# The Politics of fear.



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Many Canadians were concerned by the Bush doctrine of using fear as a tool of control. This fear was used to justify everything from the repression of civil liberties to pork-barreling for big business and conservative friendly friends.

In Canada, we were mostly immune to this blatant manipulation until the Bush-loving Harporites(sic) came to power. Since then, the fear-factor has escalated. And why not? It worked for Bush….

Now, the much talk about, five simple priorities has morphed. During the elections it was:
Accountability
Lower taxes
Crime
Child Care
Health Care (remember the promise of wait times?)
( you could go here to view them http://www.conservative.ca/ but it now links to the Government of Canada websites)
http://www.faa-lfi.gc.ca/
http://www.fin.gc.ca/budtoce/2006/budliste.htm#4
http://www.tacklingcrime.gc.ca
http://www.universalchildcare.ca/
http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?pageId=45
(the only one that does not have a fancy new website is the health care promise).

Paul Well, of Macleans’ magazine has a eye opening column about the “morphing” priorities. 
http://www.macleans.ca/switchboard/columnists/article.jsp?content=20060724_130433_130433


> Harper is playing Hide-the-Priority. And he's being pretty clumsy about it.. The fifth item in his list was never among the five priorities the Conservatives campaigned on. The fifth Conservative campaign priority was: "work with the provinces to establish a Patient Wait Times Guarantee." Harper has replaced it with this business about "strengthening our country."
> I asked Sandra Buckler, the Prime Minister's communications director, why her boss is now pretending he never made a wait-times commitment to the Canadian people. Her answer, in its entirety: "The Prime Minister is pleased with the progress being made by Minister Clement concerning the wait-times guarantee."
> The guarantee he now pretends he never made


After seeing an definite increase in PR about “terror” and “crime”, it’s no wonder that Canadians are ready to give up their civil liberties. 


> The right to not be blown up
> Sometime civil liberties have to take a back seat to security. It's only common sense


http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourn....html?id=511c5410-2fb2-4ebc-ab36-e130f026edc2
I certainly object to it being common sense – but that’s another debate.


> Sacrifice civil liberties for security, Canadians say
> Many also fear they will be victims of terror, poll finds


http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=431612fa-6082-434d-a698-5d350a98ab62

So what’s happened since last year to change this? Simple, Big Daddy Harper and his cronies like it like that. And judging by some member’s reaction to the arrest in TO on suspected terrorists, so do many here. Enjoy the fear campaign, it’s only starting and will continue into the next elections….


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

ArtistSeries, here's a link to a story I think you'll find very interesting...

http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=18809

View attachment 1736


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Let's spread the fear...of scary Tories!! 

Boo! Harper tried to get a deal on health care wait times, but didn't want to pay extra for it!
Boo! Scary child care plan some people don't like!
Boo! Scary settlement of softwood lumber dispute!
Boo! Scary reduction in GST!
Boo! An Edmonton Journal writer (not a Conservative government spokesperson) makes a case for abridging civil liberties! Many Canadians are already happy to give up civil liberties (public smoking, aspects of provincial human rights codes, War Measures Act enacted by Trudeau, CRTC atempting to prevent access to programming) if it's done by the right people, or for politically correct reasons.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Lest I forget:

Boo! a left wing wanker from The Georgia Straight decries libertarianism! (AS will like that one!)


----------



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

Macfury, AS is presenting his arguement well, with citations and documentation. You may not agree with his thesis, but there is no need to mock his intent. AS has been, at times in the past, in the middle of various "debates" that were not friendly. This time, however, he presented himself and his views well.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Even the Globe who endorsed Harper is taking a dim view these days.










