# What is Democracy to you?



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Because of discussion in another thread of what is a "legitimate" expression of democracy for individuals in the context of a nation it rose in my mind when we say democracy What does it mean. 

Apparently when we say democracy we know what it means and are shocked that others do not understand democracy in the same way.

In your mind:

Is democracy limited to voting? 

Expressing your views and voting?

Taking action in the political process, expressing your views, voting 

Participating in the mechanics of the vote and voting

Other discuss


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

One thing it does not mean is having the right to pick the pockets of fellow citizens or corporations.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> One thing it does not mean is having the right to pick the pockets of fellow citizens or corporations.


Not a fan of democracy then?


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2011)

Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about the definition of democracy:



> _*Democracy* is a legislative system in which all citizens exercise direct and equal participation in the development, proposal and passage of legislation into law._


Therefore my choice is other. Given the above definition democracy is a pipe dream.

P.S. I likely won't be coming back into the thread to discuss so no sense in responding to me about it  This is the most political discussion I've had online, ever, and likely to be one of the last.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

It's the thing that Burma used to have, but doesn't anymore.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Democracy to me is 'active participation'. Some people participate more than others.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> Democracy to me is 'active participation'. Some people participate more than others.


I agree with this notion.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Because of discussion in another thread of what is a "legitimate" expression of democracy for individuals in the context of a nation it rose in my mind when we say democracy What does it mean.....


Would have made a good poll, not too late you can still make it one.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

mguertin said:


> Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about the definition of democracy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who gets to have democracy? By this I mean how small a group of people can join together to have their legislation count for something meaningful? How few counts to be recognized by the many?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> Would have made a good poll, not too late you can still make it one.


The questions/list in this thread were to be in the form of poll questions, but I screwed it alllll up.

So any assistance to change this thread into a poll shall be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Not a fan of democracy then?


Not at all, if democracy means that you can essentially vote to create any law that can justify any abuse.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

A great question, BigDL. "Active participation" in local/provincial/federal/international organizations, both formal and informal, is important for a democracy to thrive. Voting is essential, but it has to be informed and critical voting. I hate choices where I have to choose "the lesser of two evils". I think that our democracy makes it important to respect the physical and social environments where we live, and all over the country in which we live.

I am not a supporter of "my country, right or wrong", but rather, "my country, when it is right, work hard to help keep it on the right path, and when it's wrong, work hard to put it on the right path". Of course, what I think that "right path" for Canada might be is not necessarily what you feel is the correct path for Canada. Still, in a democracy, we have the freedom to peacefully try to present our points of view and to sway each other's opinion. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Democracy is that which you prefer but which the other fellow despises.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Max said:


> Democracy is that which you prefer but which the other fellow despises.


Interesting point, Max. Never thought of it in that way before. Merci, mon ami. Paix.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

*Chasing Beaver*





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> A great question, BigDL. "Active participation" in local/provincial/federal/international organizations, both formal and informal, is important for a democracy to thrive. Voting is essential, but it has to be informed and critical voting. I hate choices where I have to choose "the lesser of two evils". I think that our democracy makes it important to respect the physical and social environments where we live, and all over the country in which we live.
> 
> I am not a supporter of "my country, right or wrong", but rather, "my country, when it is right, work hard to help keep it on the right path, and when it's wrong, work hard to put it on the right path". Of course, what I think that "right path" for Canada might be is not necessarily what you feel is the correct path for Canada. Still, in a democracy, we have the freedom to peacefully try to present our points of view and to sway each other's opinion.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


When I think of democracy I also think of groups such social clubs, service clubs and unions that are democratic organizations whose decisions impact on our society as well.

Volunteer Fire Fighters who vote to fund raise and park firetrucks in main roadways of communities, lights flashing, firefighters standing with arms extended with buckets in hand to "extort" (impossible to say no to these folks) cash for new equipment or training.

As stated earlier I view democratic action in many ways. Perhaps others can think of other situations where democracy prevails outside of governments.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> When I think of democracy I also think of groups such social clubs, service clubs and unions that are democratic organizations whose decisions impact on our society as well.
> 
> Volunteer Fire Fighters who vote to fund raise and park firetrucks in main roadways of communities, lights flashing, firefighters standing with arms extended with buckets in hand to "extort" (impossible to say no to these folks) cash for new equipment or training.
> 
> As stated earlier I view democratic action in many ways. Perhaps others can think of other situations where democracy prevails outside of governments.


How is volunteerism democracy? There are volunteers in dictatorships. Charities? Even under the worst dictatorships. This is civics, not democracy.

Unions? At least you qualify this with "unions that are democratic organizations" which certainly represents a sub-set of unions. Note organizations such as The Association for Union Democracy who combat the anti-democratic tendencies of modern unions.

So I suspect, as Max suggests, that we simply see democracy in those institutions which we value. In your case, the labour movement.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You might want to also consider than unions can be and are among the most undemocratic of organizations, using forced policy on members and forced dues and the like, with no option of "opting out" of membership. I see no democracy at all there.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> You might want to also consider than unions can be and are among the most undemocratic of organizations, using forced policy on members and forced dues and the like, with no option of "opting out" of membership. I see no democracy at all there.


Exactly. Unions represent the worst failings of pure democracy--a tyranny of the majority in which 51 per cent of members can clobber the other 49 per cent.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> How is volunteerism democracy? There are volunteers in dictatorships. Charities? Even under the worst dictatorships. This is civics, not democracy.


 The organization behind volunteer fire departments are an association of firefighters. All of these associations I have encountered are democratically organised. The association of firefighters choose democratically to fund raise. That's how it is democratic.



Macfury said:


> Unions? At least you qualify this with "unions that are democratic organizations" which certainly represents a sub-set of unions. Note organizations such as The Association for Union Democracy who combat the anti-democratic tendencies of modern unions.
> 
> So I suspect, as Max suggests, that we simply see democracy in those institutions which we value. In your case, the labour movement.


Others seem democratically challenged shall we say. Therefore I shall not ask a point is proven as to why an institution(s) is (are) democratic or not democratic.

Those with little acuity for a concept, I fear, would find the task impossible to complete and it would be unfair to ask.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> You might want to also consider than unions can be and are among the most undemocratic of organizations, using forced policy on members and forced dues and the like, with no option of "opting out" of membership. I see no democracy at all there.


I should think you should take that matter up with your legislature. The matters you speak of are covered by an Act of the Legislature.



Macfury said:


> Exactly. Unions represent the worst failings of pure democracy--a tyranny of the majority in which 51 per cent of members can clobber the other 49 per cent.



Always happy to see the usual suspects go sideways when the word union is used.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Exactly. Unions represent the worst failings of pure democracy--a tyranny of the majority in which 51 per cent of members can clobber the other 49 per cent.


Geez guys, same thing happens in our electoral system. First past the post takes it.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

BigDL said:


> ...
> 
> Apparently when we say democracy we know what it means and are shocked that others do not understand democracy in the same way.
> ...


Your invitation to explain what we understand by "democracy" is a welcome one. Let's hope this thread does not get derailed by the negativity of some of the posts so far.

Let's respond to this issue in a positive way.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Max said:


> Geez guys, same thing happens in our electoral system. First past the post takes it.


Max it seems the democratically impaired can't understand this simple concept of democracy. It will totally confuse them that there are even higher thresholds (two thirds majority for example) for the passage of some important proposals.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> I should think you should take that matter up with your legislature. The matters you speak of are covered by an Act of the Legislature.


No dispute with that, but internal union policy is NOT legislated, so please explain to me how unions imposed membership provision, an internal union doctrine (with no opt out option), is democratic, would you?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Geez guys, same thing happens in our electoral system. First past the post takes it.


Yes, not a bad concept. The problem occurs when the 51 per cent constrict the democratic rights of the other 49, a problem rampant in unions.


----------



## Chagwa (Apr 23, 2009)

Democracy is an illusion, an ideal that is being misused by all levels of government to justify their actions and not be held accountable. black or white, red or blue, the democratic koolaid always tastes the same and we are told to swallow it. XX)


----------



## Paul82 (Sep 19, 2007)

SINC said:


> No dispute with that, but internal union policy is NOT legislated, so please explain to me how unions imposed membership provision, an internal union doctrine (with no opt out option), is democratic, would you?


I've yet to be a part of a union that didn't have a formalized opt out policy... Whether that was legislated, employer mandated, or the unions did it of their own volition I can't be sure.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> The organization behind volunteer fire departments are an association of firefighters. All of these associations I have encountered are democratically organised. The association of firefighters choose democratically to fund raise. That's how it is democratic.


Are you referring to the International Association of Firefighters?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Paul82 said:


> I've yet to be a part of a union that didn't have a formalized opt out policy... Whether that was legislated, employer mandated, or the unions did it of their own volition I can't be sure.


Canada Labour Code:



> Where a trade union that is the bargaining agent for employees in a bargaining unit so requests, there shall be included in the collective agreement between the trade union and the employer of the employees a provision requiring the employer to deduct from the wages of each employee in the unit affected by the collective agreement, whether or not the employee is a member of the union, the amount of the regular union dues and to remit the amount to the trade union forthwith.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> COLOR="red"]Always happy to see the usual suspects go sideways when the word union is used.[/COLOR]


Always happy to see BigDL frame a thread around unions.


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

I'll hold my tongue on the matter of whether or not unions are democratic institutions. However, I can't believe that even after three pages no one has made reference to one of my favourite quotes on the matter:



Sir Winston Churchill said:


> ...it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I like that quote, crawford, and it's apt.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Canada Labour Code:


Yes the section you quoted has to do with bargaining units. You are correct people do not have to join the union to remain part of the bargaining unit.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Yes the section you quoted has to do with bargaining units. You are correct people do not have to join the union to remain part of the bargaining unit.


