The letter below from Paul was printed this past Thursday in a local
newspaper, the first one on the Editorial page. As I usually do, I had
read this free weekly paper out of Bancroft that is placed along with
flyers in our mailbox, to get some of the local flavor, including the
voiced concerns of those who are motivated to write letters to the
editor. I brought to Paul's attention one particular letter and
another short new item and then the next day jotted down some ideas in
the form of a reply. A couple days later Paul reviewed the draft
letter, made a few changes and a couple additions and emailed it in to
the paper. Publication was delayed a week because I hadn't noticed
that there was a requirement to include the writer's phone
number (which we consider to be redundant when letters are emailed
because verification of sender could just as easily be made by return
email - and in this case no verification by either means was done),
and so the letter was resent last Monday with that information provided.

**Kitty



-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Letter to the Editor; Regulation versus Self-Responsibility
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:07:16 -0400
From: Paul Wakfer <paul@...>
To: newsroom@...


To the Editor:

Bill O'Borne asks a question in his Letter to the Editor in the June
16th issue of Bancroft This Week, in reference to increased Ministry
of the Environment activity - at taxpayers expense of course, likely
begun as a measure to "protect the water we drink". The question: "Can
none of us take the responsibility to look after our personnel welfare
without this additional government interference anymore?" Near the
close of his letter, Bill also makes the statement, "We are being
regulated into extinction". The item included in the same issue (pg 7)
about the Health Unit's application of numerous regulations to
barbecue events, provides another current example of the situation he
bemoans.

What seems not apparent to many is that there is a clear underlying
connection between these regulations and the socialized health care
systems in force in Ontario and the rest of Canada. When the majority
of voters decided that they wanted government (at taxpayers expense of
course) to pay for health services, they were also declaring - though
most voters probably didn't stop to think of it - that they were
willing to forfeit their freedom of choice in activities that related
to their own health. If government is paying the bills for diagnosis
and treatment of illness, accidental injury and even normal biological
activities such as childbirth, then it is only a logical conclusion
that regulations will follow that limit activities of individuals that
may in any way result in illness, accidental injury or even
childbirth. In fact the logical result of any socialized health care
system is that anything that might possibly effect the individual's
health can no longer be left to his or her own choice.

Having anyone else pay the expenses for one's life (health care,
shelter, education, business start-up loans, subsidized purchases,
etc.) always places a person in a subservient position without any
justification for objecting to restrictions by the provider which are
designed to reduce the cost of such expenses. When the final provider
of many of these "services" is some level of government, which
produces no wealth by itself but can spend only that which it obtains
from taxpayers (under the threat of property confiscation or personal
incarceration if they do not pay), this action results in everyone
attempting to recoup their losses (taxes) in a "me" versus "them"
approach by currying the favors of government bureaucrats and
regulators. Of course, since government pays itself a large part of
those same tax funds, it is impossible for everyone to regain what
they have been forced to give up. This inevitably leads to a constant
fight by special interest groups over the limited funds that are
available.

Having the social freedom to make one's own choices requires that one
be responsible for the consequences to oneself and others. In such a
society, individuals learn self-responsibility at an early age and
preferentially associate with others who act likewise. Both social
interactions and monetary exchanges are voluntary in a win-win
environment of ever-increasing total benefit rather than as
competitions for a limited amount of decreasing resources from a
"provider". This is not a utopian dream; it requires first that one
understand the weaknesses of the current situation and the
foundational needs of a human being in association with others -
"social meta-needs", as I refer to these last.

So for Bill O'Borne and others who recognize that - or maybe just
wonder if - the ever increasing government regulations are a real
threat to individual autonomy and self-responsibility, I suggest that
they extend their readings for a better understanding of the causes
and solution.


Paul Wakfer
Harcourt Park