••••

The short snarky eructations with no insight or background to contribute seem a common theme on the right. Intimidated intellectually is my guess, reason seems not to sit well in the con digestive tract.
That good ol "gut feeling" seems to suffice........produces a lot of bile I hear 

I find it ironic that Harper accused Bush of playing right into terrorist hands if he turns the US into a closed state, ( the slow border issue ) yet Harper plays the same themes at home to his cowering constituency who lap up the fear mongering....like dutiful cats.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

I'm glad to see that others and not just me are noticing the 1984-like turn that Canada has taken since Harper was elected.


_The short snarky eructations with no insight or background to contribute seem a common theme on the right. Intimidated intellectually is my guess, reason seems not to sit well in the con digestive tract.
That good ol "gut feeling" seems to suffice...._
- Well said, MacDoc.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

*"Watch what they do, not what they say."*

Why this concern about rhetoric? Paul Martin was great at saying the right thing but doing nothing. This government though has taken action on a number of topics... the GST has been cut (for better or worse), parents are getting some money for child care, the armed forces is getting much needed new equipment. The only fearmongerers I see are disgruntled Liberals.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

C'mon FN - you're sounding like a maple flavoured Rush Limbaugh.......Liberals under the bed n all.

Canadians ARE watching what he DOES.....that's the problem.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Let's spread the fear...of scary Tories!!


No lets just point out some realities.



Macfury said:


> Boo! Harper tried to get a deal on health care wait times, but didn't want to pay extra for it!


It has to be paid for somehow, perhaps that GST reduction wasn't such a good idea in the first place? Universally available public services and health care has to be paid for somehow. 



Macfury said:


> Boo! Scary child care plan some people don't like!


Yeah, it is scary. The put forth a pandering policy that does not address the issue of creating addition childcare spaces. Scary in that they certainly do not understand, or choose not to address the real issue here.



Macfury said:


> Boo! Scary settlement of softwood lumber dispute!


Yes it is scary... The agreement was weak, left money on the table and looks as if it will be challenged by individual provinces. Negotiation needs to be conclusive and binding, otherwise deals will fall apart and become meaningless... which is clearly what NAFTA is becoming. Amazing that Harper is letting NAFTA fall apart given that it was enacted by his mentor Brian Mulroney.



Macfury said:


> Boo! Scary reduction in GST!


Yes, again this is scary. It is pandering to the lowest common denominator and doesn't take into account that government services have to be paid for... So either Harper cuts public service and spending or runs a deficit. Which will it be? Yeah this is scary as it shows that the Conservatives are more willing to endanger the governments books (either cutting services or taking on more debt) to pander for votes based on tax cuts which only favour the well off.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

The difference between Liberals and Conservatives:

Liberals make promises most people like, but don't actually do anything.
Conservatives make promises most people don't like, and actually follow through on them.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> C'mon FN - you're sounding like a maple flavoured Rush Limbaugh.......Liberals under the bed n all.
> 
> Canadians ARE watching what he DOES.....that's the problem.


Two elections ago the Liberals convinced many voters that the Conservatives were racist, homophobic, militarist, selfish, pro American, unCanadian, etc. They tried to do the same the last election but didn't convince as many people and now their bluff has been called. So it is with some amusement that I watch them accuse the Conservatives of playing the politics of fear... have they been hoist by their own petard?

I don't understand the reference to "Liberals under the bed" but anyway, I think you're wrong. The sense I get from people is that they are paying less attention to politics since the election and that bodes well for Harper and the Conservatives. Elections are usually lost rather than won and I don't think anyone who voted Conservative last time will be changing their mind. They are by no means perfect but they are a distinct and obvious improvement on their predecessors.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Macfury, AS is presenting his arguement well, with citations and documentation. You may not agree with his thesis, but there is no need to mock his intent. AS has been, at times in the past, in the middle of various "debates" that were not friendly. This time, however, he presented himself and his views well.


AS has taken a 'shotgun' approach to attacking the Conservatives. There is no central thesis to his discussion.

First he says Bush has done a bunch of bad things and now the Conservatives are doing it. That's all fun and cute, but where's the evidence?

