César Fernández-Stoll

César Fernández-Stoll
Versión hispana

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

DIALOGUE

I dreamed last night about a candidate debate or more properly put, a media selected question period and in my dream; I thought of the persistent topic that keeps coming on and on today; if it is during the United States
candidates; republican and democrats as it is on the Canadian ones when and if, in the case of Canada; elections happen any time soon… as it is valid for many of the contests going on in the world…
However, the scenario seems to be always cut for the moment, identical. Of course, the media gives for discounted that collectivists are very much a write off and in possession of the will of the people and so that they will openly say that they support the right of ‘women to choose’ and so they are more likely to focus these type of questions on the other side, the one that is to the centre of the spectrum, considering collectivists which include anything that wants our brains sacrificed to the government god –communists, liberals, progressives, greens, environ-fascists, feminazis, Nazis, etc.- already sold as they are sold to anything in their relativist minds to be at the left while the right dismissed as a sacrilege of extremism, as it has been equated to discrimination, money and selfishness and never a claim of freedom from government interference.
So, in my dream, the debate goes on between faceless candidates and the question popped up…
“Do you support abortion? Or you want to criminalize abortion?”
The answer, instead of being evaded and over-thought…
“Aborting what?”
“What do you mean? We all know what abortion means…”
“Yes and what it means is to abruptly and suddenly terminate something in progress… So, for the matters of your question; what is it that is being ‘terminated’?”

Let’s put it in a different way…

“Do you support the right for women to choose?”
“To choose is a God given freedom and not a right?”
“Am I then taken that you do support the right for women to choose?”
“To choose is a God given freedom and not a right, but not all our choices are good ones. Since the beginning choices have been available to humans, be this an apple of a tree which humans were told was going to made them like God while it caused us all to die, or the Decalogue which clearly establish the boundaries of our freedom”
“So women have the right to choose”
“To choose is a freedom we have that allows us be individuals and which make us responsible for our actions before God, so to answer your question; yes women as men, are free to choose, but must pay the consequences of their actions and if that choice represents the abrupt termination of a human life, then that choice is against the boundaries established for our freedoms”

“The question is; are you planning to criminalize abortion?”
“I guess we’ve been through this, what is it you imply by abortion? Killing a fellow humanb being is already contemplated in the criminal code so there is really nothing to be criminalize but rather an ongoing crime to be stopped… aborted”

“Moving to another subject…”

“Are you planning a new vote on same sex-marriage?”
“What is a same–sex marriage?”
“Same-sex as the right for two people of the same sex to marry”
“Marriage is an institution not a right, not assigned or concede by governments but by God Himself in our own nature”

“Then, you are planning to ask for a new vote on the issue”

“I don’t think is a matter of the government to dictate about marriage therefore, the point is to simply make the so called same-sex law a no-law, an illegally imposed law, as it would be institute adultery by government decree or as force women to be prostitutes or actually saying that an spouse have no right to consider any wrong on it and so having to silently condone it”

“But sexual orientation is a fact and these people need to be protected by the law”

“Protected of what?”

“From being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation”

“Is not the law protecting everyone already despite everything, not exclusively against being harassed because of his/her inclinations or way of thinking or creed and for that matter of their families being invaded with ideas that go against what God gave us in our nature?”

“So, you do not support the right of same-sex marriage”

“Marriage is not a right but an institution and it requires of two people of different sexes, which are only two to be possible, so there is really nothing there to support. However, there is though the responsibility of the legislature to repel any ill con conceived legal device instituted abusing the powers given by the people to administer the common good”

“But parliament has passed the law…”

“To Caesar what is of Caesar and to God what is of God… Marriage is an institution of God… and Caesar has not prevalence over God”

“What about tolerance and compassion”

“Tolerance is a test on your senses not on your conscience and compassion means love for the person while refusing evil, sin, and wrongdoing”

“Can you clarify?”

“You can tolerate pain… but can you tolerate invasion of your conscience… should you? Must you? In the name of tolerance? You can be compassionate with someone attitude as a consequence of not being able to control it… but can you be compassionate with someone attitude that is perfectly controllable?”

“Let’s move along…”
“Do you favor the war in Afghanistan?”

“I favor peace for Afghanistan and peace can only be based on an absolute truth”

“So you are against the war in Afghanistan?”

“War is not something you area against on in favor of, because is not but a resource, an ultimate one; that sometimes is the last option to achieve peace based on the absolute truth”

“But isn’t dialogue a better way to achieve peace?”

