Wednesday, February 25, 2015

The Compulsory Recycling Program



John Malthus was at home enjoying a quiet Saturday afternoon to himself. He had a snifter of brandy on the coffee table beside him and a copy of the daily newspaper on his lap. It was raining outside and John had no intention of going anywhere or doing anything. He was in his element. John had just gotten comfortable, burrowing a nice ass-crease in his favourite leather chair, when he heard a knock at the door. He muttered some expletives to himself and arose to answer it. On his porch, John was greeted by a young man wearing a raincoat and carrying a bundle of papers enclosed in a fabric pouch.
“Good afternoon, sir,” said the bright-eyed youngster. “The government would like you to fill out this year’s census form.”
The young man handed John a damp sheet of paper. It had a bold and commanding letterhead:


Government Census Form 2015
Please complete all questions by the due date and mail to the appropriate address


“Not interested,” said John, as he returned the letter and tried to slam the door, but the youngster wedged his boot in the doorway.
“Sir, the census is mandatory by law. You don’t have a choice. Please complete it by the due date and mail to the appropriate address.”
“I don’t care. Fuck off.”
John kicked the boy’s foot from his doorway and slammed the door shut. He secured it with a deadbolt, and sat back on his couch to resume his lethargic activities. John took a sip of brandy, unfolded his newspaper and flipped to the sports section. Fucking Mallards beat the Horses 2-0! What a joke! They have no defence this season. John continued grumbling about the scores of recent games when he heard another, more forceful knock at his door some time later. Again, John muttered some expletives and arose from his ass-crease to answer it. The same young boy greeted him, but this time he was accompanied by a police officer. The police officer wore aviator glasses, leather gloves, and boots. The rainwater gave him a glistening appearance.
“This boy says you refuse to fill out a census form. That true?” asked the cop.
“Yeah. I don’t want to fill out your stupid form. Now leave me alone.”
“Sir, do you know the census is mandatory? The government says you have to fill it out. If you continue to refuse, then I’ll have to charge you with a fine.”
“I don’t care,” said John. “I’m not filling it out.”
The officer glanced at the boy, who shrugged his shoulders. The officer turned back to John, raised his chin and made an arrogant snorting sound. He took out a pad of paper, scribbled some words on it, peeled it off, and shoved it in John’s face.
“That’s your fine. Eighty-five dollars. I hope this teaches you a lesson about maturity. You can avoid such needless fines in the future if you just comply with the law. Nobody ever gained from engaging in civil disobedience.”
The officer took a census form and handed it to John. He made another authoritative snorting sound and left the porch with the youngster. When John had slammed the door, he crinkled the papers into a ball and dropped them in his trash-bin. He spat on them. He returned to his couch and his brandy to enjoy the rest of the afternoon in peace and quiet.
A week later, John was watching his favourite sports team, the Horses, play their third game of the tournament against their arch-rivals, the Giraffes. John Malthus took sports very seriously and celebrated the event by dressing up in all his official merchandise and regalia. His team ran out onto the field and John cheered aloud. Their beautiful teal and periwinkle uniforms inspired him with team pride. John had not watched ten minutes of the game before he received a phone-call. Who the hell could this be?
“Hello, Mr. Malthus,” said a pleasant-sounding female voice on the other line. “I am from the Federal Collection Agency. It appears as though you received an eighty-five dollar ticket last week that you have not paid yet.”
“Yeah. So?”
“Well, I hate to be a bother, but the due date for the ticket was Thursday. That was three days ago. If you don’t want the fines to increase, then I recommend you pay the fine in full by tomorrow afternoon. Okie-dokie?”
John did not detect a hint of malice in the woman’s voice. She demanded John’s money as though she were ordering a pizza, with all the politeness and good manners that such a transaction should entail.
“I’m not paying the fine tomorrow, or any other day for that matter,” said John. “Now leave me alone. I’m trying to watch the game.”
John slammed the phone. He quickly forgot about the disturbance because the Horses just scored two points. John shouted in triumph and pounded his fists against the coffee table. Yeah, we’re back in business! Go Horses! To his consternation, there came another knock at the door a few minutes later. John tried to ignore the visitors but the knocks grew louder and more forceful.
“Open up Mr. Malthus. It’s the Police!”
“Fuck!”
John arose from his chair and opened the door, all while keeping an eye glued to the events on the television. He was confronted with three towering policemen, one of whom was the aviator cop from last week.
“What the hell is your problem, Mr. Malthus?” asked the aviator cop.
“My problem is that I’m trying to watch the game and you assholes keep interrupting me!”
“No, I meant why are you refusing to pay your ticket and fill out a simple census form? I thought you had learned your lesson last week. Give me your promise that you will pay your fines and complete the census. We’re not asking much. Just do as you are told and everything will be fine.”
“Or else what?”
“Or else we are placing you under arrest,” bellowed a short, bulbous cop to his right.
“Looks like you’re going to have to arrest me then, as I do not intend on doing either of those silly things.”
The aviator cop produced a pair of handcuffs and before John could watch the end of the first period, he was being thrown in a squad car. Neighbours looked on in disbelief. John Malthus had never caused any problems in the neighbourhood. He was not a violent man, nor a disruptive man. He was known to be stubborn on occasion, but it was shocking for them to see John led out in cuffs. He did not resist his arrest. He did not protest and cause a scene. However, when he arrived at the police station, John asked the Police chief what the score of the game was. It was 2-1 Horses. He was brought into a dark room and seated at a table in the center. The police chief entered and was accompanied by a tall man with dark sunglasses. John found it amusing that this man wore sunglasses despite the darkness of the room. The police chief slid two sheets of paper across the table to John.
“Complete these forms and you may leave,” said the police chief.
One of these sheets was familiar to John. It had a bold and commanding letterhead:
Government Census Form 2015
Please complete all questions by the due date and mail to the appropriate address