Then he attacks the 5 priorities. Fair enough, but the Conservatives invite this criticism. The whole point of having a clear list of priorities was to allow the electorate to hold them to account next election. It sure beats Martin's 50 priorities with none accomplished.

I can only assume the next part of his post is about the Conservatives wanting to take away civil liberties. His evidence?... An article that a columnist wrote?... Harper discussing the terrorism issue?... Sorry, but that is not evidence....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Changing priorities is nothing new. Public sentiment changes too and balancing daily poll-tracking and sticking to one's platform is not a case of ignoring either consideration.

So, on the 'fear' stuff, I don't see the causality case. Events inside and outside of Canada are moving this up in Canadians' minds. Pinning that on the spin machine is putting a little bit too much stock in the Cons media prowess. I do think they will gladly play along and do what they can to own this issue (which they have more credibility on, versus death-bed conversions by Libs and Dips), but that's a little different than a campaign of fear.

AS said:
....
So what’s happened since last year to change this? Simple, Big Daddy Harper and his cronies like it like that. And judging by some member’s reaction to the arrest in TO on suspected terrorists, so do many here.
....

Therefore, I wouldn't disagree with the superficial message here, but I think it is trying to imply a nefarious causality that I just don't see evidence for. In other words, "What's happened since last year" is a whole lot more than just Harper becoming PM. 

The security issue would have increased in importance anyway (local and global events) and it plays into the Conservatives' natural perceived strength. Of course they like it.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Fink-Nottle said:


> They are by no means perfect


Wholeheartedly agree with you on this  



Fink-Nottle said:


> but they are a distinct


I have to say I agree with you on this as well 



Fink-Nottle said:


> and obvious improvement on their predecessors.


Can't say I agree with you on this point. I would not go so far as to say they are an improvement as a matter of fact I'd say the are certain worse for the country in general 

- ill advised tax cuts that only benefit the rich
- a childcare care plan that does not address the issue of creating childcare placements 
- reopening the same sex issue
- killing Bill C-17

That all being said... Given the minority nature of this government, Harper et al. have been not doing _as_ bad as one would have thought. I give him credit for some adept politik and spin control.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and let's not forget Harpo's income tax INCREASE on the poorest Canadians, but I guess their internal polling shows that poor people don't vote, or donate money to, their party


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> versus death-bed conversions by Libs and Dips


Care to explain that one?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Care to explain that one?


The Libs and Dips have not been known for a 'tough on crime' approach, yet during the election with the TO shooting, suddenly they jumped onto the 'me too' bandwagon. Even for politicians, they were a little too obvious. Issues like security, crime and punishment are, right now, more important than in the recent past and are issues for the Cons to lose.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> The Libs and Dips have not been known for a 'tough on crime' approach, yet during the election with the TO shooting, suddenly they jumped onto the 'me too' bandwagon. Even for politicians, they were a little too obvious.


HHHmmm I'll have to concede that point, it was a little too obvious.



Beej said:


> Issues like security, crime and punishment are, right now, more important than in the recent past and are issues for the Cons to lose.


Now that, I have to contest... I would suggest that there may be a recent general meme around crime and punishment, however statistics show that per capita crime related events are on the decline. 

What is increasing is of course the media coverage of recent criminal events, this unfortunately fuels the meme and provides unfounded public opinion on issues related to crime.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and let's not forget Harpo's income tax INCREASE on the poorest Canadians, but I guess their internal polling shows that poor people don't vote, or donate money to, their party


The budget was basically tax NEUTRAL for low income Canadians. Spec, if you are going to add, you have to also subtract.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

yeah, explain that math to low income Canadians
like I said, the CONs don't care because low income Canadians don't vote CON


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> The budget was basically tax NEUTRAL for low income Canadians. Spec, if you are going to add, you have to also subtract.