They must pay the union dues, whether or not they wish to join the union.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> They must pay the union dues, whether or not they wish to join the union.


And that is where the union fails the democracy test.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Always happy to see BigDL frame a thread around unions.


When the matter under discussion Democracy can't hold the attention at least something can. Some words are like shiny balls for some citizens.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> And that is where the union fails the democracy test.


 Again a matter dealt with at the Parliament/Legislature. The law passed that's democracy.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

We'll never be able to attain an "ideal" democracy - human beings inevitably screw things up.

One thing we *can* do to improve democracy is to remove the definition of a corporation as a person under the law. It provides too many "rights" and too few responsibilities.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Again a matter dealt with at the Parliament/Legislature. The law passed that's democracy.


A law that makes paying dues by a non-member compulsory is the furthest thing from democracy possible.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> A law that makes paying dues by a non-member compulsory is the furthest thing from democracy possible.





SINC said:


> And that is where the union fails the democracy test.





Macfury said:


> They must pay the union dues, whether or not they wish to join the union.





Macfury said:


> Canada Labour Code:


Unions: Not a fan or not very or not at all democratic


Message received, acknowledged, understood, Ten Four Over and Out


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Unions: Not a fan or not very or not at all democratic
> 
> 
> Message received, acknowledged, understood, Ten Four Over and Out


Excellent. So stop using them as an example of democracy in action.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

crawford said:


> I'll hold my tongue on the matter of whether or not unions are democratic institutions. However, I can't believe that even after three pages no one has made reference to one of my favourite quotes on the matter
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Sir Winston Churchill:" said:
> ...


So is a democracy only better by degree(s) or does that little difference make all the difference. 
Should rights (ie. speech, assembly, protest) accompany democracy to make the system truly great?

Then why are western nations so insistent that democracy is the one size fits all answer to any question?

In your mind are freedoms inherent with democracy or something separate and distinct?


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

@BigDL: If there is a hierarchy, freedoms would come out on top. One could argue that Canada has a pretty comprehensive set of rights and freedoms, but a constrained system of democracy. For example, some key features of our democracy include a party-based parliamentary system, representatives that can be elected with a small proportion of the popular vote due to our SMP electoral system, an unelected Senate, few referenda, etc... We can even have an unelected Prime Minister.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Excellent. So stop using them as an example of democracy in action.





Max said:


> Democracy is that which you prefer but which the other fellow despises.


Please refer to Max's quote for further guidance. 

Your point of view has been expressed. That and another's point have been acknowledge .

I think differently.

I say all the Unions I belong/belonged to were/are democratic institutions. 

and I so move;

is there a seconder?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm sure you'll find another union member to second you. So leave it alone, as you've asked others to.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

And yet we all pay Federal taxes, regardless of what party we prefer to see in power... excepting outlaws and scofflaws, of course - blue collar or white.

So that's different from unions how?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> And yet we all pay Federal taxes, regardless of what party we prefer to see in power... excepting outlaws and scofflaws, of course - blue collar or white.
> 
> So that's different from unions how?


If you quit the country you quit its tax regime. When you quit the union, you still pay its dues.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Depends on the union... you can take leaves of absence and refrain from paying dues.... heck, I was a signalman for the CNR back in the late 70s/early 80s and once I left the gig I never paid union dues again.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

crawford said:


> @BigDL: If there is a hierarchy, freedoms would come out on top. One could argue that Canada has a pretty comprehensive set of rights and freedoms, but a constrained system of democracy. For example, some key features of our democracy include a party-based parliamentary system, representatives that can be elected with a small proportion of the popular vote due to our SMP electoral system, an unelected Senate, few referenda, etc... We can even have an unelected Prime Minister.


Good points.

For a democracy do we have that much to brag on, when we tell the population of say Libya, they'er in dire need of a democracy.

Shouldn't we stay at home and fight for or fight to eliminate undemocratic institutions?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Good points.
> 
> For a democracy do we have that much to brag on, when we tell the population of say Libya, they'er in dire need of a democracy.
> 
> Shouldn't we stay at home and fight for or fight to eliminate undemocratic institutions?


It should be up to the individual. In my democracy, you would have to make a case for such an action, then solicit funds from individual taxpayers to underwrite the campaign.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Oh come now. In _your_ democracy, roughly half of us would be in jail, or sequestered in camps. You couldn't stand it otherwise.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Oh come now. In _your_ democracy, roughly half of us would be in jail, or sequestered in camps. You couldn't stand it otherwise.


Jail? In my democracy, I would simply watch you create your own collective, and watch it sink beneath the waves without a trace. The Roanoke of artist's colonies. The croatoan express! 

Buh-bye!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> It should be up to the individual. In my democracy, you would have to make a case for such an action, then solicit funds from individual taxpayers to underwrite the campaign.


Excuse me but this thread is not about consumerism.

Perhaps someone can explain the one vote adding up to make a majority and the majority concept again.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Jail? In my democracy, I would simply watch you create your own collective, and watch it sink beneath the waves without a trace. The Roanoke of artist's colonies. The croatoan express!
> 
> Buh-bye!


Oh yeah, I can see you now. Watching feverishly like Smithers or Big Bruddah, from every swivelling camera mounted on high at every public and semi-private location... King MF, enforcer extraordinaire of Your New Democracy, Proper.™ Yeah, can't wait.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Oh yeah, I can see you now. Watching feverishly like Smithers or Big Bruddah, from every swivelling camera mounted on high at every public and semi-private location... King MF, enforcer extraordinaire of Your New Democracy, Proper.™ Yeah, can't wait.


Every man a king! Who would need to enforce the demise of self-styled collectives under the weight of their own bounty of self-absorbed goodness? Crushed by the ponderous heft of their good intentions, they would eliminate themselves in true democratic fashion.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

'Every man a king' means nothing. Might as well call it every man a pauper or a slave. You need the one to define the other... but you know that already.

But you spin a good tale all the same. If this thread were a solid, you couldn't hoist it over your head, so dense is the bombast!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> 'Every man a king' means nothing. Might as well call it every man a pauper or a slave. You need the one to define the other... but you know that already.


A true democracy would defend your freedom to fail. And the right of others to help you out if they felt so inclined.



Max said:


> But you spin a good tale all the same. If this thread were a solid, you couldn't hoist it over your head, so dense is the bombast!


It's heavy with goodness.

If democracy can exist outside of maximizing freedom, then it's little more than elegant thuggery. An exquisitely refined method of helping yourself to the fruit of your neighbour's labour.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Please refer to Max's quote for further guidance.
> 
> Your point of view has been expressed. That and another's point have been acknowledge .
> 
> ...


I'll second your motion, BigDL. Not all unions are democratic, just as not all organizations, businesses, governments, et al, are democratic. However, my union is democratic and honest, so I shall second the motion.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Macfury said:


> If you quit the country you quit its tax regime. When you quit the union, you still pay its dues.


I've been a union man for over 30 years,
Labour Union, Steel Workers Union, Carpenters Union and now the Canadian Auto Workers Union.

I've never heard this quote before, Got a linky?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

a shout out to Macfury *GOOD CALL*


Macfury said:


> I'm sure you'll find another union member to second you. So leave it alone, as you've asked others to.





BigDL said:


> Please refer to Max's quote for further guidance.
> 
> Your point of view has been expressed. That and another's point have been acknowledge .
> 
> ...





Dr.G. said:


> I'll second your motion, BigDL. Not all unions are democratic, just as not all organizations, businesses, governments, et al, are democratic. However, my union is democratic and honest, so I shall second the motion.


It has been regularly moved and seconded by Dr.G. 

the floor is open for discussion on the motion:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I have no qualms at all about people joining unions--but I won't accept the notion that they exemplify democracy.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> a shout out to Macfury *GOOD CALL*
> 
> It has been regularly moved and seconded by Dr.G.
> 
> the floor is open for discussion on the motion:


At the turn of the 20th century, unions were vital to the protection of the worker, not their job, but their health and even their lives. Only some unions are at the forefront of trying to protect the health and lives of their members. Sadly, some big unions became just as bad as some big businesses in terms of abuse and corruption. 

Still, one should not totally accept or totally reject all unions, just as we should not fully accept/reject all politicians/political parties due to the actions of some.

Don't ask me why, but I just thought of a famous quote of Lincoln --

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy."


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> You might want to also consider than unions can be and are among the most undemocratic of organizations, using forced policy on members and forced dues and the like, with no option of "opting out" of membership. I see no democracy at all there.


How is that different than citizenship and taxes? If you're a citizen of Canada, you pay taxes and you get to vote on who makes the laws. You don't get to opt out.

If you emigrate to a different country, you're just joining a different union.

I'd never really thought about it before, but it seems to me that unions are very much like modern democracies; most of the people doing the work don't much like the 'leadership' but would rather get on with their lives while having as little to do with the dirty work of politics as possible, and therefore hold their noses and vote for the least objectionable scoundrels as their representatives. Only when things get really bad do the majority of members take any substantive action.

What Harper is counting on is that the majority of Canadians won't care enough to vote against him, and what Iggy et al. will be trying to do is raise some discontent.

What we're likely to get is another minority. Which suits me fine; bring on more government inaction - the less they act, the less they damage.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> What we're likely to get is another minority. Which suits me fine; bring on more government inaction - the less they act, the less they damage.


I'm all for that. A government stuck in neutral is preferable to an activist government any day. 

I would only pine for a Conservative majority if I felt they were serious about a slash-and-burn regimen.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

This from the man who feverishly went on record preferring that The new mayor of T-town wreck everything in his bold quest to start anew. Now you're on the record for saying that a gubbmint stuck in neutral is cool beans? Land sakes good fella, make up your mind.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> This from the man who feverishly went on record preferring that The new mayor of T-town wreck everything in his bold quest to start anew. Now you're on the record for saying that a gubbmint stuck in neutral is cool beans? Land sakes good fella, make up your mind.