“This one looks like the census, but what is this other paper you wish me to fill out?” asked John.
“It’s a formal statement of apology. We just need you to sign your name at the bottom there,” said the police chief.
“An apology? For what?”
“For wasting our time with your nonsense. That’s what.”
“But I’m not the one who’s wasting your time. You are the ones harassing me. I didn’t do anything except refuse to fill out some stupid census, which I am still not going to do.”
“But why not? It’s not like we’re asking you to give up a kidney. Just complete the damn form. It won’t take you longer than five minutes. I’ll even go through the trouble of mailing it for you. As for all this harassment, as you call it, we are merely taking the proper procedures to ensure you do your part by completing the census form. It is mandatory by law. We’ve all had a long day and I’m sure you want to get back home to watch the rest of your game. The sooner you sign your apology and complete the census, the sooner we can all get back to our lives. Just comply with the law, John. It’s the only way out.”
John tore the apology note and the census in two. The police chief buried his face into his hands and gave a long sigh.
“Why are you making this so difficult on everybody? Just fill out the fucking form, John! That’s all there is to it.”
“As I said, I’m not making this hard on anybody. You’re the ones keeping me here. You’re the ones forcing me to complete this stupid form. If you want to go home so badly, then go home. I’m not doing anything to keep you here.”
The police chief became enraged. John could see the blood vessels on his forehead grow large and inflamed. He growled like a wounded animal. The police chief stormed off to the corner of the room and lit a cigarette. The man with the black sunglasses turned to John.
“You will complete the census John Malthus, or the consequences will be dire.”
“No I won’t.”
The man with the sunglasses turned around to the police chief.
“What do you want to do with him?”
“Throw him in cell block 19 until he decides to comply with our demands.”
The man in the dark sunglasses smiled at John and cracked his knuckles. Then he placed John back in handcuffs and led him out of the interrogation room, down a long corridor lined with florescent lights. They came to a cage with thick iron bars. There was a crude sign hanging over the entrance.
Cell block 19
“Welcome to cell block 19 motherfucker. Here is where your fellow miscreants are kept.”
There were three other men in the cage, all filthy and downtrodden. Their hair was poorly groomed and their skin was covered in dust. One of the men raised his head and smiled when he saw John being thrown in the cage. He had no front teeth.
“This is Dooley,” said the man with the sunglasses. “I’m sure he’ll love to meet a nice young man such as yourself.”
Dooley licked his lips with delight to see his new cellmate.
“Like you, Dooley also thinks he is above the law. He is charged with three hundred accounts of loitering in public places. No matter how many times we arrest him for loitering, he just goes and does it again after his release. It’s such a problem that we had to lock him up indefinitely.”
“I just love to loiter,” giggled Dooley. “There’s nothing else in the world like it. That feeling I get from a good ol’ loitering—it’s like sex on ecstasy. It just gives me a rock-hard erection. My favourite places to loiter are banks and convenience stores. It’s gotten to the point where I can’t help it. This obsession has consumed my life. All I can think about is loitering.”
“And this is Isaac,” said the sunglasses man, pointing to a rotund bearded man in the corner. “Isaac thinks that he doesn’t have to file his income taxes like the rest of us. He hasn’t done so in twenty years. This blatant flaunting of society’s conventions is why he is locked up here.”
“What are you talking about? I filed my taxes last year!” yelled Isaac.
“From what I recall, you mailed a roofing shingle with the words fuck you! painted on it. That doesn’t count as filing your taxes.”
“And finally, this is Abdul,” said the sunglasses man, pointing to an Arab lying on the bench. “We locked him up here because Abdul doesn’t think he needs to wear his seatbelt while driving.”
“I don’t belong in here,” pleaded Abdul. “Why should I have to wear a seatbelt? I am a perfectly good driver and I have never been in an accident in all my thirty years behind the wheel of an automobile. I know seatbelts make me safer, but should I not be allowed to do without one at my own risk? I’m an adult. I am capable of making such decisions for myself. Please, just let me go home to my family. I’m sure they miss me.”
“Shut up, criminal!” said the sunglasses man. “The federal government says you have to wear a seatbelt. Do not question the will of the government! Those laws are in place for your own good. The government knows what is best for you. I doubt your family wants to see you again after you have committed such heinous, negligent crimes.”
Abdul began to weep and called the name of his beloved through his sobs. The sunglasses man slammed the iron door shut and made a mocking smile to the men inside.
“Enjoy your incarceration, jackasses,” he said, and walked away.
John Malthus languished in cell 19 with his fellow criminals for the following month. His beard grew thick and his hair tangled and untamed. The prisoners were fed by a small opening in the wall, barely big enough to place one’s hand through. All they received was gruel. Isaac told John he would get used to it after the first week. He was right. There was no interaction with the guards or the policemen. John quickly became comfortable in his captivity, growing rather attached to his cellmates. Isaac was a fellow Horses fan. The two of them talked sports throughout their time in cell block 19.