No not really. A 1% or 2% reduction in GST favours the richest Canadians not the poorest.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Gwillier, thanks for the link. Interesting, Hayek, who is mentioned in the article, has to be one “intellectual” who is quickly being discredited and a proponent of mumbo-jumbo. I can’t believe how many adepts he still has…


MF, for someone who labels himself a Libertarian, you are always the first accept the curtailing of civil liberties. I think that you should realign your definition with Conservative. Maybe even Neocon – it does seem to fit you better. Everything from your style of arguments, to thinking seems to scream that. When every pore of your glorious naked body (thanks Rush) permeates that… well go with the flow….

Care to actually discuss the subject (for once)?
Don’t bother if you’ll just be placing right-wing talking points and dishonest analogies…


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> No not really. A 1% or 2% reduction in GST favours the richest Canadians not the poorest.


It's futile to argue common sense and facts with some. They prefer the shiny little trickets and magic tricks....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Now that, I have to contest... I would suggest that there may be a recent general meme around crime and punishment, however statistics show that per capita crime related events are on the decline.
> 
> What is increasing is of course the media coverage of recent criminal events, this unfortunately fuels the meme and provides unfounded public opinion on issues related to crime.


Data vs perception. When the public perceives a need for 'get tough' crime and security issues, the Conservatives will benefit just like the Libs used to benefit from owning the healthcare issue, actual data aside.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Fink-Nottle said:


> *"Watch what they do, not what they say."*
> 
> Why this concern about rhetoric? Paul Martin was great at saying the right thing but doing nothing. This government though has taken action on a number of topics... the GST has been cut (for better or worse), parents are getting some money for child care, the armed forces is getting much needed new equipment. The only fearmongerers I see are disgruntled Liberals.


FN. Yes some action has been taken. 
I don't see anyone who has not supported the armed forces. Giving away contracts without bids, is not in Canada's interest.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> No not really. A 1% or 2% reduction in GST favours the richest Canadians not the poorest.


Sales taxes are less progressive than most income tax systems. You need to look at the whole picture. Yes, the 'richest' will get a larger tax cut because they also pay far more in taxes. The % reduction in total tax burden often tells a different story. 

With the way the Cons tax cuts/credits were made, it's quite case specific. Also, a GST cut will reduce taxes for the poorest Canadians (no income tax); it will be a small amount but more than the $0 they get from dropping the bottom tax rate.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> It's futile to argue common sense and facts with some. They prefer the shiny little trickets and magic tricks....


It's futile to present a misleading statement.

Duh... it goes without saying that higher income people will get a larger total tax cut because they pay more tax. That does not support the statement that low income people are paying more in tax overall. Like I said, the last budget was basically tax neutral for lower income people when you account for tax increases and tax decreases. That's a FACT. Live with it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Sales taxes are less progressive than most income tax systems. You need to look at the whole picture. Yes, the 'richest' will get a larger tax cut because they also pay far more in taxes. The % reduction in total tax burden often tells a different story.
> 
> With the way the Cons tax cuts/credits were made, it's quite case specific. Also, a GST cut will reduce taxes for the poorest Canadians (no income tax); it will be a small amount but more than the $0 they get from dropping the bottom tax rate.


Ahh new math from the Beej coupled with Con misleading words..... = B.S.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

It doesn't really matter who the taxes affect. The Conservatives were upfront about their tax plan. They got elected. If Canadians didn't want the Conservative tax plan, they wouldn't have put them into office.

Now they have to deal with it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Hayek, who is mentioned in the article, has to be one “intellectual” who is quickly being discredited and a proponent of mumbo-jumbo.


This is something I think you've mentioned before. Are you referring to one or two specific concepts/speeches or the whole body of work? I don't see the matter as nearly clear-cut as you seem to imply.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ahh new math from the Beej coupled with Con misleading words..... = B.S.


Sigh. You demonstrate your math for the poorest Canadians (you realise the poorest don't pay income tax, right?) then. Remember not to be dishonest about any talking points.

Keep in mind:
.....
Care to actually discuss the subject (for once)?
Don’t bother if you’ll just be placing right-wing talking points and dishonest analogies…
.....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Data vs perception.


