Missing from Ted Roberts’ rambling letter responding to my identification of BCTF policies as founded in collectivism is the alternative way of solving the problems Roberts is concerned about. (Reference your November 20, 2013 issue.)
It is obvious that individual freedom supported by defense and justice systems feeds people whenever it is substantially implemented. Its historical record is one of continuously improving human life. For example, that system eliminated slavery in Britain and North America (including the practise of two major tribal groups in B.C.).
Collective control caused the current recession, as the U.S. government coerced lenders, enticed borrowers, manipulated interest rates, and ran a ponzi-like scheme of increasing numbers in its massive agencies like “Fannie Mae.” How much poverty was created by that meddling?
Similarly, in an earlier issue a BCTF official tried to position BCTF as the saviour of various people by collectivist grouping instead of individual rights. Martin Luther King Jr. eloquently addressed categorization in wishing that his children be judged by the content of their character not the colour of their skin. Whereas Mr. Roberts continues to use collectivist terminology and makes wild claims like “legislating poverty” (some of his solutions would actually do that by limiting opportunities for individuals).
The question for parents is, “Why do the BCTF monopolists and their defenders want to go backward to collectivist feudalism, instead of improving what is proven to work?” I think their underlying view of humans is negative.
I sure need to edit my own work.
Keith Sketchley
Saanich
