Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!utegc!utai!ubc-vision!fornax!chapman From: chapman@fornax.uucp Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Free trade, Canadian culture, $$ Message-ID: <195@fornax.uucp> Date: Tue, 24-Feb-87 02:47:22 EST Article-I.D.: fornax.195 Posted: Tue Feb 24 02:47:22 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 24-Feb-87 06:35:51 EST References: <191@fornax.uucp> <3047@watdcsu.UUCP> Distribution: can Organization: School of Computing Science, SFU, Burnaby, B.C. Canada Lines: 82 > > >If you want to talk about subsidization go ahead but my comment was directed > >more at the people who constantly carp about how innefficient the CBC. > >My question was: is the CBC relatively less/more efficient/costly > >than a US network? > > If you want to talk about how costly the CBC is to run you are talking > straight dollar figures, in which case the analysis of subsidized versus > non-subsidized costs is valid and even necessary. If you want to talk Why? A dollar is a dollar is a dollar.... These are separate questions. 1. Does the CBC provide programming you enjoy? 2. Is this programming provide for less $ than a commercial network? 3. Should a every network generate all of it's revenue to cover expenses? My question/comment was #2 and was directed at the numerous people who claim the CBC is innefficent, top heavy, over bureaucratized etc. . . . > >Why should it? Seriously. Not every aspect of life has to be run as > >a business venture you know - although to hear some people talk you > >would never realize it. > > That is the typical government bureaucratic attitude, "Not everything has > to operate to break even you know, why if we didn't spend money on (insert > program of your choice) then no one would". Doesn't this ring a red light > somewhere in your head that indicates that maybe the program shouldn't be > funded at all, or that the program should at least be carefully > scrutinized. > > I agree with you that not everything has to operate as a business. > But, if you are not going to operate as a business then there should be > valid, clearly explained reasons, why it is : > a) essential that you operate in the first place, > b) essential that you avoid operating as a business and instead operate > using government subsidies. If you are going to operate some service as a business then there should be valid, clearly explained reasons, why it is: a) essential that you operate in the first place, b) essential that you avoid operating as a public service and instead operate strictly on a profit motive. . . > a) but we have supported it for a long time > b) but not everything has to break even > c) but this is a medium for supporting the Canadian national identity > d) but it brings the country together > > are rhetoric aimed at avoiding an analysis of what the CBC actually does > and how much it costs the tax payer for this service. Why are b, c, and d merely rhetoric? Because you want them to be? If you are going to assert that these are not valid reasons then you should try to back it up. > >So nothing should be done in a democracy unless a majority supports it? > >I don't know any country that actually runs that way. > >I also don't think it is always preferable either, e.g. what about the > >rights of minorities. > > The rights of minorities is an oversold political turkey. In a democratic > state, if the majority of voters support A, then A should happen. If the This was a popular view in Nazi germany at one time - surely you can see the problems such an attitude engenders? . . . > in parliament should continue funding because there exists a minority > somewhere in Canada that wants funding continued. No, parliament should do what "it" thinks is "right" not just what is going to be popular (i.e. what will get them re-elected). > > Try not to become a man > UUCP : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster of success but rather try > Else : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657 to become a man of value. > Albert Einstein jc