I hear the Cons have a lot of problems trying to find data to support their arguements...



> *Doubt cast on tough gun law*
> No proof of less crime, report says
> Tories to go ahead with legislation
> ...despite being told by the Justice Department there isn't much evidence it will lower crime rates.
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...828&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467
Lying Cons is nothing new - and like usual, when lying


> *Toews wasn't available yesterday for comment*, but his communications director said the Conservatives won't waiver on their election promise to crack down on crime.


Of course, we may hear about a rebuttal in the North West Sakatoon ledger (readership 20)


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> It doesn't really matter who the taxes affect. The Conservatives were upfront about their tax plan. They got elected. If Canadians didn't want the Conservative tax plan, they wouldn't have put them into office.
> 
> Now they have to deal with it.


Ever been sold something in a misleading way?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> With the way the Cons tax cuts/credits were made, it's quite case specific. Also, a GST cut will reduce taxes for the poorest Canadians (no income tax); it will be a small amount but more than the $0 they get from dropping the bottom tax rate.


I think the issue is around economies of scale... 1-2% off purchases does not impact individual spending that much (in the grand scheme of things), however 1-2% of all the combined purchases of everyone and every business in the country does in fact have a huge impact in terms of the tax revenue it generates for the federal government.

But I don't have to tell you that, you're an economist you know this. So where do you think the shortfall should be made up Beej? Do we reduce government programs or run a deficit?

Here is the thing that was never really factored into this equation, the cost to small and medium sized business to go from collecting 5% as opposed to 7%. Most of their infrastructure (ie. cash registers, invoices, etc...) was already geared for the existing tax rate. This change put a huge burden on a significant number of small businesses.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ever been sold something in a misleading way?


Almost every political promise. In this case, the tax changes (versus the Libs November mini-budget) were known and the Cons actually went a little further than their platform in addressing the 0%/bottom rate crossover difference.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Are you referring to one or two specific concepts/speeches or the whole body of work?


We could start with his admiration of Thatcher's economic policies - but that's a complete other debate.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Almost every political promise.


Mostly because no one votes for the truth....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> So where do you think the shortfall should be made up Beej? Do we reduce government programs or run a deficit?


It's good that you're getting at the real issue there, and not just the anti-Con spin. There was a surplus and they used it. The question is what else could have been done with that money. It could have been spent, put against debt or reduce taxes in various ways. I don't think the money should have gone to increased spending. I would have preferred debt reduction or focussing on capital/income/profit taxes more. 

What would you have done?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> We could start with his admiration of Thatcher's economic policies - but that's a complete other debate.


You're right, it is. And it doesn't demonstrate, "discredited and a proponent of mumbo-jumbo" unless you take a strong ideological (not analytical) approach to begin with, in which case anyone who disagrees with said ideology is 'discredited' and 'a proponent of mumbo-jumbo' and we're back into politician's quality debates.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> It's good that you're getting at the real issue there, and not just the anti-Con spin. There was a surplus and they used it. The question is what else could have been done with that money. It could have been spent, put against debt or reduce taxes in various ways. I don't think the money should have gone to increased spending. I would have preferred debt reduction or focussing on capital/income/profit taxes more.
> 
> What would you have done?


anti-Con spin? 
Pointing out that the GST reduction benefits the rich much more than the poor?
Pointing out that the GST reduction did not affect all prices as some padded the "reduction"?

Now, you are going about a surplus - do you mean we have to always spend a surplus? What's right with keeping it and/or paying down what we owe?

Aren't Cons supposed to be fiscally responsible? What's this talk about "increased spending"? beejacon


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> anti-Con spin?
> Pointing out that the GST reduction benefits the rich much more than the poor?
> Pointing out that the GST reduction did not affect all prices as some padded the "reduction"?
> 
> ...


Read the post again. I mentioned the three basic options for a surplus: spend, pay off debt, reduce taxes. 

