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

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

It's Time to Abolish the LCBO

Following the end of prohibition in Canada in 1927, the government passed the Liquor Control Act. Howard Ferguson, who was then Premier of Ontario and main proponent of the act, claimed that its goal was to “allow people to exercise a God-given freedom under reasonable restrictions… and promote temperance, sobriety, personal liberty, and above all, respect for the law.” The result of the Liquor Control Act was the establishment of a Liquor Control Board of Ontario, the LCBO, which monopolized the sale of liquor in the province. Prohibition in Canada was a failure just as it had been in the United States. Widespread smuggling, bootlegging, prescription-abuse, and illicit production ensured that nobody was actually prohibited from drinking alcohol. However, when the United States ended prohibition in 1933, they privatized their industry, whereas in Canada, we opted for a more half-hearted solution. The Liquor Control Act of 1927 ensured that the ugly ghosts of prohibition are still lingering with us in the form of the LCBO. This system we are left with gives drinkers a lot to be desired; LCBO stores have poor selection, inconvenient hours, and unreasonably high prices. The current proponents of the LCBO argue that having a monopoly on liquor sales will allow the province to control alcohol abuse and prevent underage drinking. To its credit, the LCBO does a good job in that respect. Anyone who has ever shopped there knows how stringent most employees are with checking ID, and the LCBO also runs many campaigns aimed at promoting responsible drinking and healthy choices. Many people also argue that because the LCBO charges such a high mark-up on most of their products, that this discourages drinking. I believe that people who make such arguments underestimate the ability of the free market to prevent alcohol related abuse. The current system of province-enforced liquor control is antiquated, inefficient, unreasonable, and should be abolished to make way for privatization of the sale of alcohol.

To get an idea of the effects privatization would have in Ontario, we should look to Alberta. When Alberta privatized its alcohol industry back in 1993, many people argued that alcohol abuse, violence, and drunkenness would become rampant as a result. However, crime statistics indicate that violent crimes such as theft, murder, battery, and sexual assault declined sharply in Edmonton during the years following privatization. Instances of impaired driving fell nearly forty percent from 1993 to 1995.[1] A decline in violent crime can occur for a variety of factors, and I am not suggesting that the privatization of liquor sales in Alberta directly caused this drop in crime, but nobody can make the argument that privatization leads to more crime. Arguments that privatization would encourage alcohol abuse are also unsubstantiated.  From 1993 to 1997, Alberta witnessed a substantial decline in alcohol sales[2][3]. Although alcohol consumption per capita is high in Alberta, alcohol abuse is still much higher in Saskatchewan, a province which maintains a liquor monopoly similar to that of Ontario.[4]  I fail to see how the social ills attributed to alcohol are mitigated under a government monopoly. Provided they are over the age of 19, alcoholics, drunk-drivers, and those with violent tendencies can still access alcohol at the LCBO just as easily as the many responsible drinkers.

The "world's finest beer", according to the LCBO.

Arguments of public safety are not substantial enough to justify the enormous deadweight loss caused by the LCBO. Since it has no competition, the LCBO has no motivation to be efficient or price its merchandise according to supply and demand. LCBO has been known to reward suppliers by voluntarily paying them a higher wholesale price than is dictated by the market, which not only ensures retail prices are higher, but also that less revenue is being collected for the province.[5] The way LCBO justifies these astronomical price mark-ups is that they discourage people from drinking, but they also mean that the province is not maximizing their tax revenue. It would be pointing out the obvious to suggest these policies may not have been devised in sober judgement. Another inefficiency of the LCBO should be apparent to anyone who has shopped at any of the locations in the past twenty years—namely that the stores are all so well-decorated, staffed, stocked, and maintained. It may seem trivial to complain about how nice the stores look, but it demonstrates the inherent inefficiencies of having one firm supply the entire market. A monopoly has no competition and thus cannot be held to the same standards of accountability as in a market with multiple firms. If the staff at McDonalds piss you off, you can go to Burger King. If the décor at Home Depot makes you noxious, you can shop at Lowes. If a firm fails to live up to the standards of its customers, then the customers will go elsewhere, ensuring that every firm is held accountable to the needs and tastes of the market. However, LCBO faces no such competition, so why do they spend so much money to make the stores look pretty? People would still shop at the LCBO even if the stores were covered with bloodstains, broken glass, and the cashiers spat in your face as you left—simply because we have no other option.  The LCBO are profligate spenders, and everything from their lavish stores to their glossy magazine, Food & Drink, to their myriad of employees (many given $100, 000 salaries[6]) testifies to the inefficiencies of the liquor monopoly. All these resources being needlessly spent to maintain Ontario’s control on liquor sales could undoubtedly go to a better cause.