“The Horses need to improve their defence!” said Isaac. “They don’t stand a chance to win the championships if they don’t do something about their defence, especially against a team like the Mallards, or the Giraffes.”
“That’s what I’ve always said!” said John. “You should have seen their last game against the Giraffes though. They scored two nice points in the first fifteen minutes of the game. Those goddamn Giraffes didn’t even see it coming.”
“I wish I could go to that Horses stadium downtown and loiter all day,” said Dooley. He became frenzied with enthusiasm. He was rubbing his crotch and foaming at the mouth.
“Calm down Dooley,” said Isaac. “If you get too excited, you will ejaculate in your pants again. Remember what a mess you made the last time? Try not to think about loitering.”
“I can’t help it, man. It just gets me so hot.”
“Would you three please shut the fuck up already?” screamed Abdul. “How can you talk about sex and sports when you see what a dismal place we are in? I hate that stupid seatbelt law. Why do I have to get locked up for disobeying such a ridiculous edict? It’s not like I’m hurting anybody. Why can’t the government just let me be?”
“It’s never been a matter of hurting people,” said Isaac. “They lock us up in here because we undermine the authority of government. All the laws and edicts in the world are useless if nobody is there to enforce them. The majority of people just comply with whatever laws the government passes, without knowing why. The government declares everybody must wear a seatbelt, so everyone wears a seatbelt. Nobody has any reason not to, so people don’t really care if somebody forces them to wear one. But that is precisely the means by which these laws are enacted—by force. If the government had no force, then their laws would cease to have meaning. But for people like us, who consciously disobey these laws, we have to be made an example of. True, we have never hurt anyone or caused anyone malice, but the laws of government would be undermined if people like us were allowed to break them. Don’t you understand? It has nothing to do with what you have done, but because you have done it. You cannot create a new law without also creating criminals. When there are criminals, then one must punish them.”
Just then, the agent with the sunglasses emerged and removed John from cell block 19. He was dragged through the hallway from whence he came to the familiar interrogation room with the police chief. The police chief was smoking a cigarette. John was seated at the same table, where the same two forms awaited him. One was the apology letter while the other was the census.
“We are giving you one last chance,” said the police chief. “Complete the census form or you will be subjected to the harshest of consequences.”
John was silent.
“Well?” said the man with the sunglasses. “Have you finally come to your senses or do we have to take this a step further?”
“You don’t have to do anything,” said John. “But I will not complete the census, regardless of how much you threaten me.”
“We’re not threatening you!” said the police chief, with a great deal of insistence. He put out his cigarette in an ashtray on the table and looked John in the eye. He acted with a calm intimacy. His voice was soft and his manners calculated. The police chief leaned his body over the table to maintain eye-level position with John, but John kept glancing at the holstered revolver dangling from his chest.
“I don’t want you to think that we are out to hurt you, John. We’re trying to be as friendly as possible with you. You’re a smart guy. I would hate to see you subjected to harsh punishments just because of an irrelevant matter such as this. We’re on your side! We’re pulling for you! But when you are insistent on being difficult and refusing to submit to government authority, then there is not much we can do for you. Complete the census, John. The law demands it.”
John said nothing. He starred at the police chief’s revolver as though the gun were speaking to him, not the man carrying it.
“Why are you acting like such a child, John? You think we want to punish you for your disobedience? Just fill out the census form for fuck’s sake! What reason could you possibly have not to?”
“I have no reason not to fill out the census, but I am a free, autonomous person. As such, I own my actions and bear the responsibility for their consequences. I just feel like exercising my freedom to not fill out the census. That’s all.”
“No! You’re wrong!” yelled the man with the sunglasses. “You are only free to the extent that the government allows you to be free. You and I are only pieces of the larger aggregate that is society. As such, the government can dispose of you in any way it sees fit if you pose a threat to the society. Laws and government authority are the glue that binds society together. Without the laws of government, we would live in a chaotic world where anything and everything goes. Therefore, disobedience cannot be tolerated in any respect. Be it filling out a census form or chopping toddlers up with an axe, the government reserves the right to force you to do or refrain from doing certain things. You can’t just choose which laws you wish to obey or disobey. You are under the jurisdiction of the state! It has full authority over you! You and your fellow criminals in cell block 19 are the worst kind of scum imaginable. Nothing is more cancerous to society than you and your ilk. Look, I can comprehend the heart of a rapist or a murderer. Some people just can’t help themselves! You don’t expect everyone to take responsibility for their actions do you? But even the most violent serial killer knows at his heart what he does is immoral. He tries to evade the law because he is ashamed to have crossed it. He may even feel an ounce of remorse or regret for the things he has done. But You! You don’t just break the law openly; you do so free of any such reservations. By refusing to fill out the census, wear a seatbelt, or pay your taxes, people like you defecate upon the very glue that holds us together as a society. You are spitting on government authority and you should be subject to the most gruesome and medieval of cruelties. By abandoning the law of the herd, you should not expect its mercy in return. I will see to it that you suffer dearly, John Malthus. Mark my fucking words.”