“Sure it is… as long as dialogue is possible… But as I put additional emphasis in truth being absolute wars or dialogue must be oriented to support the truth as the only vehicle to make that peace lasting and fruitful, otherwise, the state of war will persist because the parties will never be satisfied with their relative realities.

“Perhaps the other side, all they want is dialogue”

“Wouldn’t be necessary to learn what the dialogue must be about? Dialogue is not imposed with violence by bombing people or killing innocent bystanders…”

“Maybe they feel culturally invaded”

“If the culture these people are defending is of killing and bombing, not only they have refused to dialogue, but they too have a culture not worth preserving because is a lie to their own selves to their own cultural roots”

“Do you feel with the right to go to their country and impose your way of living upon them?”

“It seems to me, they, the Taliban ruling over Afghanistan before September 11 and Al-Qaeda; are the ones that felt with such a right in the first place”

“Next issue… taxes”
“Do you favor reducing taxes even if that means cutting vital government services?”

“If the government shows a surplus of any kind, that means the people is overtaxed… On the other hand, if a government service is indispensable, then why is it that taxes need to be changed?”

“Can you elaborate?”

“There are very few indispensable, if any at all, ‘indispensable government services’, and so it should be very possible to quantify them with respect or in relations to each and everyone of the inhabitants disregarding their condition, and for that matter direct taxation on the source or more clearly Income Tax, becomes useless as it is then the government who is creating demand to satisfy people demands and this is done by imposing a tax grab before the money can be put to use. If the point is to be fair, then indirect taxation is required to charge at the time money is put to work by giving an equal share for the government services supplied that make possible such a transaction, be this an exchange of goods or the provision of services”

“But people might not end up paying their share…”

“Under that assumption, then Provincial Sales taxes as well as the Goods and Services taxes; become ludicrous as only a minority is paying for them, but they are still paying for what they are choosing to consume”

“Income taxes are here for many decades and generations and are proving to be working…”

“They cannot be working when a large percentage of the population and not necessarily the majority, but a large percentage of the people, is not paying it because in most of the cases, simply cannot afford to pay them, and in another large group of people, they are simply living of the income taxes taken by the ones who under the gimmick of permanent employment; get their earnings confiscated months before accounted for”

“Income taxes are not hurting anyone as they are collected at the source and long before the money can be misused”

“Let me try to understand your point… The people might not know what is a good use for their money? That is a fallacy that cannot be sustained as people is removed from vital resources way ahead of time when they need those resources to make the ends meet or in many case, merely to be able to survive, no to mention the extreme stress they have to go through every April, unless no contribution whatsoever is made to the economy, or the invasiveness of their private lives by government employees normally the cause for higher taxes constantly on their backs; directly or indirectly”

“Income tax is a social problem solver”

“On the contrary, is a disaster of a social policy because it tends to inflate the government, with surpluses; increasing the size of bureaucracies and forcing the revenue to be distracted to pay for those excesses ultimately not covering at all for what taxes are meant to be… pay for indispensable government services it is a path to the ultimate utopia of collectivism Marxism communism because ultimately it expects the government to handle everything because only certain elites know how people productivity must be directed to”

“Income taxes allow governments to help people get back on their feet”

“On the contrary; income taxes represent a persistent drain in resources before they can be applied and prevent people from generating prosperity. Income taxes made a nanny of governments”

“Are you planning to privatize health care?”

“Health is a private matter and as such; it must start from the individual and state cannot interfere with that reality”

“So you are planning to privatize health care”

“It is not me who will decide that, it is the people who must decide that, not the parliament; only and just the people, not by majority, just the people and good health does not start in hospitals or insurances but with living well”

“But there is nothing with health care; Canadian health care is an example to the world”

“in terms of political perception, perhaps the rest of the world use and abuse the Canadian model as the epitome of efficiency and deliverance, however, in reality; the Canadian health care system is nothing but a pyramid which constantly reaches its point of saturation and thereby requires to distract more and more resources reducing every incentive for professional medicine to be at its highest”

“We in Canada; have but the best of the crème in doctors, nurses and equipment”

“Of course we do and the cost of the three respond only to an ever growing spiral of expenditures that lacking the control of the market cannot but grow and drain the people ability to prosper as well as becoming the worst incentive to be ill and grow ill which at the same time demands for more and more services to be provided”

“People get sick and have accidents regardless”

“Of course we all do, but by resting on the fallacy of a system that will provide care regardless of our quality of life people tend to overlook their own precious health and integrity and worst; it tend to abuse the system under obscure political umbrellas which result in the distracting attention to issues perfectly controllable by the individual while denying other services which happen to be less politically interesting. The Canadian Health Care model is a glorified insurance company with an open check book and out of control”

“The system provides security to the people”

“That is hard to accept based on the amount of people which must go abroad in order to get immediate attention to their illnesses”

“Are you suggesting that there should be a two tier system?”