Privatization will be beneficial because it would open the sale of liquor in Ontario to market competition—providing consumers with a wider selection of alcohol, and more convenient ways of obtaining it. If alcohol is taxed and sold in stores like tobacco products, then it can still be kept out of the hands of minors, and the province can still make revenue off it. Since, the province of Alberta took in $11-billion off liquor mark-ups.[7]  Without the deadweight loss and inefficiencies incurred by the LCBO, Ontario would likely take in more revenue if liquor sales were privatized. Not only that, but the retail price of alcohol would likely decrease as it did in Alberta[8], even with government mark-ups taken into consideration. Everyone will benefit from privatization. The free-market can serve the needs of the public better than any monopoly—even one that is conceived with good intentions such as the LCBO. The ghosts of prohibition have haunted us for long enough. It’s time to abolish the Ontario liquor monopoly.

Now it's time to have a drink.

---

[1] http://choiceforontario.com/uploads/ALCB_Privatization_Study.pdf, pg. 60-62

[2] http://choiceforontario.com/uploads/ALCB_Privatization_Study.pdf, pg. 65

[3] http://www.fcpp.org/files/9/70.%20Ending%20Saskatchewan's%20Prohibition-Era%20Approach%20to%20Liquor%20Stores.pdf

[4] http://www.fcpp.org/files/9/70.%20Ending%20Saskatchewan's%20Prohibition-Era%20Approach%20to%20Liquor%20Stores.pdf

[5] http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/01/09/cohn_lcbos_pricing_policy_doesnt_add_up.html

[6] http://winesinniagara.com/2011/04/lcbo-sunshine-list-in-case-you-were-wondering/

[7] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mark-milke/alberta-privatized-liquor-stores_b_3984754.html

[8] http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/pps/5/s6_economics.html

Labour Unions Kill a Wal-Mart

Back in April 2005, workers at a Wal-Mart in Jonquiere, Quebec voted to join a labour union. In response, Wal-Mart closed down the store. Last week, The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that in doing so, Wal-Mart violated Quebec’s labour laws, and the employees who lost their jobs as a result of the closing are now entitled to receive financial compensation. Wal-Mart’s anti-union policies have angered many people throughout the years and the incident in Jonquiere was also featured in the documentary WALMART: The High Cost of Low Price. It seems that many people have this a priori assumption that Wal-Mart is evil and anything it does is utterly contemptible. Proponents of labour unions argue that workers cannot survive on a minimum wage and that in order to receive adequate wages, they need the representation of labour unions. The fact that Wal-Mart forbids employees to unionize, they argue, is indicative of the company’s greed and contempt for its workers.

I do not believe that Wal-Mart exploits its employees or harms poor communities. Due to their low prices, poor people can afford to buy more goods at Wal-Mart than they could at a less competitive store. Even if someone earns minimum wage, they can still afford to feed and clothe themselves thanks to the cheap supply of goods available at Wal-Mart. As a result of this cheap supply of goods, the standard of living in poor communities is greatly improved. The reason Wal-Mart can afford to keep their prices so low is because their business model is so austere and efficient—they cut corners wherever they can. Wal-Mart executives don’t ride around in gold-plated limousines; they fly coach and share hotel rooms with colleagues. The Wal-Mart headquarters isn’t a palace; it’s just a drab, normal-looking building.[1] This austerity extends to all Wal-Mart employees, which is why the company frowns upon unions and ostentatious benefits. Wal-Mart maintains its low prices because they pay their employees the wages that they do. If unionization, as in the Jonquiere case, would entail an increase in wages, then the Wal-Mart business model would no longer be viable to earn a profit. If the business model is not viable then the store must close. That’s Business 101. With these considerations in mind, one can see that Wal-Mart actually benefits poor communities—it’s labour unions that harm them.

The classic mantra from the left is that all corporations are greedy and wicked and they would pay their employees in pennies if the heroic labour unions weren’t there to stand up to them. Those who make such accusations not only betray their ignorance of basic supply and demand, but also their seething contempt for the rich. Labour unions are entirely self-serving organizations who benefit their own members at the expense of everyone else, and whose sole purpose is to siphon off wealth from one beneficiary to another. For example, if the US Airline Pilots Association bargains for a higher wage, then the cost will be passed onto the public through an increase of airplane ticket prices. Union leaders might claim that they are bargaining for wages at the expense of profits, but this is not true. Corporate profits are just not big enough. After taxes, corporate profits only amount to less than six percent of the total national income, whereas over eighty percent of total national income goes to pay for wages, salaries, and fringe benefits.[2]  Therefore, the cost of any benefits gained through union bargaining are almost always passed on to consumers. Since Wal-Mart prizes its ability to sell goods cheaply, one can see how unionization of their employees would not be in their best interest.