The two government officials fell silent. They starred at John, hoping he would acknowledge his wrongdoings and beg forgiveness. John said nothing, although vaguely smiling. He leaned back on his chair and crossed his arms.
“What do you think, chief?” asked the sunglasses man. “Should we enlist him in the Compulsory Recycling Program?”
“I don’t want to,” the police chief sighed. “But I see no other option.” He turned to John. “Mr. Malthus, this is your last chance. If you do not complete the census by tomorrow morning, then we are enlisting you in the program.”
“I don’t care. I’m still not completing the census.”
The chief grumbled. For the first time, he actually appeared disgusted with John, waving him away and lighting another cigarette.
“Take this subhuman piece of trash away from my sight,” he said.
John was informed that he would be taken to the Reassignment Facility tomorrow morning. He was tossed back in cell block 19 for the night. It was midnight and his cell mates were asleep except for Isaac, who had stirred when John was thrown back into the cell.
“No luck I see?” Isaac said.
“No. They’re enlisting me in the Compulsory Recycling Program tomorrow.”
Isaac gasped.
“You must have really pissed them off then! They don’t take folks there unless they truly pose a threat.”
“What is this program exactly?”
“Nobody knows. But I can tell you one thing; of all the men who have been enlisted in the program, not one of them has returned. Are you going to submit to the government and fill out a census form?”
“No.”
“Good man. Your iron will is an inspiration to us all. I’ll tell your story to all the men who come through here. Whatever happens to me, I will forever hold the name John Malthus on my lips. I will think of you as a martyr to freedom and determination. Hopefully others will be inspired by you as well. You have a friend in me, John Malthus. I will never forget you.”
John Malthus was removed from the cell the next morning and carried into a black sedan. He was guarded by government officials in dark suits and black sunglasses. The car drove down a dreary road lined with factories and warehouses. There was not a single tree. The car stopped in front of a tall brick building. Two long chimneys stood like monoliths against the sky. A sign was posted out front.
Federal Reassignment Facility
No Loitering
The building smelled of soot and carbolic acid. The government agents took John into the facility and led him down some serpentine passageways until they came to a tremendous metal door. The cacophony of machinery could be heard grinding away behind it. Two people waited for John at the door. One of them was the police chief and the other was a young female nurse. She was very pretty.
“This is your final chance, John. Fill out the census or we will have no choice but to enlist you in the Compulsory Recycling Program,” said the police chief, holding out the familiar sheet of paper.
“I already told you that I have no such intentions.”
“Very well,” said the police chief, dusting his palms like he had disposed of something vile. “We did everything we could for you. You have forced our hand. If you intend on acting like a stupid child, then you shall be disciplined like one.”
The men ordered John to strip all his clothes. Once John was naked, the female nurse began applying some kind of fluid to this legs and chest with a sponge.
“This is rubbing alcohol. It will prevent an infection,” she said.
When John was fully coated with the alcohol, the police chief opened the door and led John into the room. He was deafened by the noise of the machines. The room was the size of a large gymnasium, and massive devices were all humming away inside—pounding, screwing, sawing, jointing, drilling, and hacking. John was led to the facade of an enormous machine in the back of the room. It was at least ten times his height. On the front of the device, there were two columns of razor-sharp teeth, each the length of John’s arm. The teeth fed into a giant steel drum, which formed the main bulk of the machine. Protruding from the drum was a series of pipes and pumps, which connected to another machine. This one looked like a medieval printing press. The police chief flipped some switches and the great machine roared to life. The columns of steel teeth started to spin and John could hear the pumps filling the giant drum with water. As John stood in the awe of this fearsome behemoth, the police chief whispered in John’s ear. The Horses have just won the championship. I figured you’d want to know. John smiled.
Before John could reflect of this good news, the police chief pushed him into the spinning teeth. They tore his body to ribbons. John did not scream or resist, as he didn’t wish the police chief to have the pleasure of witnessing it. Blood flecked the chief, who watched this great apparatus perform its functions. He smiled at the thought that it would recycle this disobedient criminal into something that would be of use to society. John’s remains were fed into the steel drum and mixed with water until they had become a pulpy mash. The mixture was pumped through the tubes and into a furnace where it was dried. A slicer divided the remains into individual sheets—eleven by eight and a half inches, one tenth of a millimetre thick. The Machine loaded the sheets onto the printing press, which inscribed them with words and figures. They were systematically piled once they were complete. The police chief picked up one of the papers. It was still hot and he bounced it around in his hands. These recycled sheets of human remains each had a bold and commanding letterhead:

Government Census Form 2015
Please complete all questions by the due date and mail to the appropriate address


THE END

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Sociology Explains Nothing


A recent article posted on The Star takes issue with Stephen Harper’s tendency to dismiss sociological explanations for crimes. For example, in response to the murder of Tina Fontaine, Harper argued that her death was an isolated incident and that the murder was not part of a sociological phenomenon. Harper also made similar comments in response to the attempted bombing of a VIA train last year. The journalists at The Star take issue with this attitude because supposedly it is an “ideological attempt to prevent Canadian society from being able to identify and tackle its structural injustices.” While I can’t defend everything Harper has done or said, I feel his objective approach to this crime is commendable, especially since it doesn’t capitulate to the incessant whining of social justice warriors.


How does one distinguish between an isolated incident and a structural phenomenon? The Star article claims that structural injustices differ from individual crimes in that crimes by individuals can be traced back to a single person(s), whereas structural injustices are committed by society at large. If that is the case, I fail to see how Ms. Fontaine’s murder should be regarded as the latter rather than the former. Considering that we don’t even know who the murderer is yet, it doesn’t make sense to attribute his/her motivations to racism, as that is not likely the case. 


Most of what is deemed as structural injustices are no more than statistical disparities between one group and another. For instance, the article implies that the difference between the murder rate of aboriginal Canadian women and non-aboriginal women is indicative of structural racism. Leave it to the crazy SJW’s to automatically claim this to be the result of racism or sexism. However, differences in the murder rate between one group and another cannot by itself reveal structural discrimination. Tina Fontaine was a runaway teenager. Seeing as though the vast majority of child abductions happen to runaway children[1], I would venture to say that Ms. Fontaine’s status as a runaway put her at far greater risk of being murdered than being aboriginal.  There are often underlying differences between the groups (such as economics, cultural values, level of education, etc.) that lead to such statistical disparities. In Canada, men are far more likely to be the victims of aggravated assault and murder than women[2]; however, few SJW’s would suggest this statistical disparity to be the result of sexism or racism since it does not fit in with their preconceived narrative—namely that women and minorities are oppressed whereas white men never are. There is no simple, convenient explanation for why men are murdered far more often than women, or why aboriginal women are murdered more than white women, but to simply dismiss this as sexism or racism clearly ignores all the nuances and complexities of human interactions. However, when the statistical disparities do reflect the world view of the SJW’s, then they will be the first to cry racism or sexism.