As for anti-Con spin, the use of the terms 'poorest' (innaccurately) and 'benefit the rich more' was that special kind of spin, like 'tough on crime' and 'crime wave' (innaccurately). We can get into how each of these is or is not spin (based on what talking points we get every morning  ), but the other topics seem more interesting.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Read the post again. I mentioned the three basic options for a surplus: spend, pay off debt, reduce taxes.


Yes, I alluded to them.[/QUOTE]
Fiscally responsible Cons going on a spending spree is always a knee-slapper down at the UoM economics library...




Beej said:


> As for anti-Con spin, the use of the terms 'poorest' (innaccurately) and 'benefit the rich more' was that special kind of spin, like 'tough on crime' and 'crime wave' (innaccurately). We can get into how each of these is or is not spin (based on what talking points we get every morning  ), but the other topics seem more interesting.


Ahh the PC policy. Ignoring economic realities for a "neutral" term...

Yes, you have to spend to "benefit" from the GST reduction. But I don't see the poor having the option of buying that new Merc.... or giant screen TV...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ahh the PC policy. Ignoring economic realities for a "neutral" term...


I was referring to the specific use and misuse of terms to get people in the gut, not the head. All parties do this, and the Libs used to be the best at it. Until they've got a new leader, we won't get a full idea about who's better at it now.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Returning to the topic of the thread, it is clear that adopting the politics of fear has major implications that soon dominate the agenda. The US reaction to 9/11 was, in many ways, more destructive to US society than the despicable acts themselves. Civil liberties have been lost, trillions have been spent on defense and terror preparedness and diverted from social programs (look at New Orleans and Louisiana). How is this progress? It doesn't mean we should not respond and try to increase our vigilence, but it should not be at the primary cost of our societal values. We are slowly but surely being sucked into a state of terror and we are pouring more money into programs that are, in any analysis, futile. It costs a pittance to cause terror and it costs a fortune to try to counter it. We need a measured response that does not fall into the carefully baited trap of the terrorists. Horrific as the Mumbai bombings were, how many infants died that day from malnutition in that same city?

The last thing we should give up is our sense and intelligence. The politics of fear ridicule those who stand up and question the policies and label them as anti-patriotic or a danger to security. It is the politicians who are willing to throw our rights away who are anti-patriotic.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Please tell me this is a left wing over exaggeration?

_No social programs, no environmental or consumer regulation. In Hayek’s world, government officials do not serve the public._

Is this an accurate summary of Hayek's views?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'd like see a serious effort at reducing federal government size overall even if it meant using the surplus to "buy out" public servants.
In the long run it will be beneficial.

That's a "real" conservative goal that I heartily approve of - I find it ironic that the only gov to do so was Bob Rae's NDP 

I do not believe we are seeing the kind of productive efficiencies in government


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

This touches upon the range of ideas he contributed to over the years.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

JW :clap:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> anti-Con spin?
> Pointing out that the GST reduction benefits the rich much more than the poor?
> Pointing out that the GST reduction did not affect all prices as some padded the "reduction"?
> 
> ...


Me: Taxes for low income people are essentially the same as before.
daJonesy: No, high income people benefit more.
AS: Spin, spin, spin and magic tricks.
Me: Idiots...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> It's good that you're getting at the real issue there, and not just the anti-Con spin. There was a surplus and they used it. The question is what else could have been done with that money. It could have been spent, put against debt or reduce taxes in various ways. I don't think the money should have gone to increased spending. I would have preferred debt reduction or focussing on capital/income/profit taxes more.
> 
> What would you have done?



Deficit reduction, but as a sound business practice I would not have reduced my revenue stream. If find it odd that conservative approach (meaning Canadian Conservative party and US Republican party) which typically is backed by business interests tend to run the government in the most un-business like manner (reducing tax revenue).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Me: Idiots...