I said I would support someone if I felt they were serious about slash-and-burn. I felt that would be true with Ford. He's not an activist--he's a deconstructivist. A dada-esque politician (and I don't mean like Idi Amin).

Varlet.


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I said I would support someone if I felt they were serious about slash-and-burn. I felt that would be true with Ford. He's not an activist--he's a deconstructivist. A dada-esque politician (and I don't mean like Idi Amin).
> 
> Varlet.


You give Ford way too much credit. He's a simpleton.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

crawford said:


> You give Ford way too much credit. He's a simpleton.


If he's a simpleton, then I prefer it to whatever Miller was.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Democracy is dead, at least in Canada and the US. We might as well convert to a right wing dictatorship in both countries and just stop wasting money on elections.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Sadly, some big unions became just as bad as some big businesses in terms of abuse and corruption.


Hence my belief that any sufficiently large institution--business, union, government, etc. is prone to waste, inefficiency and some degree of corruption. So long as this doesn't go to some arbitrary point of excess, and they are overall doing more good than harm, I'm not too bothered by it. Why throw out one system and replace it with another that will (in my view) be prone to the same problems?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

dona83 said:


> Democracy is dead, at least in Canada and the US. We might as well convert to a right wing dictatorship in both countries and just stop wasting money on elections.


Spoken like someone that has never lived under a dictatorship. 

Not that I have either, but we're a long, long, long way from that.

(Incidentally, I don't think the left-wing totalitarian government is any better than the right-wing totalitarian government.)


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

At some point, the extreme right meets the extreme left and they become one and the same - their tactics are identical and the end justifies the means. The political spectrum lines along an arc; the polarities are only theoretical.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Spoken like someone that has never lived under a dictatorship.
> 
> Not that I have either, but we're a long, long, long way from that.
> 
> (Incidentally, I don't think the left-wing totalitarian government is any better than the right-wing totalitarian government.)


If you are from Ontario, Then you have lived under a dictatorship,
It was called the "Mike Harris Regime". (With a memorial for those that died in Walkerton)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dolawren said:


> If you are from Ontario, Then you have lived under a dictatorship,
> It was called the "Mike Harris Regime". (With a memorial for those that died in Walkerton)


Walkerton existed entirely outside of the Mike Harris government. The Mike Harris government was not a dictatorship any more than McGunity's is. I recall a much more vigorous economy during that period. Much better than Ontario today.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

dolawren said:


> If you are from Ontario, Then you have lived under a dictatorship,
> It was called the "Mike Harris Regime". (With a memorial for those that died in Walkerton)


Yeah. My dad grew up in Burma and was there when the military coup ended democracy in what was a thriving country, and is now a very poor one with a terrible record of human rights violations. He was lucky to get out, but most people he grew up with were not so lucky. There's no comparison to the the Mike Harris regime. 

Frankly, that's a little trivializing to people who actually live under dictatorships. 

Dad has just as many complaints about the stupidity and abuses of Canadian government (at all levels) as anyone else, but ask him on any day and he'll tell you that this is a great country and he's lucky he lives here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Yeah. My dad grew up in Burma and was there when the military coup ended democracy in what was a thriving country, and is now a very poor one with a terrible record of human rights violations. He was lucky to get out, but most people he grew up with were not so lucky. There's no comparison to the the Mike Harris regime.
> 
> Frankly, that's a little trivializing to people who actually live under dictatorships.
> 
> Dad has just as many complaints about the stupidity and abuses of Canadian government (at all levels) as anyone else, but ask him on any day and he'll tell you that this is a great country and he's lucky he lives here.


I heartily agree, Sonal. The fact that an election removed Ernie Eaves from power is the final nail in the coffin of the theory that Harris was running a dictatorial "regime."


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Under Harris, we in Ontario could openly criticize Harris and his government without fear that doing so would directly result in consequences for our health, welfare and safety, and we could reasonably expect that we would have an election after a few years, during which Harris would be removed from power if the majority of voters chose another candidate.

Ergo, not a dictatorship.

I'm no fan of his, and I know we all get passionate about our politics, but there is no democracy? Dictatorship? Let's not get carried away.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Yeah. My dad grew up in Burma and was there when the military coup ended democracy in what was a thriving country, and is now a very poor one with a terrible record of human rights violations. He was lucky to get out, but most people he grew up with were not so lucky. There's no comparison to the the Mike Harris regime.
> 
> Frankly, that's a little trivializing to people who actually live under dictatorships.
> 
> Dad has just as many complaints about the stupidity and abuses of Canadian government (at all levels) as anyone else, but ask him on any day and he'll tell you that this is a great country and he's lucky he lives here.


Oh...I don't know, Ask all those mentally ill people that were tossed out onto the streets
by the then Mike Harris government, Or even those disabled recipients that weren't
allowed to save for retirement.

Done trodden and beaten, A lot of them couldn't afford medication for their illnesses,
Living on scraps and leavings in garbage cans. Reduced to sleeping in doorways.

This was not Burma, This was supposed to be a civilized society,
Still the effects of that era is ever present in the streets of Toronto,
Whatever is left over still can't trust the new governments that replaced him.

Even Ford has the brain washings of Mike Harris,
Pity those that cross into his range finder.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

dolawren said:


> This was not Burma, This was supposed to be a civilized society


So was Burma in the 60s. 

I don't _like_ Harris but not liking him and thinking that his policies did a lot of social harm isn't the same as "we live under a dictatorship with no democracy."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dolawren said:


> Whatever is left over still can't trust the new governments that replaced him.


McGuinty made his own bed.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Macfury said:


> McGuinty made his own bed.


Inherited his bed.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I think we have grown up with a socially constructed view of what democracy is. Personally I never did believe it meant a "majority rules" concept, and I have gravitated more along the lines of John Dewey's approach. Below is an article which, I think, is germane to this discussion, and hopefully some might find entertaining.


John Ryder is Professor of Philosophy and the Director of International Programs for the State University of New York. E-mail: [email protected]@suny.edu

It is in three parts.


These are not good times for democracy. As a practical goal for political development, it has been used too readily to justify foreign and military policies and practices that are so questionable in their wisdom as to render the very term “democracy” undesirable in many places and contexts. Many people around the world are now suspicious that an appeal to democracy is a veiled attempt by those making the appeal to dominate, to manipulate, or in other ways to advance their own interests at others’ expense. The most glaring example is the use of democracy as an ideal by the US, the UK, and their allies in Europe and elsewhere in the world, to justify the war in Iraq. In Russia, to give another example, the appeal to democracy to justify the economic, political and social perversities of the Yeltsin era has seriously damaged the ability to appeal to democracy as a guiding principle or an end in view. Along similar lines, there are political scientists and other theorists who have simply given up on democracy as a valuable component of policy analysis or political theory. In its place some have decided that human rights is a far less polluted ideal on which to base international political goals.

What does this mean for those of us who think about social and political issues in terms that draw on John Dewey and other figures and traditions in American philosophy? First, democracy as a social and political ideal is far too important to surrender to those who would misunderstand or abuse it for their own ends. Second, there is more than one way to understand democracy, and the meaning Dewey and others have given it differs considerably from the versions advanced by Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and Mr. Yeltsin. For that reason alone it is important to continue to develop Dewey’s line of thought to the greatest extent possible.

The idea I would like to explore today is yet a third reason for continuing to draw on Dewey and his pragmatist tradition in the exploration of appropriate approaches to contemporary social issues. Dewey’s understanding of democracy was outward looking. Nearly a century ago, in Democracy and Education, he defined democracy in part in terms of the value of pursuing shared interests with those beyond the boundaries that define one’s own experience (Dewey 1985). Dewey meant boundaries of all kinds, including national boundaries. This means that democracy for Dewey is inherently and necessarily internationalist, not in the sense that a democratic society should or may export democracy as it pleases, but in the sense that a democratic society and people are expected to make every effort to identify, or if need be to create, common interests across international borders. Democracy in this sense is cosmopolitan, and it is this cosmopolitanism that I would like to develop.

Cosmopolitanism is for us a guiding principle, the discussion of which can be framed by two questions, the first methodological and the second substantial: 1) how does the principle of cosmopolitanism function? and 2) what is its content? We shall consider the two questions in order.

There are two ways in which much of the relevant contemporary philosophical literature treats cosmopolitanism. One of them is as an abstract principle from which we can deduce moral commitments, for example about human rights (Brock and Brighouse 2005). In this sense, cosmopolitanism is the principle that moral obligations apply to all people regardless of their national identity or citizenship. This is the principle of cosmopolitanism that is rooted in Kant. Recently analytically oriented philosophers have gone to considerable lengths to explore the justification and implications of this principle, frequently to valuable effect. The point I want to make here does not concern the details of the arguments in this literature. Rather, I wish simply to make the methodological point that the philosophical exploration of cosmopolitanism as a guiding principle, and as a crucial component of pragmatist, Deweyan democracy, does not proceed this way.

