John and Anne
I certainly don't agree that the nexus between political reality and
taxation reality will always come out against social issues (including
conservation issues including birds, he wrote, desperately trying to stay on
the topic). The reason for this is that it is not always the case that the
voters will always go for the option that is cheaper from their individual
point of view. This gets back the voters' perspective. If they can be made
to feel like a society rather than an economy then they will allow higher
spending on social issues.
"Yeah, right!" I hear you cry, but this is not impossible. In Australia we
have a pretty "economic" voter perspective, largely the result of several
decades of media efforts. However, in Norway (a country where I have some
small experience) the shoe is almost on the other foot. Rather than cry for
cuts in spending on such and such a program, the media often calls for
increased spending on things, usually with the aid of money raised through
Norway's high taxes, or through the production of North Sea oil.
I would be interested to hear Øyvind's or Vim's thoughts about this, and I
realise that Norway isn't perfect either, but I feel that conservation gets
a higher priority there because of the less "economically rational" (or
maybe Chicago economic) perspective. This makes expensive societal goals
more politically palatable.
It's all based on education and media involvement.
Twenty years ago and I would have been called a Communist. Oh, yes, that's
right, I was!
BillS
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus"
in the message body (without the quotes)
|