Spin is me reading that you are an idiot....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Returning to the topic of the thread, it is clear that adopting the politics of fear has major implications that soon dominate the agenda. The US reaction to 9/11 was, in many ways, more destructive to US society than the despicable acts themselves. Civil liberties have been lost, trillions have been spent on defense and terror preparedness and diverted from social programs (look at New Orleans and Louisiana). How is this progress? It doesn't mean we should not respond and try to increase our vigilence, but it should not be at the primary cost of our societal values. We are slowly but surely being sucked into a state of terror and we are pouring more money into programs that are, in any analysis, futile. It costs a pittance to cause terror and it costs a fortune to try to counter it. We need a measured response that does not fall into the carefully baited trap of the terrorists. Horrific as the Mumbai bombings were, how many infants died that day from malnutition in that same city?
> 
> The last thing we should give up is our sense and intelligence. The politics of fear ridicule those who stand up and question the policies and label them as anti-patriotic or a danger to security. It is the politicians who are willing to throw our rights away who are anti-patriotic.


:clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I will say this, if there's any politics of fear working right now, the only expressions of fear I'm seeing in my vicinity are from the most vociferous of EhMacers--and you know who you are.

My recommendation to those currently quaking in their boots: "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs...you'll be a Man, my son!"


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Q. Do you like Kipling?

A. I don't know... I've never kippled.  

Sorry...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MF, do you think that one day you'll make a logical argument? 
Your conservative talking points are boring and nerver touch the subject...
ohh wait, you are a Libertarian... I always forget because your values are so Conservative....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I will say this, if there's any politics of fear working right now, the only expressions of fear I'm seeing in my vicinity are from the most vociferous of EhMacers


A fair point about fear. It is tough to differentiate fear-mongering from bringing attention to fear-mongering; sort of like responding to being accused of being defensive.  

I haven't seen a good case for either so all we've got is two perspectives on a blurry situation, in my opinion.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej seems to prefer a kind of plasticine history and reality...
What are the five Con priorities again? Don't give me the BS about changing priorities. Not after all the fanfare on them. 
This is a clumsy change by most accounts.
The other aspect is the increase in "fear" news releases.
Pointing to polls and our readiness to forgo liberties...
Pointing out that this "tactic" was used by Bush and his crime cronies is just an observation. 
Sorry if you don't like the language used. I'll try to give you scholarly language next time...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What I see is the Conservatives bringing in legislation that isn't groundbreaking, largely addresses their promises, and doesn't always appeal to me. Defense and toughness on crime are traditionally conservative issues. I've been reading very old Newsweeks (1959-60) recently for a research project--the talking points remain largely the same for both liberals and conservatives. In essence, to bring attention to those threats that concern Conservatives most can always be said to be "fear mongering." 

Since the U.S. has been brought up as the author of this supposed strategic plot, I'll point out that shortly after 9/11 Bush was criticized by Democrats for not having done enough to prevent it, then criticized for doing too much to stop it from happening again. Accused first of inaction, then "fear mongering." The nature of modern politics. 

But even if I accepted the premise that these two leaders were "fear mongering," what would the ultimate goal of Mr. Bush and Mr. Harper be? And I'd like some more detail than "drain our precious civil liberties," line. Sounds too much like the guy in Dr. Strangelove talking about his "precious bodily fluids."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Sorry if you don't like the language used. I'll try to give you scholarly language next time...


Aside from any rudeness, it's not your lack of 'scholarly language', it's your lack of making a case for your point in standard everyday english (I haven't read your french posts  ). Many will agree with you, so smile. 

To me, you've made about as much a case as the 'crime wave' and 'terrorism is the greatest threat to our lives' boosters. Just because you're excited about it doesn't mean that those who aren't are 'neo cons' or have some flaw. Only a select few on ehmac are that awkward with the reality around them.