The broader point has to do with the nature of meaning, justification and valuation within a pragmatist philosophical inquiry. Following both Dewey and before him Peirce, the meaning of a concept is to be found in the effects it produces when applied in relevant ways. In this sense, the meaning of cosmopolitanism depends on what difference it makes or would make if it were taken to heart, for example, in public policy or for individual behavior. Substantially, this point bears on the content of the concept, to which we will turn below. Methodologically, however, it points to an important distinction between pragmatist and analytic philosophy. The analytic philosopher tends to be interested in the implications of a concept, specifically those that are revealed through logical analysis. The pragmatist philosopher, by contrast, is interested in what happens when a concept is put to work. In the end the distinction may be less stark than it appears because in practice it is often more a matter of emphasis than an absolute distinction. Nonetheless, it does point to an important difference in approach to philosophical inquiry, a difference that will distinguish this more or less Deweyan analysis of cosmopolitanism from the bulk of the philosophical literature currently in print.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Part two:

The understanding of meaning is one of the important distinguishing traits of Dewey’s and other pragmatists’ methodology. Another concerns justification and valuation. In this respect William James, and to a lesser extent Richard Rorty, provide the model: an idea is justified to the extent that it works for us. When put this baldly, the point seems controversial at best and foolish or even dangerous at worst. James and Rorty both spent a good deal of their energy responding to objections to this understanding of the value of an idea, and I will not rehearse their points here. For our purposes, suffice it to say that we will assess the value of cosmopolitanism as a guiding principle by determining whether when applied, again in policy or personal respects, it contributes to outcomes that we have adequate reasons to desire. As in the case of meaning, this distinguishing methodological trait of pragmatist inquiry distinguishes it from more analytically oriented approaches. As a result our evaluation of the significance of cosmopolitanism will differ from the examinations of the concept in much of the philosophical literature. In the end our interest is not in the deductively inferred implications of cosmopolitanism but in its practical effects and their value.
To continue the methodological theme, a second way in which the principle of cosmopolitanism appears in much of the recent literature is as a deductively drawn conclusion from other principles, for example from a principle of justice. A good deal of the work based on John Rawls has this character. Another obvious example of such a principle would be human equality, so that if we accept the proposition that all human beings are morally equal then eventually it follows that the distribution of goods, in particular such moral goods as human rights, cannot justifiably be based on citizenship or nationality or ethnicity; hence cosmopolitanism. Arguments like this, though much more fully developed and articulated, are extensively discussed in the literature. And not surprisingly there is a good deal of disagreement about them. As in the previous case, though, I am not interested here in discussing the details. I simply want to point out that whatever interest and value there may be in considering the question whether cosmopolitanism follows from any other moral or political principles we might hold, it is at least as important, and maybe more so, to consider whether cosmopolitanism as a guiding principle does the work we want it to do. This kind of inquiry, and it is the distinctively pragmatist approach, will in the end do us more social and individual good than any other. More specifically, cosmopolitanism will be justified because it is a wise way for us to understand ourselves in the current political and international environment. It may in fact be wiser than the alternatives.
Let us move now from the methodological to the substantial question: what do we mean by cosmopolitanism? Though the fuller meaning of the principle can emerge only as we develop its effects in application, it is possible to begin with a working definition, and in this case it is a definition that is tied directly to Dewey’s general account of democracy. The principle of cosmopolitanism calls on us to take to heart, that is to take seriously, the interests we share with those beyond our own ethnic, national and cultural borders. It is an internationalism, though it is more than that. If internationalism means to value international interaction and cooperation, then cosmopolitanism goes further and asks of us that we interact with others in ways that allow us to identify, and where necessary to create, common interests that enable us to work together in their pursuit.
This is an important point because it helps us to distinguish our sense of cosmopolitanism from another fairly common way of understanding the term. For some, cosmopolitanism means to be at home in the world, or at least to be able to feel more or less at home wherever one is. There is a virtue in this, in that those who are able to feel more or less at home wherever they are can be open to a fairly broad range of experiences, and that itself is a good. The problem with cosmopolitanism in this sense is that it is severally limited. For one thing, in practice it is an unduly elitist principle because it applies only to a small segment of the population. It is a tiny minority of the world’s population that has the opportunity to spend enough time abroad to develop the sense of comfort cosmopolitanism in this sense is describing. The only segment of the population to which this principle can apply consists of those people who have the wealth and the opportunity to travel a good deal or to work abroad. While feeling at home wherever they are may be a virtue for them, it is a virtue for such a small number of people that it can never rise to the level of an important guiding principle.
A second and more important limitation of cosmopolitanism in this sense is that it also does not rise to the level of a foundation for public policy. It is a principle of personal value, which is not a bad thing but is nonetheless severally limited. If cosmopolitanism is, as I am suggesting, tied to the very nature of democracy itself, then it must have to do with more than personal satisfaction and the richness of an individual life.
Another sense of cosmopolitanism, this time having to do with institutions rather than individuals, which we should distinguish from ours, is that cosmopolitanism means world government. There is a great deal of disagreement about whether world government is an ideal worth pursuing, and one can easily imagine the arguments that may be advanced on either side of the issue. On the one hand, world government can provide consistency and continuity of policy, a value in a globally integrated environment. On the other hand, a single world government presents a danger in that there is no other comparable power that can serve as a counterweight if and when it goes bad. However the ideal of a world government might fare in the debate, it is virtually certain that for the near future it is a thoroughly unrealistic ideal. Simply consider the objections made in the United States to the United Nations and the World Court. It is not difficult to imagine how deep would be the resistance to world government. It is important to understand, though, that cosmopolitanism in the sense in which we are developing and defending it here neither requires nor expects world government. It would not necessarily be opposed to it, but that is another matter. Cosmopolitanism in our sense is not a form of political organization, but an ideal that has policy and behavioral implications.
So cosmopolitanism is something other than world government, and something more than an individual interest in other nations and cultures and an ability to function to some comfortable extent in them. It is rather something of an obligation of democratic societies and democratically minded individuals. The cosmopolitan obligation, if we may put it this way, is to use our public and where appropriate individual resources to develop common cause with individuals, institutions and governments abroad. Let us be clear about this. To develop common cause, that is to pursue common interests, with those beyond our own national boundaries is on this view not merely something that is nice, or desirable, or admirable, or interesting. It is a democratic responsibility, an obligation on those of us who would claim to be democrats or to value democratic institutions and societies. It includes the necessity for respect for other peoples, nations, histories and cultures; a desire to move beyond one’s own history and categories to attempt to understand others; a readiness to work collaboratively with others to advance shared interests and solve shared problems; a willingness at least and better an eagerness on the part of national governments, if we are to think about policy oriented cosmopolitanism, to suspend to some degree national interest as traditionally understood in favor of the promotion of common interests among nations, their governments, and their people.
Dewey was clear that democracy as he understood it, and as we understand it here, has its roots in community. In Democracy and Education he derives the basic characteristics of democracy from the basic traits of communities, and they are, fundamentally, the collaborative pursuit of common interests. This is the reason that Dewey in effect identifies democracy with community. He extends the observation, however, to say that a community cannot remain self-enclosed and isolated from those around it. The same processes and habits of mind that bind a community together must, if the community itself is to prosper, be extended beyond the confines of the community, beyond its boundaries. Because among the boundaries that circumscribe our various forms of communities are national boundaries, democracy means in its core the pursuit by members of a democratic society of common interests with the people of other nations and their institutions. This is the sense in which cosmopolitanism is part and parcel of democracy, and if democracy can be identified, as Dewey does, with community, then it can equally well be identified with cosmopolitanism.
So we have identified three aspects of cosmopolitanism: 1) it is a central trait of democracy; 2) it is therefore a democratic responsibility; and 3) it means the sustained attempt to develop and pursue common interests across national borders. In the exercise of this democratic responsibility we can expect to embody other distinctive traits of a democratic society and way of life. There are two that are especially important: fallibilism and experimentalism.
We began this discussion by pointing out that recent military and political adventures by a few of the leading liberal democracies have placed democracy itself in a precarious position in the contemporary world. One of the reasons this has happened is that the leadership in the US and elsewhere has allowed ideological rather than democratic principles to drive their policy decisions. Ideology, by which I mean the tenacious commitment to a set of principles in the face of experience and evidence that may suggest otherwise, is in fact one of the most profound dangers for a democratic society. In the 20th century it strangled whatever democratic potential socialism may have had, and now it threatens the viability even of liberal democracy. A rigid commitment to and insistence on the adequacy of one’s ideas, principles and policies make it unlikely that one will revise them when events do not go as predicted, and they make it less likely that new problems will be adequately understood and that solutions to them will be found.
The democratic alternative to ideological commitment and tenacity is fallibilism and experimentalism. Fallibilism means simply the assumption that even our most cherished ideas and values may be mistaken, or at least that they may need revision in the face of change in our individual and social environments. Our ideas and principles are not rock-solid foundations on which we stand; they are tools with which we make our way through our lives. And any tool can become dull and lose its effectiveness if and when the material on which it is put to work changes its characteristics. If new material appears that is harder or more resistant than that with which we are accustomed to deal, our tools need to be sharpened, improved, or even replaced with something more appropriate to the changed nature of the task we face. To understand ideas through this metaphor of course raises a set of epistemological questions and problems, with which pragmatist philosophers have engaged themselves for more than a century. We do not need to rehearse all of that here, so let us take it as an operative assumption that a plausible instrumentalist understanding of ideas and principles can be reasonably sustained.

