland continues to feed off the Hinterland, without so much as a thank-you. Easterners hate Central Canadians because they are dependent on hand-outs siphoned off from the "haves". I am not saying any of this "hate" is justified, but I am saying that big, centralized government continues to drive a wedge between Canadians by its very size.
State-sanctioned "multiculturalism" has done more to build resentment toward fellow Canadians than it has encouraged. The only ones who have benefitted from "multiculturalism" are the individuals and businesses who got contracts for services. The benefactors experienced an artificial boost to their pocketbooks, thanks to a Federal Program. So where are these people now? Working in another Government Program, you can bet.
One of the biggest unions in Canada is the Government Employees Union. The Government Employees Union uses fear tactics to ensure that the members within see everyone OUTSIDE the union as the enemy, and everyone INSIDE the union as an ally. What crap. The Government Employees Union knows that if they didn't use fear tactics, most of the members wouldn't care if they were unionized or not. But, there is safety in numbers, and working "outside" the union would mean personal risk.
Sigh. If right-wing means that I expect people to take some degree of personal responsibility for their lives, then I am right-wing. I think the sentiment is growing.
canuck-l-head |