“I am suggesting that the system should work or be discontinued and therefore, it does not matter how many tiers the system has if at the end, it cannot provide what is offering and of one thing I am sure; a one tier system is not providing what is offered. Since its inception, the system has grown into discontinuing every possibility of controlling it because, mainly because it showed to be politically convenient and produced votes. By removing those controls and with that the responsibility of the people to care for themselves; all it has been accomplished is to make the system and unmanageable of control monster”

“Would you propose to discontinue the system?”

“The system as it is must be discontinued. The best way to serve the interests of the people is to let them be responsible for their own health and life, to assume control”

“What about the very poor?”

“Can you please expand on that question? Who would be the very poor?”

“Well, the ones that do not earn enough to make the ends meet”

“Under that description; there will be a tremendous amount of Canadians that fit that description. I suggest we consider poor someone who has lost the ability to get back to the system and let me reiterate that the system itself is responsible for someone not being able to get back to it. Hence someone poor is thereby a refuse of the system, someone who the system pout away and does not have interest in claiming back.”

“But the government must have a line, a boundary that tells when someone is in poverty or not and that can only based in income”

“I disagree because you or I can loose our income for many reasons including a venture gone wrong. That condition does not put us in poverty but rather either unemployed or out of funds. Our ability to recover will respond to our state of mind to react to such condition. The system mind you is the main contributor to restrict that ability to zero. But let’s not deviate from the point intended in your question. Does not that belong the humanity area? A hospital can be a business and a household might have some savings but to not to look after our neighbor goes head on against what God is asking from us, to love our peers”

“But it is not rather better to let the government take care of that?”

“The government has no heart and therefore it is not its role to provide charity. The role of the government is to grant the conditions which allow people to enjoy their freedoms with the limitations of the law. Charity is a function of the individual not of a government or any institution or corporation and if the individual denies him/herself that ability by relinquishing to anyone, specially if the implication is to confiscate from someone else to call the action charity, it is not charity, it is trying to fool God, as simple as that, so to go back to the question; a hospital that denies attention is liable of attempting to murder the person requiring attention”

“But the poor will never be able to repay for the service”

“Under the current system, doctors are asked to deny attention for people that do not have an up to date card. Is it then preferable to let a patient that has an expired card to die just because we worry that the person might be trying to fool the system?”

“What would you consider the most important issues in an election?”

“The most important issues can only be the ones which make the government work for us all as individuals:

Restore dignity to the individual by protecting life from conception to natural death
Reducing the size of the government to its minimum level of efficiency, including the discontinuance of the Income Tax Act and decommissioning of the bureaucracy built around it.
Restore equality before the law by thoroughly cleaning up the laws that attempt to invade individual freedoms and responsibilities, including the decommission of the Human Rights Tribunals and the defense of the worker by supporting his/her freedom of association and opinion”

With these issues taken care of, many other issues get resolved.”

“Don’t you think that in order to get elected, issues need to be popular?”

“Yes, but they need to be truthful too and if what looks popular is at the end not truthful, then that can give you a clear idea on why all the problems can be made perennial only the truth can bring reconciliation with reality and peace that everyone can accept because everyone is able to understand. By creating confusing issues and pretending to provide solution that only sound good but which are nothing but vehicles to a seat in parliament with no sight on what happens next, the only result is a vegetative body converted in a number to vote for whatever a leader decides or feels which says a lot about the type of leader that is. A good leader is that one that has a vision with principles that are clear to see and easy to follow because common good is the common goal and not just the enhancement of the ego of the so called leader.

That clarity needs to be conveyed up front and without reservations or manipulations because any deviation from that fact will ultimately represent the destruction of trust in politicians

The assistance to the polls reflects a clear indicator that that trust is already very limited and furthermore it is being fed by the lack of trust in the media who seems to have abdicated in its function of being a voice of the people to become a voice of what is more convenient to some specific agendas. If the media is not there to put politicians in reality, no matter what their inclinations, then the people is left in the void.

All of this can be fixed by simply starting with dismantling the immense insatiable mass called the government

The only way a government can help the people is by staying out of the way and let the people be capable and responsible of their own actions”
Post a Comment