If we embrace such an instrumentalist conception of ideas and principles, then fallibilism is a natural approach for us to take. That it is also an important aspect of democracy results from the fact that a democratic society is one in which its members individually and collectively engage the problems they face with an eye toward their resolution and the maintenance of conditions that are conducive to individual and social development. To achieve this end in any sort of sustainable way we must be willing and able to examine our ideas, principles, and habits and revise them as needed. The cosmopolitan principle embodies this same understanding and approach. To pursue common interests with people and nations beyond our own requires that we at least be willing to examine critically the principles and commitments that we bring to the process. It also requires that we be willing, and even eager, to try to understand the world and whatever problems we face from the point or points of view that our partners bring to the process. And it requires, in the process of identifying and developing common interests with others, that we be willing and able to revise those with which we began. These predispositions that the pursuit of common interests requires are precisely what it would mean to take fallibilism seriously. To attempt to interact with others toward any kind of common end, or with a common purpose, without such fallibilist predispositions would doom the process to failure. This is the reason that the current government in the US is having as much difficulty as it is in its foreign policy. It operates with ideological and very much undemocratic and non-cosmopolitan purposes.
If the cosmopolitan principle embodies a democratic fallibilism, then it equally well embodies a democratic experimentalism. To the extent that it means exploring new forms of interaction with international partners, cosmopolitanism is itself an experiment. If we consider foreign policy to illustrate the point, there are painfully few examples of cases in which nation states have set aside their internally developed interests to seek common ground with other states. The most outstanding case in which this has been done is the European Union, in which a growing number of nations have willingly, in some cases eagerly, set aside internally determined interests in pursuit of common interests and common ends with their neighbors. And whatever else it is, the European Union is a grand experiment, the outcome of which remains uncertain.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Part three:

However it turns out, the European instinct is the right one. Despite being bogged down in its own bureaucracy, it is experimenting; it is trying policies that have not been attempted before in an effort to develop new solutions to new problems. Sometimes the experiments fail – consider the fate of the constitution – but they are succeeding more than they are failing, and that so far is the EU’s great achievement. Such an experimental frame of mind is the sort of mood that the cosmopolitan principle calls for, and as should be clear by now, it is also an appropriate trait of a vibrant democracy.
We may still ask at this point what we can expect cosmopolitanism to help us achieve. The obvious first item on the list, because it is built into the definition of cosmopolitanism, would be common interests. It may be obvious, but its significance should not be underestimated, particularly given certain features of the contemporary world. As the processes of globalization transform nearly every feature of our lives, from the economy to medicine to art, science and education, the significance of the traditional nation state is fairly rapidly decreasing. Unfortunately the relations among nation states have not yet caught up with this transformation. In a world as interrelated as ours is it is potentially catastrophic for nations to continue to interact with one another as they have throughout the roughly 400 years since they developed. The member states of the European Union appear to understand this, but other states are slower to catch on. In the area of foreign policy the world will be a safer place for all of us to the extent that governments adopt the cosmopolitan principle and begin to work with one another in the pursuit of shared interests and their realization.
In order for the pursuit of shared interests to produce fruitful results in commerce, education, research, foreign policy and other fields, there must be other changes in our habits and practices. The cosmopolitanism we are defending here is conducive, for example, to increased and more refined communication. This is a good in itself, but it is also a condition of the ongoing development of democratic social relations both within any community and among communities. In turn, putting into practice the cosmopolitan principle will lead to democratic development overall. Democracy is not a fixed and stable condition. It is quite capable of being eroded, degraded, and of turning into something else. Even currently democratic societies will benefit from practices and policies that exercise the crucial characteristics of democratic communities. Furthermore, with respect to international relations, democracies behave best when they lead by example. A serious cosmopolitanism is the best example we can provide, and the way most likely to attract other peoples to democratic social and political structures that are conducive to their own individual and social development. To the extent that they embody the traits of democracy and cosmopolitanism that we have been describing – common interests, experimentalism, fallibilism, communication, etc. – such structures carry with them a deeper respect for human integrity and human rights, however we might define them. And in the end, as the model of the European Union suggests to us, democratic development and the pursuit of shared interests across borders, and a foreign policy that exemplifies these values, are more conducive than any alternative to the prospects for peace.
To put to work the cosmopolitan principle is no easy matter. We have talked about it in general terms, pointing out its centrality to democracy, its meaning, and its pragmatic justification. But we have not considered the obstacles to policy development along cosmopolitan lines, and there are many. There is, first, the fact that the principle itself is little understood by many people, including national leaders, especially its democratic importance. Second, in many nations, including and perhaps especially the US, it is difficult for policy makers and influential thinkers to accept the prospect of setting aside national interests in pursuit of common interests with other nations. Third, and perhaps most seriously, there is the fact that the world includes both nations and non-national forces that have other agendas than the development of shared interests with us. How we are to interact with them presents a distinct challenge to cosmopolitanism. But as serious as this challenge is, it does not count against cosmopolitanism as a critical democratic value. It simply points out that in its application we must grapple with the world as it is, and not as we would like it to be in theory.
Notwithstanding such difficulties, the fact remains, or so I have argued, that the cosmopolitan principle, grounded in an instrumental, Deweyan understanding of democracy, is a crucial component of our interactions with one another and of democratic development in general.
Works cited
Brock, Gillian and Brighouse, Harry, eds. 2005. The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dewey, John. 1985. Democracy and Education, Middle Works, Vol. 9. Ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale, Il: Southern Illinois University Press.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Europe is succeeding? Heaven help them.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Spring flooding?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Good points.
> 
> For a democracy do we have that much to brag on, when we tell the population of say Libya, they'er in dire need of a democracy.
> 
> Shouldn't we stay at home and fight for or fight to eliminate undemocratic institutions?


Private institutions/companies need not be and often aren't democratic last I checked. Next are families.... if the kids out vote the parents so be it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dona83 said:


> Democracy is dead, at least in Canada and the US. We might as well convert to a right wing dictatorship in both countries and just stop wasting money on elections.


 This post is completely bogus and belittles every true dictatorship out there. 

If you think that the US and Canada have dictatorships I suggest you move to Libya to find out what one is really like.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> At some point, the extreme right meets the extreme left and they become one and the same - their tactics are identical and the end justifies the means. The political spectrum lines along an arc; the polarities are only theoretical.


Excellent post Max. :clap:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Spoken like someone that has never lived under a dictatorship.
> 
> Not that I have either, but we're a long, long, long way from that.
> 
> (Incidentally, I don't think the left-wing totalitarian government is any better than the right-wing totalitarian government.)


+1 These kind of posts spout hyperbole to the extreme. Not in the least bit informed or truthful and as I said do a disservice to reality and understanding.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dolawren said:


> I*f you are from Ontario, Then you have lived under a dictatorship,*
> It was called the "Mike Harris Regime". (With a memorial for those that died in Walkerton)


What NONSENSE and abject hyberbole.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

After some thought, I think democracy needs to be a balancing act: personal freedoms balanced with not impinging on the freedoms of others, combined with working together for the common good where individual efforts would not be sufficient, and being mature enough to understand the difference between 'needs' and 'wants' and being able to give up some of one's own wants for the fulfillment of other's needs. 

The problems arise when defining 'needs'. We're pretty spoiled here.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> After some thought, I think democracy needs to be a balancing act: personal freedoms balanced with not impinging on the freedoms of others,* combined with working together for the common good* where individual efforts would not be sufficient, and being mature enough to understand the difference between 'needs' and 'wants' and being able to give up some of one's own wants for the fulfillment of other's needs.
> 
> The problems arise when defining 'needs'. We're pretty spoiled here.


This sounds like the ideas/ideals of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Who some consider the forerunner of socialism/communism... you may want to think again... Just sayin'...

The "common good" is IMO a logical fallacy. There may be a "majority good" but there is, again IMO, no such thing as a "common good"... Other than the very basics for the subsistence of living.... i.e. air, water and enough food to live on from day to day... which are very modest indeed.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I think the philosophy goes back further than Rousseau. 'Community' has much the same etymology as commune, but dates back to the 14th Century, not the 17th.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> I think the philosophy goes back further than Rousseau. 'Community' has much the same etymology as commune, but dates back to the 14th Century, not the 17th.


Regardless of the etymology, (there are always subtle historical and contextual differences) the concept of the "common good" IMO is a logical fallacy. You can date the origins wherever you choose to... Rousseau was the philosopher that immediately sprang to mind... the principle is the same.... as you seem to indicate yourself.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

screature said:


> Regardless of the etymology the concept of the "common good" IMO is a logical fallacy. You can date it where ever you want to. Rousseau was the philosopher that immediately sprang to mind....


True, screature. There is a word in Hebrew called "tzedakah". In the bible, tzedakah is used to refer to justice, kindness and ethical behavior. In post-biblical Hebrew, tzedakah refers to charity and giving to those in need to serve a common good for all.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

screature said:


> Regardless of the etymology, (there are always subtle historical and contextual differences) the concept of the "common good" IMO is a logical fallacy. You can date the origins wherever you choose to... Rousseau was the philosopher that immediately sprang to mind... the principle is the same.... as you seem to indicate yourself.


You don't believe in common good. Fair enough. I'm not going to argue with your belief system.

I, on the other hand, do believe that there are certain things that do work towards the betterment of _all_ things for _all_ people. You may certainly be capable of digging your own hole and burying your own feces, but if you dig that hole is such a spot as to affect your neighbour's water, you may not care if your neighbour gets cholera and dies. "Common good" would be to have common (or combined) treatment of waste apart from the place where water is drawn. Common good and efficiency of scale are two things which work together to promote civilization and a higher standard of living.

But by all means - take your shovel and find yourself 5 acres.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Mleh, that is about a crisp an argument and rebuttal as I have read. Wonderful reply.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> After some thought, I think democracy needs to be a balancing act: personal freedoms balanced with not impinging on the freedoms of others, combined with working together for the common good where individual efforts would not be sufficient, and being mature enough to understand the difference between 'needs' and 'wants' and being able to give up some of one's own wants for the fulfillment of other's needs.
> 
> The problems arise when defining 'needs'. We're pretty spoiled here.


What does any of this have to do with democracy? You're describing your own preferred philosophical framework for life, not a political system.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Macfury said:


> What does any of this have to do with democracy? You're describing your own preferred philosophical framework for life, not a political system.