I don’t have anything against the academic discipline of sociology per se, but we all know that when The Star talks about “structural injustices”, what they really mean is finding a way to blame everything on either sexism, racism, capitalism, or all the above—a practice that is far removed from anything resembling the scientific method. It should be remembered that Tina Fontaine wasn’t murdered by society, she was murdered by an individual person, whose motivations for doing so were solely his own. The reason why I believe the attitude conveyed by The Star is toxic is because it diverts the responsibility of Ms. Fontaine’s murder away from the individual who committed it and imposes it collectively on society. Since Ms. Fontaine’s murder was the result of structural racism according to these people, it is society that needs to atone for it. For Stephen Harper to acknowledge these “structural injustices” would mean effectively signing a blank check away to any social justice warrior or special-interest groups who claims to have the answers. It’s funny that the solution to rectifying so-called structural injustices typically involves the redistribution of wealth in some form or another.


When Margaret Thatcher said that “there is no such thing as society”, she meant that there is no entity called “society” that may speak, feel, think, or act on anyone’s behalf. Society is an abstract concept referring to the various relationships between individuals, and to speak of society apart from individuals is to remove all humanity from the discussion.  It may be tempting to blame society for a heinous crime like the murder of Tina Fontaine when there is no suspect to point the finger at yet. However, trying to impose the guilt of one individual upon an entire collective is an absurd accusation. Stephen Harper is demonstrating a level-headed approach to such a heinous crime instead of resorting to knee-jerk emotional reactions.






[1] http://www.freerangekids.com/crime-statistics/
[2] http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/2010024/t001-eng.htm

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Doing Away with Door-to-Door Mail Service


Last year, Canada Post announced that it would be phasing out door-to-door delivery for many communities across Canada. In addition to the elimination of door-to-door delivery, the price of stamps has also increased to 85 cents up from 63 cents as an effort to curd loses of $104 million dollars last year. Canada Post has said that replacing door-to-door delivery with community mailboxes will have the largest impact on the $1-billion Canada Post deficit. The Transportation Minister Lisa Raitt said that Canada Post is “modernizing its business and aligning postal services with the choices of Canadians.”[1]

As technology improves the way we communicate, the volume of written letters continues to decline. The decline in the volume of transaction mail over the past decade can be attributed directly to the emergence of the internet. The web has made writing letters all but obsolete, since sending email is not only free and simple, but one doesn’t pay for the cost of shipping and postage. Written letters are quickly going the way of the typewriter, the horse-drawn carriage, and the flintlock pistol. Therefore, if Canada Post is going to remain a viable and sustainable business in the decades to come, it needs to adapt to the march of technology.

However, many people in my community still do not recognize the need for doing away with door-to-door delivery. Almost every second household on my street brandishes a lawn sign lauding their support for maintaining this service. A petition on Change.org even has over 150, 000 signatures from those who wish to keep door-to-door delivery. Many people feel very strongly about this issue, even though the reasons they give for why door-to-door delivery should be maintained are not very persuasive.
The petition on change.org has the following to say,

“My grandfather, god rest his soul, was a WW2 veteran and became a mailman. They take their work very seriously otherwise they would not brave the weather. My current mail carrier is also proud of the service she provides for the community. Why change something that is working well for communities across Canada?”


There are bound to be people who have an emotional attachment to the notion of home mail delivery, but warm sentiments alone do not generate revenue. It would be just as absurd as somebody suggesting that Blockbuster Video should stay in business and operate at a loss just because they have an emotional attachment to their big blue store signs. It seems that those opposed to ending door-to door delivery want to have their cake and eat it too. They want Canada Post to continue the service despite the fact that they do not contribute to demand by purchasing stamps or writing letters. If one is truly adamant about maintaining door-to-door delivery, the most sensible way of having their voice heard is by actually writing letters. Show Canada Post that there is in fact a demand for mail delivery. Voting with your wallet is more effective than displaying signs on your lawn or signing some petition that will likely just be ignored.

              However, there will probably not be a renaissance of letter-writing anytime in the foreseeable future. The internet is just too efficient a means of communication that snail mail is hard-pressed to compete with it. I don’t think the majority of people are going to spend money on stamps that they don’t have to just for the sake of continuing door-to-door mail service. Being a Crown Corporation, I doubt Canada Post would be making these changes unless they were absolutely necessary. Instead of feeling nostalgic about the death of an obsolete means of communication, we should be celebrating the birth of a new one.