Unions also slow job creation. As labour unions bargain for higher wages and benefits, the cost for the business to hire new employees becomes more expensive. This means that a business will hire fewer employees and many people who are looking for work in that sector will be unable to find a job. Examples of this can be seen throughout history. In the 1920s, the United Mine Workers of America, led by John L. Lewis secured wages for its workers that were unprecedented at that time; as a result, the price of coal skyrocketed. Businesses also could no longer afford to hire coal workers, so they were gradually replaced with machines. By the early 1960s, there was massive unemployment in the coal industry and once prosperous mining towns became virtually deserted.[3] This example demonstrates the fact that unions only benefit their own members at the expense of everyone else. If unions were really looking out for the best interests of all workers, then they would dissolve themselves immediately.

Those who condemn Wal-Mart for closing their store in Jonquiere should reconsider their position. It is usually rich middle-class people who hate Wal-Mart because they see the company’s austere and frugal nature as exploitive of lower classes. However, Wal-Mart employs 1.4 million Americans[4] and 90 000 Canadians[5], contributing greatly to the workforce, and they can afford to sell goods at a discount to those who may not have been able to afford them otherwise. I see Wal-Mart as beneficial to any community because they are a cheap source of everyday goods. Why should Wal-Mart have kept that one store in Jonquiere open if unionization made their business-model unviable? Rational people are in business to make a profit, and if no profit is to be made in Jonquiere, Quebec, then businessmen will go elsewhere.

---

[1] http://money.howstuffworks.com/wal-mart.htm

[2] Friedman, Milton. Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. Pg. 234

[3] Sowell, Thomas. The Thomas Sowell Reader. Pg. 72

[4] http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/27/why-do-1-4-million-americans-work-at-walmart-with-many-more-trying-to/

[5] http://walmartcanada.ca/Pages/Company%20Profile/168/163/163

Edmonton Woman Seeking to End Her Discrimination

A recent article from The National Post describes a woman who proposes to end workplace discrimination for individuals with body modifications. Kendra Behringer, resident of Edmonton, has twenty-two facial piercings and says she won’t tolerate discrimination from employers based on the way she looks. The article describes how Behringer was rejected from dozens of jobs and so she is seeking to change the Alberta Human Rights Act to make it illegal for employers to discriminate against persons with tattoos and piercings. The act already forbids discrimination based on race, gender, age, religious and political affiliation, but Behringer argues that body modifications should be added to the list as well.

It is clear from this article that people like Behringer want to have their cake and eat it too. In an open society, individuals should be allowed to modify their bodies however they like; piercings, tattoos, scarification, and lip-discs should all be allowed if one chooses. However, just because one is permitted to alter their body in such ways, does not entail they can escape the judgement of others. Any adult who makes the decision to get piercings or tattoos does so in recognition of the fact that others will judge them based on these decisions. As an adult living in the real world, one has to consider the potential consequences such modifications with incur. You can’t indulge in any sort of behaviour you want and then expect to not be held accountable for it. If Ms. Behringer was intent on working in a retail setting or at a business that upholds certain dress codes, she should have considered this before stamping a bunch of holes in her face.

When an employer refuses to hire someone because of their body modifications, it’s not discrimination—certainly not in the sense that racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism constitute discrimination. In recognition of the fact that all human beings have different attributes, an employer must accept the applicant with the optimal attributes for the position they are hiring for. For example, if an employer refuses to hire someone because they are black, then that employer would be a racist since being black should not automatically disqualify someone from any particular position. However, if an employer was hiring for a heavy-duty construction job that required heavy lifting, it would seem justifiable for them not to hire a sixteen year-old girl because she isn’t strong enough. I do not see this as discrimination, but rather competition. A sixteen year old could not possibly keep up with some muscular guy who is adequately built for such work. Likewise, the tough muscular guy would probably have a hard time getting a retail job at La Senza since he lacks the attributes to compete in that line of work. Competition is distinct from discrimination since in competition there is an economic rationale behind why an employer would not hire someone apart from just being a bigot.  Companies have to hire people who will best represent them, and if an employer believes that Behringer’s piercings will distract employees, shock customers, or harm sales, then they have every right not to hire her on that basis. People with extensive body modifications are less competitive in certain markets. Having twenty-two facial piercings might be great if your goal in life is the join The Cruxshadows, but if you want to work somewhere with a dress code, such things are unadvisable.

The fact that Ms. Behringer is seeking to make it illegal for employers not to hire her reflects the whiny sense of entitlement that is so prevalent in our culture today. Instead of cultivating one’s talents and adequately preparing for the line of work one hopes to pursue, people today just expect employers to cater to their needs. If you make the choice to get tattoos or piercings then you must accept responsibility for whatever consequences they entail.  

"I'm ready for my interview now."