The question was "What is Democracy to you?" That's what the goal of democracy would be, to me. I'm goal oriented.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> You don't believe in common good. Fair enough. I'm not going to argue with your belief system.
> 
> *I, on the other hand, do believe that there are certain things that do work towards the betterment of all things for all people.* You may certainly be capable of digging your own hole and burying your own feces, but if you dig that hole is such a spot as to affect your neighbour's water, you may not care if your neighbour gets cholera and dies. "Common good" would be to have common (or combined) treatment of waste apart from the place where water is drawn. Common good and efficiency of scale are two things which work together to promote civilization and a higher standard of living.
> 
> But by all means - take your shovel and find yourself 5 acres.


But therein lies the rub. What if *your* "interests" (what is good for you) run in opposition to *mine* (what is good for me)? This situation is all too common in life and very rarely can such a "common" good/ground be found. As I said, air, water, and enough food to eat from day to day... the very basics for subsistence for life which are very moderate indeed....

Beyond that the rest is very, very complicated indeed and so the "common good" is far from a basis on which to determine what is "democracy" IMO.

What about personal freedom/liberty as a basis for democracy and the ability to choose for oneself...? If I live is a predominately Muslim society it is not in the "common good" that I believe in Jesus Christ... What do we do then...? What is I am an atheist? 
One could answer tolerance is the answer, but not for "fundamentalist" believers who would oppose any dissenting views... 

As I said the concept of a "common good" is a logical fallacy and one that IMO can and never will be realized for it is a myth. It sounds good in principle but in reality does not and cannot exist.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

This is not unlike people commonly appealing to some imagined "common sense." A bit of a crock.

That said, I agree with MLeh's well-stated argument characterizing democracy as an exquisitely nuanced balancing act. It is a civilized and tolerant definition.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> This is not unlike people commonly appealing to some imagined "common sense." A bit of a crock.
> 
> That said, I agree with MLeh's well-stated argument characterizing democracy as an exquisitely nuanced balancing act. It is a civilized and tolerant definition.


I'm halfway there. Any system sucks if the people who live in it are miserable punkasses. The balancing act can't be encoded into the structure of the democracy--the balancing act needs to be practiced by individuals on a daily basis.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Macfury said:


> the balancing act needs to be practiced by individuals on a daily basis.


This.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

+1000%.

Such things cannot be legislated or enforced. People either voluntarily give of themselves or they do not. There's no half-way measure possible.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I'm halfway there. Any system sucks if the people who live in it are miserable punkasses. The balancing act can't be encoded into the structure of the democracy--*the balancing act needs to be practiced by individuals on a daily basis.*





Max said:


> This is not unlike people commonly appealing to some imagined "common sense." A bit of a crock.
> 
> That said, I agree with MLeh's well-stated argument characterizing democracy as an *exquisitely nuanced balancing act. It is a civilized and tolerant definition.*





MLeh said:


> This.





Max said:


> +1000%.
> 
> Such things cannot be legislated or enforced. *People either voluntarily give of themselves or they do not*. There's no half-way measure possible.


On these points I do agree. However, regrettably I also do believe it is a rather utopian ideal, one that has never been truly and fully realized in the history of human kind and one that I believe will never be fully achieved, but nonetheless it is worth pursuing as the alternatives have shown themselves to be even less desirable. 

As long as we live in a world in which we have contact with one another there will always arise situations where at least one person's interests are in opposition to others. Our world is far too complex a place and we far too complex in our desires, needs and wants to ever have a "common" good that is universal to us all beyond the very most basic of things.

Thus "democracy" is the system that we have created to try and achieve this balancing act and to try and achieve a "majority" good where by there is a tyranny of the majority, all the while trying to accommodate the minority in a manner that the minority can tolerate without rebellion. 

All the while democracy must be flexible enough to realize that the "majority" is in constant flux and thus why we need to have periodic testing and checking of that majority opinion, most often in the form of elections.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

screature said:


> This post is completely bogus and belittles every true dictatorship out there.
> 
> If you think that the US and Canada have dictatorships I suggest you move to Libya to find out what one is really like.


Your right wingers will be in power for the next 20 years guaranteed. Of course it doesn't matter to you because it's your party of choice. We'll see where this country is in 20 years.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

If the PC government has their way,
Then it will be the "Corporate Country of Canada"

Is that what you want...Hello Feudal system.

"Yes M'lord" "Whatever you say M'lord"

"Three bags full M'lord"


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

If you don't believe me, Then fine.
Let's try to understand what Corporations are for the rest of us non sheep.

They are a body that rules themselves, A country within a country with their own politics,
They hire and fire on a moments whim, They can't be controlled by outside forces.

They can be bent, But only if it's within their own interests, Profit is the goal.

Monsters that can be allowed to roam freely within any country.

Unfortunately giving bait with tax cuts makes them propagate even more.
Not exactly the best way to create jobs, Perhaps in the short term it is,
But not in the long term.

Unions make them very unhappy.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

dolawren said:


> If the PC government has their way,
> Then it will be the "Corporate Country of Canada"
> 
> Is that what you want...Hello Feudal system.
> ...


Sadly there is a percentage of the population that would accept this arrangement if they are assured they have the inalienable right to gripe, bemoan their lot in life and slag superiors with impunity...that is until they find out differently. 

Of course at that time it's far too late for them. The rest of the heard will be assured it's all ok, nothing to see here, it was all buddy's fault. *Now GET BACK TO WORK.*


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

The PCs among us might respond that balance is required in all things and that a little capitalism is a good cure for the 'entitlement issues' that seem to plague the left.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Sadly there is a percentage of the population that would accept this arrangement if they are assured they have the inalienable right to gripe, bemoan their lot in life and slag superiors with impunity...that is until they find out differently.
> 
> Of course at that time it's far too late for them. The rest of the heard will be assured it's all ok, nothing to see here, it was all buddy's fault. *Now GET BACK TO WORK.*


Well, We can't all hire migrant workers to do everything in this country,
Although I'm sure the PC government would love to have everyone working below
minimum wage 7 days a week.

Wouldn't that be nice to eliminate the middle class.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm not PC but I can get behind that sentiment!

Everything has to be paid for; we just seem to break down as to who should be paying for what. In the end, if the individual doesn't pay, the state pays. And the state is paid by the taxpayers. Hence, we end up paying anyway. To me it's a question of efficiencies and best, most direct application of energies.

On the other hand, the popular notion that government must always be run like a business strikes me as another theoretical ideal that bears closer scrutiny. For some folks it's a mantra.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Max said:


> I'm not PC but I can get behind that sentiment!
> 
> Everything has to be paid for; we just seem to break down as to who should be paying for what. In the end, if the individual doesn't pay, the state pays. And the state is paid by the taxpayers. Hence, we end up paying anyway. To me it's a question of efficiencies and best, most direct application of energies.
> 
> On the other hand, the popular notion that government must always be run like a business strikes me as another theoretical ideal that bears closer scrutiny. For some folks it's a mantra.


I can agree with you on your points.

I also am concerned about how some governments allow resource development, how much is paid for the resource and who's the principle beneficiary by the development of the resource. 

It seems to me, many governments sell resources short and are all too willing to put the taxpayer hook for any liabilities, solely for a photo opportunity of "shovels in the ground."


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

BigDL said:


> I can agree with you on your points.
> 
> I also am concerned about how some governments allow resource development, how much is paid for the resource and who's the principle beneficiary by the development of the resource.
> 
> It seems to me, many governments sell resources short and are all too willing to put the taxpayer hook for any liabilities, solely for a photo opportunity of "shovels in the ground."


I'm sure the Potash company would have been sold had the PC's had a majority,
But as it is, We have only lost Petro Canada in the past for the moment.

Bet they are glad that Timmies is Canadian owned again though.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

dolawren said:


> But as it is, We have only lost Petro Canada in the past for the moment.


And that of course was courtesy of the efforts of Paul Martin and the Liberals in 2004.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dolawren said:


> I'm sure the Potash company would have been sold had the PC's had a majority,
> But as it is, We have only lost Petro Canada in the past for the moment.


I boycotted PetroCanada until it was sold.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

dolawren said:


> Unions make them very unhappy.


They make me very unhappy. By all means feel free to withdraw your labour, but give the employer the right to fire striking workers as well.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> They make me very unhappy. By all means feel free to withdraw your labour, but give the employer the right to fire striking workers as well.


Trade offs. To enjoy a lot of predictability employers and workers give to get.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

SINC said:


> And that of course was courtesy of the efforts of Paul Martin and the Liberals in 2004.


Found easily on the web:


> The Government bought out BP in 1975 and renamed it Petro-Canada.
> 
> The idea then was to have some actual control on petroleum prices and provide an option for consumers (ie REAL competition for the big oil companies), while theoretically also generating additional funds for the Canadian public.
> 
> Petro-Canada was to offer a real option and competition in an otherwise very tight industry where collusion has LONG been suspected. Since *Mulroney sold it off* completely back to the private sector


Yet more:



> An upsurge of Canadian nationalism in the 1960s and early 1970s led the Liberal governments of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau to implement policies aimed at regulating foreign investment. The views of Walter L. Gordon were especially influential in the 1960s. Further left, the Waffle emerged in the New Democratic Party on a program of Canadian economic nationalism and independence. These developments led to measures such as the creation of Petro-Canada, a government-owned oil and gas company, implemented by the Trudeau government in the mid-1970s to increase Canadian control over the oil industry. The crown corporation was created as one of the demands of the NDP in exchange for their support of Trudeau's minority government. Trudeau also established the Foreign Investment Review Agency to regulate foreign investment in the economy and limit the takeover of Canadian-owned companies by foreign multinational corporations.
> 
> The election of Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government in the 1984 election brought this period of economic nationalism to an end. *Mulroney's government dismantled FIRA and moved to privatize Petro-Canada.* The Mulroney government's negotiation and implementation of the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement resulted in increased economic integration between the US and Canada, and was opposed by economic nationalists in the 1988 election.
> The Canada-US FTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization may bring branch plants to an end as the elimination of many tariffs and trade controls makes it much easier for a foreign supplier to sell in the Canadian market without having a branch plant in the country. Numerous plants, particularly in the textile and manufacturing sector, have shut down and moved to Mexico or other countries with lower wages and costs of production.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Trade offs. To enjoy a lot of predictability employers and workers give to get.