[1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/canada-post-to-phase-out-urban-home-mail-delivery-1.2459618

Monday, July 14, 2014

Why Salon.com is Wrong About ReservationHop

             

                It seems like the writers over at Salon.com are desperate for something to whine and complain about. This article, entitled the 1 Percent’s Loathsome Libertarian Scheme: Why We Despise the New Scalping Economy, takes issue with a new application called ReservationHop which makes reservations at restaurants and then auctions them off to the highest bidder. According to the author of the article, Andrew Leonard, this application discriminates against poor people and creates “market-based class stratification”. Although I fail to see how ReservationHop is uniquely libertarian, (as suggested in the article title) I believe it provides a useful service that will generally make booking reservations more efficient. Not only is this application a useful tool in that respect, but a portion of the revenue being made is given to the restaurants themselves. There’s really nothing at all for Salon.com to complain about. Regardless, they found a way to demonize the creators of this application. therefore, I feel like I should defend them.

Leonard writes,

“I am pretty sure I don’t want to live in a society where every possible interaction with my fellow human being is up for auction at the right price point.”


            Nor will you. This is just a slippery slope fallacy. Applications such as ReservationHop are fulfilling an obvious need by selling sought-after restaurant reservations to those who are willing to pay for them. It makes sense that some restaurants apply the pricing system for reservations if they are very popular. Many popular restaurants do not have available space for everyone who wishes to eat there—especially at peak hours. Since there is a greater demand for reservations than restaurants are able to supply, those who can afford to should have the option of purchasing their reservations. This is just an efficient way of allocating the few available tables to those who want them the most. This dystopian nightmare Leonard tries to portray where “every possible interaction with your fellow human beings is up for auction” is nonsense. He then writes,

“Even when they are solving a problem, there’s a whiff of parasitism. What was once clear becomes muddy. When the answer to the question of why we can’t find a reservation available at our favourite restaurant is because someone unaffiliated with the restaurant has figured out a way to profit from our demand that just feels yucky.”
            Ever notice that what a normal person would consider rational and innovative behaviour, socialists call parasitism? That’s probably why socialist utopias throughout history have been so prosperous in comparison to those wicked capitalists, right guys?
            The arguments Salon.com presents against ReservationHop come crumbling down once they are exposed to the light of scrutiny. Chances are, the reservations being auctioned off on ReservationHop are only at the most expensive, high-status restaurants—the kinds of places you have to bribe the doorman just to get into. I doubt that any sane person would bother to sell, let alone purchase fake reservations at a Denny’s, McDonalds, or Pizza Hut. It just wouldn’t make sense to auction off reservations unless the restaurant in question was near-impossible to get into otherwise. The vast majority of restaurants are not packed on a regular basis so I highly doubt that ReservationHop will have any noticeable impact on the way most people make reservations. Mr. Leonard will still be able to eat at his favourite restaurant as easily as before.

            The great thing about ReservationHop and other applications like it is that they tap into a previously unsatisfied demand. The creator of these applications clearly saw something that was inefficient with the way restaurants took reservations, so he created a service that fixed it. Not only does ReservationHop solve the problem of getting reservations at sought-after restaurants, but it generates revenue and even shares its profits with the restaurants themselves. It’s win-win scenario for everyone. If this is what liberals call “parasitism” then power to the parasites!

“What’s happening with the new scalping apps is not democratization. It’s the exact opposite—it’s market-based class stratification.”

            Horseshit. ReservationHop is no more “class stratification” than a grocery store that charges an extra nickel for plastic bags. I think it’s fair to say that if a poor person can’t afford to spend $6 for a reservation, they probably should not be eating at restaurants in the first place. When you live in a world with a scarce amount of resources, you should expect to compete with others for those resources. Reservations of course are no exception. Even if applications such as ReservationHop did not exist, we would still expect to see people competing for reservations at fancy restaurants. For instance, if you wanted to make a reservation at some place, you would have to phone them days, or even weeks in advance to ensure you get the table you want at the time you want. Even then, there was no guarantee that you would get the reservation you wanted since someone else could have made the very same reservation before you. Now, instead of wasting one’s time and energy fighting for a reservation, one can simply pay a small fee and your reservation is guaranteed. As you can see, people have competed for reservations before, ReservationHop just found a way to allocate them efficiently.
           

Leave it to the misguided and unpleasant writers over at Salon.com to find fault with something that will generally benefit people. Then again, if anything gives individuals more free choice, it is heresy in the eyes of collectivists. I think this application is a great idea and I will be interested to hear of any future developments on it.