Higher prices for all, in exchange for a cushy lifestyle for the few. A little bubble of relative wealth among those who support it through higher consumer prices.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> Everything has to be paid for; we just seem to break down as to who should be paying for what. In the end, if the individual doesn't pay, the state pays. And the state is paid by the taxpayers. Hence, we end up paying anyway.


I'm very happy to pay for your health, education, personal security, freedom of expression, environmental and labour protection (i.e. long term security), access to information, and recourse to the legal system if necessary. Indeed, I am quite alarmed by the prospect of profit-motivated corporations utilizing their power to control and profit over your (or anyone else's) needs for any of these things, as I think we all as a society should be.

Corporations are artificial constructs we have developed for the purpose of limiting personal risk in the pursuit of wealth, which isn't inherently a bad thing, but the rights of individuals to generate personal wealth should not take precedence over the needs of the community, or the ecology that supports us all.

Cheers


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Higher prices for all, in exchange for a cushy lifestyle for the few. A little bubble of relative wealth among those who support it through higher consumer prices.


What are you saying, all the wealth is reserved for the top 1%?

Is this a view of "we don't need no stinking middle class?"


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

dolawren said:


> Found easily on the web:


Indeed it is:



> Former Conservative prime minister *Brian Mulroney sold off some of the stock* in the early 1990s, then current *Prime Minister Paul Martin, finance minister at the time, sold more shares in 1995*.


Ottawa to sell Petro-Canada stake - CBC News


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I'm very happy to pay for your health, education, personal security, freedom of expression, environmental and labour protection (i.e. long term security), access to information, and recourse to the legal system if necessary.


I'm not happy to pay for all of yours and I don't want you paying for mine.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

As far as I can tell, the Conservative plan is simple. Mismanage the economy to such an extent that it makes it easy to claim that government can't do anything right.

Two biggest deficits in Canadian history - both under Conservatives.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> What are you saying, all the wealth is reserved for the top 1%?
> 
> Is this a view of "we don't need no stinking middle class?"


The union class isn't a middle class any longer--particularly in the public service. It takes wealth directly from the middle and lower classes to create a new strata of privileged class.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Higher prices for all, in exchange for a cushy lifestyle for the few. A little bubble of relative wealth among those who support it through higher consumer prices.


Right on, Brother Macfury. It's about time someone told it like it needed to be said. Let those who can't afford to heat their homes freeze in the dark. Let those who can't afford food starve in the dark. However, this is why we need a second tier of health care in this country, in that those that get sick will clog up the emergency rooms of the hospitals. Better to have private health care clinics set up for those who have the money to pay for their health care so that they might avoide the lines and waiting. 

"To each according to his or her wealth, from each according to their ability to pay". To the others ............ let them eat Marx. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

SINC said:


> Indeed it is:
> 
> 
> 
> Ottawa to sell Petro-Canada stake - CBC News


Yes, Indeed it is:



> 1975 - Created by the Trudeau Liberals to protect and develop a Canadian presence in the energy sector
> 1979 - The company discovers (with partners Chevron, Mobil and Gulf) the Hibernia oil field off Newfoundland
> 1982 - Discovers oil at Valhalla, Alberta
> 1984 - Discovers Terra Nova oil field off Newfoundland
> ...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm not happy to pay for all of yours and I don't want you paying for mine.


A healthy, well-educated, secure and well-informed citizenry living in a sustainable relationship with the natural environment is, in my opinion, the only stable form civilization can take. Hence, my desire to support these goals is not really altruism, but rather enlightened self-interest.

Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree with Adrian that the Conservatives appear keen to squander Canada's economic and environmental wealth in an effort to create a society that can't afford anything other than to become a client state of the US.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Right on, Brother Macfury. It's about time someone told it like it needed to be said. Let those who can't afford to heat their homes freeze in the dark. Let those who can't afford food starve in the dark. However, this is why we need a second tier of health care in this country, in that those that get sick will clog up the emergency rooms of the hospitals. Better to have private health care clinics set up for those who have the money to pay for their health care so that they might avoide the lines and waiting.
> 
> "To each according to his or her wealth, from each according to their ability to pay". To the others ............ let them eat Marx.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


I know one thing--supporting the mandarin class working at City hall is making it harder for me to pay MY heating bills.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> What are you saying, all the wealth is reserved for the top 1%?
> 
> Is this a view of "we don't need no stinking middle class?"


No, you are seeing this incorrectly, BigDL. Wealth is not "reserved for the top 1%". However, the top 1% of society has wealth, and thus, are entitled to a better standard of living, more of what is needed in life, and much more of what makes life interesting/enjoyable/fun.

Of course we need a middle class. They are the workers and the taxpayers. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ......... so long as their ability helps to generate wealth for the corporations and the top 1%, and that their needs are not too great.

Get with the program, mon ami. Paix.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> No, you are seeing this incorrectly, BigDL. Wealth is not "reserved for the top 1%". However, the top 1% of society has wealth, and thus, are entitled to a better standard of living, more of what is needed in life, and much more of what makes life interesting/enjoyable/fun.
> 
> Of course we need a middle class. They are the workers and the taxpayers. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ......... so long as their ability helps to generate wealth for the corporations and the top 1%, and that their needs are not too great.
> 
> Get with the program, mon ami. Paix.


I did not know avarice/greed was a generation mechanism.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> A healthy, well-educated, secure and well-informed citizenry living in a sustainable relationship with the natural environment is, in my opinion, the only stable form civilization can take. Hence, my desire to support these goals is not really altruism, but rather enlightened self-interest.


Why is it enlightened self-interest? Its just self-interest to achieve your ideals.

I think you missed your decade:


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Why is it enlightened self-interest? Its just self-interest to achieve your ideals.


Why should your health, education, security and clean environment be something I care about? The only reason is that I recognize that my own standard of living depends on others also living in acceptable conditions.

To take the short-term self-interested position of capitalists is to take the position that you can always take the money and run off to somewhere you haven't poisoned the well. But the planet is only so big, and information is getting increasingly hard to control, so this strategy is starting to fail.

It is becoming increasingly necessary that we consider the long-term interests not only of ourselves, but of everyone else on the planet. Because even if we're rich, a billion starving people can still ruin your day.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Why should your health, education, security and clean environment be something I care about? The only reason is that I recognize that my own standard of living depends on others also living in acceptable conditions.


In other words, because that's your worldview, you're perfectly willing to commit ME to supporting it. 

Commitment is the act of devoting one's own resources to achieving one's ideals. Selfishness is committing the resources of others,


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> I did not know avarice/greed was a generation mechanism.


It's not a generation thing, BigDL, but it is a needed component to make enough money to get to the top 1%. As I said, get with the program ......... or sit back in your middle class existence and pay your taxes. 'Tis a brave new world we are in now, and it's best if we know our places/roles in this new world, letting the wealthy and the New Intelligentsia (e.g., Macfury) make the decisions that truly run our lives. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Why is it enlightened self-interest? Its just self-interest to achieve your ideals.
> 
> I think you missed your decade:


Keep on truckin', man. Peace.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

macfury said:


> ...commitment is the act of devoting one's own resources to achieving one's ideals. *selfishness is committing the resources of others*,


+1 brayanc would seem to be in favour of philosopher kings where they decide what is good for us and we simply trust in their benevolence and abide.

So where does democracy enter into his scheme of things I wonder.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> In other words, because that's your worldview, you're perfectly willing to commit ME to supporting it.
> 
> Commitment is the act of devoting one's own resources to achieving one's ideals. Selfishness is committing the resources of others,


It may be a disappointment to you, but we live in communities where we have to accept the allocation of our resources to objectives to which we may not be completely committed.

This is the nature of a democracy.

If you can convince me that allowing my fellow citizens to starve in the streets, suffer preventable illnesses, and wallow in ignorance in order to provide corporate tax breaks or even reduce my own tax burden is a good idea, I may change my position. I'd certainly like to hear your arguments for why our government should cut spending on healthcare, education, and environmental protection, as I'm sure they would be most entertaining.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> It may be a disappointment to you, but we live in communities where we have to accept the allocation of our resources to objectives to which we may not be completely committed.
> 
> This is the nature of a democracy.
> 
> ...


I love the imagery. People starving in the streets. Maybe a grandmother sleeping in a ditch. 

We need no accept these allocations at all. In a democracy we can fight to reduce or limit them as well. Good luck in achieving your Nirvana bryanc, although apparently you can't achieve it by convincing others it's the best plan--you need to use the weight of government coercion to corral other people into supporting it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> I'd certainly like to hear your arguments for why our government should cut spending on healthcare, education, and environmental protection, as I'm sure they would be most entertaining.
> 
> Cheers


The government has not done any of these things and in fact has done quite the opposite, year over they have been increasing transfer payments to the provinces who actually have primary jurisdiction over these matters... as it should be as they are the ones closest to these issues under their jurisdictional authority.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> We need no accept these allocations at all.


Without allocating resources to do so, who will set and enforce environmental or health & safety regulations? Who will do the research that will advance our knowledge of nature? Who will educate our children, put out the fires, police the streets, write the novels, and make the art that defines our culture? Not all of what we do and value as a society can be done for profit. There are social goods that are not direct generators of financial wealth.

You are certainly free to object to how resources are allocated, as am I (and I certainly do object to what our current government uses our money for), but it is ludicrous to propose that we can do without any government or social investment at all.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> The government has not done any of these things


I'm not saying they did. I'm arguing against MF's assertion that they should [stop allocating funding for healthcare/education/etc].


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Without allocating resources to do so, who will set and enforce environmental or health & safety regulations? Who will do the research that will advance our knowledge of nature? Who will educate our children, put out the fires, police the streets, write the novels, and make the art that defines our culture? Not all of what we do and value as a society can be done for profit. There are social goods that are not direct generators of financial wealth.
> 
> You are certainly free to object to how resources are allocated, as am I (and I certainly do object to what our current government uses our money for), but it is ludicrous to propose that we can do without any government or social investment at all.


Fires were put out, children educated, scientific discoveries made and novels written long before the public trough was being filled at these rates.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Fires were put out, children educated, scientific discoveries made and novels written long before the public trough was being filled at these rates.


There were far fewer houses, children, and far less science being done back then. However, I'm not making the case that all government spending is good. Far from it. I would like to see a massive chunk of the budget cut (starting with the F35s and moving on to as much of the remaining corporate welfare I could find) and those funds reallocated to paying down the debt and providing increased social/environmental protection.

You seem to be making the case that "we need not accept these allocations" at all. Which I interpreted to mean that government should not spend anything. If that is not your position, perhaps you could state it more clearly? What should government be collecting taxes for, and who should be paying how much?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The union class isn't a middle class any longer--*particularly in the public service.* It takes wealth directly from the middle and lower classes to create a new strata of privileged class.


+1000

It really has gotten out of hand compared to the private sector.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

So quick question... How are conservatives (as a political school of thought, not the party) different from anarchists?

Don't they both want less government?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> It's not a generation thing, BigDL, but it is a needed component to make enough money to get to the top 1%. As I said, get with the program ......... or sit back in your middle class existence and pay your taxes. 'Tis a brave new world we are in now, and it's best if we know our places/roles in this new world, letting the wealthy and the New Intelligentsia (e.g., Macfury) make the decisions that truly run our lives. Paix, mon ami.


I shall not sit in my middle class existence. 

I shall as a retired person, with the CPP now stacked against me because I had the misfortune to be a boomer born after 1952, with the disregard of the Harper led government to limit any chance of real improvements to the OAS supplement or other government pensions. I shall commence sinking into poverty. Slowly at first, then more rapidly as I rush towards abject poverty and distress without universal heath care, food, shelter or a shred of dignity, with the out right approval of 1%ters and the likes of say our resident rugged individualist.

Speaking of 1%ters isn't there another group in society that identify themselves as such. Their aims and goals seem similar to me. Perhaps the people that fall into the group of 1%ters are all one and the same people?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

You were born after '52 and are retired? Must be nice.

I was born in '57 and still working while slipping into abject poverty by paying so much taxes that I can't save enough in RRSPs to retire by 85...if I live that long.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> I shall not sit in my middle class existence.
> 
> I shall as a retired person, with the CPP now stacked against me because I had the misfortune to be a boomer born after 1952, with the disregard of the Harper led government to limit any chance of real improvements to the OAS supplement or other government pensions. I shall commence sinking into poverty. Slowly at first, then more rapidly as I rush towards abject poverty and distress without universal heath care, food, shelter or a shred of dignity, with the out right approval of 1%ters and the likes of say our resident rugged individualist.
> 
> Speaking of 1%ters isn't there another group in society that identify themselves as such. Their aims and goals seem similar to me. Perhaps the people that fall into the group of 1%ters are all one and the same people?


Bonne chance, mon ami. Sadly, there are many out there in a similar situation as yourself. 

"Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night" by Dylan Thomas

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieve it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

kps said:


> You were born after '52 and are retired? Must be nice.
> 
> I was born in '57 and still working while slipping into abject poverty by paying so much taxes that I can't save enough in RRSPs to retire by 85...if I live that long.


I was in the position to save a junior employee from layoff and by doing so, having the Companies medical benefits for me and my wife until I turn 65 years old at no charge.

I made my decision in the fall of 2005 and retired in the fall of 2008 just in time for the worldwide economic down turn and recession.

Can I pick'em or what?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I commend you on your sacrifice.

I can't see meeting my basic needs with CPP and current RRSPs never mind maintaining a "life style". I'll need a part time job or better still...become a MP or MPP for two terms.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I was thinking of going into the billion dollar jet building business before I retire.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Lawrence said:


> I was thinking of going into the billion dollar jet building business before I retire.


Cool, then I stand an excellent chance of getting into Parliament...perhaps even becoming PM.

Tired of the other nic Dave?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> I was in the position to save a junior employee from layoff and by doing so, having the Companies medical benefits for me and my wife until I turn 65 years old at no charge.
> 
> I made my decision in the fall of 2005 and retired in the fall of 2008 just in time for the worldwide economic down turn and recession.
> 
> Can I pick'em or what?


Good for you, BigDL. That is a worthy sacrifice you made for another person. You have my respect .......... once again. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

kps said:


> Cool, then I stand an excellent chance of getting into Parliament...perhaps even becoming PM.
> 
> Tired of the other nic Dave?


Can't be that hard of a job, Although I have a hard time lying to people,
Couldn't imagine doing it every day for a living, Although, I hear the PC Party is hiring.

Maybe if I made some convincing card board mock up jet models I might get a job.

Never know, Can't be that hard to fool the public.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

*Democracy includes the right to hear all party leaders without censorship*



BigDL said:


> ...when we say democracy What does it mean. ....s


Democracy includes an opportunity to hear different viewpoints. This is particularly important when these are the viewpoints of different political parties vying for seats in Parliament.

There are rules that govern who counts as a party at the federal level. These rules are well-established. Both the Green party of Canada and the Bloc Québecois are federally recognized parties. Any party that has been recognized under these rules must have its leader included in any leaders' debates.

To the extent that the media do not permit the leaders of all federally recognized parties participate fully in nationally televised debates of leaders, the media are violating our democracy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> I shall as a retired person, with the CPP now stacked against me because I had the misfortune to be a boomer born after 1952, with the disregard of the Harper led government to limit any chance of real improvements to the OAS supplement or other government pensions. I shall commence sinking into poverty. Slowly at first, then more rapidly as I rush towards abject poverty and distress without universal heath care, food, shelter or a shred of dignity...


Buh-bye, slugabed...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Dr T said:


> Democracy includes an opportunity to hear different viewpoints. This is particularly important when these are the viewpoints of different political parties vying for seats in Parliament.
> 
> There are rules that govern who counts as a party at the federal level. These rules are well-established. Both the Green party of Canada and the Bloc Québecois are federally recognized parties. Any party that has been recognized under these rules must have its leader included in any leaders' debates.
> 
> To the extent that the media do not permit the leaders of all federally recognized parties participate fully in nationally televised debates of leaders, the media are violating our democracy.


Excellent points, Dr.T. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr T said:


> Democracy includes an opportunity to hear different viewpoints. This is particularly important when these are the viewpoints of different political parties vying for seats in Parliament.
> 
> There are rules that govern who counts as a party at the federal level. These rules are well-established. Both the Green party of Canada and the Bloc Québecois are federally recognized parties. Any party that has been recognized under these rules must have its leader included in any leaders' debates.
> 
> To the extent that the media do not permit the leaders of all federally recognized parties participate fully in nationally televised debates of leaders, the media are violating our democracy.


To this I would add the public air waves are just that public.

Corporations allowed a franchise should have no say over who participates. They should have input into format, presentation, staging, "theatrical" features, if you will, but not who can speak their truth. 

If I'm excited or outraged by one message or the other that's what counts, not whether it is "good" television.

In television circles "eTalk" is good television. Hardly the basis of selecting good governance, in a democracy, in my estimation.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Buh-bye, slugabed...


He is nothing if he is not predictable.

Therefore his feat is worthy of the *Atta'boyya 'Dungood Award.*

I hereby bestow upon Macfury with all rights and privileges accorded thereby an: 

Atta' boy ya' done good.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> To this I would add the public air waves are just that public.
> 
> Corporations allowed a franchise should have no say over who participates. They should have input into format, presentation, staging, "theatrical" features, if you will, but not who can speak their truth.
> 
> ...


I would agree that any leaders debate on any network that takes a lick of government funding (all of them) should allow all of the recognized federal leaders to debate. It's not about their prior success in electing MPs, it's about letting their message, feeble or otherwise, be heard. If a fully privately owned outlet wished to invite just a few leaders, it would be up to them.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

It was good to hear Mr. Harper called out by reporters on only allowing 4 questions and canvassing in a bubble by not meeting "outstanding Canadians" and just meeting the hand picked supporter.

Of course Mr. Harper only showed contempt to the reporters and refused to answer the reporter's questions. 

So much for democracy in a Harper Majority, as Dr.G. might council Shhh! re-education camps in your future anyone?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> It was good to hear Mr. Harper called out by reporters on only allowing 4 questions and canvassing in a bubble by not meeting "outstanding Canadians" and just meeting the hand picked supporter.
> 
> Of course Mr. Harper only showed contempt to the reporters and refused to answer the reporter's questions.
> 
> So much for democracy in a Harper Majority, as Dr.G. might council Shhh! re-education camps in your future anyone?


You are learning, grasshopper. The wise moth remains incognito before he is made incommunicado. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> You are learning, grasshopper. The wise moth remains incognito before he is made incommunicado. Paix, mon ami.


Thank you. Ya gotta' have the stones. Oh my! err huummp! acquire the stone Master.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Thank you. Ya gotta' have the stones. Oh my! err huummp! acquire the stone Master.


Take care in your choice of words, grasshopper, for the trees have ears and the wind has eyes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Thank you. Ya gotta' have the stones. Oh my! err huummp! acquire the stone Master.


Having the cajones to speak out against your kind of politics is no mark of accomplishment. Having the wisdom to know wrong from right policies, beats any "stones" you can muster.


----------