            

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Robert Nozick's Argument against Wealth Redistribution


Wealth inequality has existed to some degree in every free society known to man. In the United States of America in particular, the current disparity between the richest and the poorest is astronomical. Many people today have argued that it is unethical for some individuals to accumulate so much wealth while others have barely enough to keep themselves alive. It is the responsibility of the state, according to these welfare economists, to maximize net happiness by distributing wealth from the richest individuals to the poorest. Some have argued that these redistributions should be in the form of taxation, while others of more revolutionary persuasion advocate the appropriation of others’ holdings by force. Regardless of how it is attempted, wealth redistribution of any kind is patently immoral, according to the philosophy of Robert Nozick (1938-2002). Nozick is considered by many, including myself, to be one of the most influential libertarian thinkers. His 1974 book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia is a phenomenal text that sets the groundwork for much of modern libertarian philosophy[1]. In Chapter Seven of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, entitled Distributive Justice, Nozick makes what I believe to be the soundest argument against wealth redistribution.

According to Nozick, someone’s entitlement to a holding is justified only if it was voluntarily transferred to them. Acquiring something by trade, by purchase, by gift, or on loan is a justifiable claim to a possession, but if something is acquired by extortion or thievery, then that holding is not just and Nozick would argue that in a free society, such an injustice would need to be rectified. Nozick’s Entitlement Theory is historical. If the sequence of events leading up to someone acquiring an object is justifiable, then so is the acquisition. If, for example, a burglar stole a television and then sold it to a friend, and that friend gave me the television as a gift, I would still not be entitled to the television since it was first acquired by unjust means. Therefore, as long as a given distribution of wealth came about by just means, then that distribution, according to Nozick is also just, regardless of how unequal the distribution may be. Those who complain about wealth inequality must understand that the current distribution of wealth has come about through voluntary exchange and the laws of supply and demand acting throughout history. Even though some people are extraordinarily wealthy and some live in destitute poverty, does not entail that anybody (especially the government) can claim possession of another’s holding for the purpose of redistribution.  

A person can only be entitled to a holding if he acquired it by just means. To illustrate this point, Robert Nozick presents what has come to be known as the Wilt Chamberlain Argument[2]. Nozick asks us to imagine a society with an egalitarian distribution of wealth, which he calls D1. Now imagine that in this society, Wilt Chamberlain puts on a basketball game and charges spectators twenty-five cents each to watch him play. Assuming that one million people decide to watch him play basketball, then Chamberlain would make a quarter of a million dollars from this transaction and all the spectators would be out one quarter. Nozick calls this new distribution of wealth D2. Even though the new distribution in D2 is extremely unequal compared to D1, D2 is still morally justifiable if all the spectators voluntarily chose to pay Wilt Chamberlain the quarter. In D2, Chamberlain would be far wealthier than anyone else, but he would still be entitled to every quarter given to him. This example shows how a non-egalitarian distribution is still justifiable even if a great disparity exists between the poorest and the richest. Inequality is not immoral as long as the transactions that brought about such an inequality were themselves moral and not coerced.

100-point games played and 20, 000 women laid

Nozick argues that a society with an egalitarian distribution of wealth is not only immoral, but impossible, since such a society would have to arrest all transactions between consenting individuals. Nozick writes,

“The general point illustrated by the Wilt Chamberlain example is that no end-sate principle or distributional patterned principle of justice can be continuously realized without continuous interference with people’s lives... To maintain a pattern, one must either continually interfere to stop people from transferring resources as they wish to, or continually interfere to take from persons resources that others for some reason chose to transfer to them.”[3]


Even if a society could somehow redistribute all wealth in accordance with an egalitarian principle, the distribution would not remain equal for very long. As the Chamberlain argument demonstrates, people are always going to voluntarily engage in transactions with others. These transactions are naturally going to make some people extraordinarily wealthy, and other people, by their own undoing, extremely poor. The problem with welfare economics is that it assumes there to be some ideal state of wealth distribution that would make everyone better off. It is an end-state philosophy. Reality is not composed of end-state distributions however, but of continuous transactions in which resources exchange hands between those who are entitled to them. To propose that there is some ideal distribution of wealth is therefore absurd because it completely discounts how the current state of wealth inequality came about. In order to impose a given distribution of wealth, the state would have to use force against anyone who did not act in accordance with the ideal distribution, which would not only be in violation of individual rights, but would also entail an enormous waste of time and effort.


As we can see, there is nothing inherently wrong with wealth inequality, regardless of what socialists and welfare advocates would have you believe. In a free society, the most talented and business-savvy individuals are bound to accumulate wealth, whereas those with no particular skills will not. As long as those wealthy people have earned their money through voluntary transactions, then they are entitled to every penny of it. It would be unethical, according to Nozick, for any Robin Hood-like character to redistribute the holdings of others on the basis that a current distribution is unequal. A free society must respect the life, liberty, and property of all.





[1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nozick-political/#MinStaVerIndAna
[2] Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia, pg. 161
[3] Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia, pg. 163