We seem to disagree on the causality. I see the Cons working with events that would naturally favour them. There is some aspect of fanning the flames in that. Maybe we disagree on magnitude and 'badness' of this? You seem to imply a much more forceful causality. Can you lay out some of your rationale in this connection?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

So I guess you donít want to talk about the fast one the Harpocrite is trying to pull over with the five priorities then?

Fear mongering is the inclusion of certain words in Harper's speeches. At every opportunity, there is talk of "terror" and other such malarkey. The parallels between what Bush (and others) is a conditioning and precursor to a new direction.
The inclusion of our minister of Justice in this get tough on crime with vapid arguments only adds to the dishonestly of our government.


> Doubt cast on tough gun law
> No proof of less crime, report says
> Tories to go ahead with legislation


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...828&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467
As a so called Libertarian, I find it ironic that you would seem to agree with ìAn Edmonton Journal writer (not a Conservative government spokesperson) makes a case for abridging civil liberties.î There is NEVER a case for abridging civil liberties except under very specific conditions. Terror and crime are not them. As you are well aware, the line between journalism and spin are blurred at the moment. 

You have Bell Canada who have basically eroded privacy between clients and their surfing habits in anticipation of some law - yet you sit there with blinders...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> There is NEVER a case for abridging civil liberties except under very specific conditions.


That is much more ambiguous than you would like. One: what are civil liberties in Canada and Two: the conditions? If you go by the actual Charter and how it is applied, the liberties may not be what you think. If you use another definition, then how do you decide 'very specific conditions' without the Charter's first clause (meant to apply to the rest of the Charter)? These become personal value judgements. Shared by most, but not with the same priorities as yourself.

This is not nearly as clear-cut as your sentence suggests. Understanding this, and how people with more expansive personal definitions of 'liberties' have seen this erosion for many years under other governments, you may understand why what is happening isn't as exciting to some as it is to you. From a different perspective (  ), this is a continuation of many other lost liberties; neither acceleration nor deceleration of the process. Just the same disappointing process that continues. People disagree; reality bites. Have beer, until that's banned too.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> That is much more ambiguous than you would like. One: what are civil liberties in Canada and Two: the conditions?
> 
> This is not nearly as clear-cut as your sentence suggests.


I agree that this is a difficult definition - I like what WIKI has to write about it


> individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Great AS, launching a fascinating topic! We may not agree on this one, but maybe we'll understand each other better. Now, let's get specific (what, Beej?!?)

1) Authorities scanning emails for key phrases 

2) Banning alcohol

3) Banning pitbulls

4) Tracking phone calls (not content)

5) Utilities notifying government of suspicious water/power/gas consumption using some technically derived equation

6) Employment gender/race/language quotas

7) Conscription

All these things can offend liberty (and many more things we've become accustomed to), but we may put different priorities on them. Please add more to the list, I think more specifics will help to create a better picture. 

I lean towards higher priorities on things that change what I can do, versus on authorities seeing what I actually do (I dislike both). From that perspective, what is happening seems in no way irregular. It is just the continued decline of personal liberty always under a flimsy attempt to appeal to a greater good. 

This is done by generally taking advantage of the fact that because everybody has different priorities you can one-by-one reduce liberties as long as most don't mind. In the end, people get a few constraints they think were worth it, and many not. We're nowhere the 'end' in this one, in my opinion, and it will continue with all governments. Still, I don't envision some sci-fi extreme, just a lot less liberty than we have now. Flying cars may make up for this.  

It's great to see people passionate about promoting their priorities, but disappointing if they presume superiority of their priorities or that they have identified 'The Line' and that It has been Crossed. This is messy and, of course, some people will see 'promoting their priorities' while others may see 'obnoxious repetitive whining'.  I don't think that's the case here (yet?) but you understand the point I'm getting at, I think. But that's just etiquette, so back to the meat...

The politics of division is practiced by all politicians and, from someone in my perspective, not moreso by the Cons. So far. The government is young. beejacon


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Just thought of another example, appropriate to RM especially. 

8) The census


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

>>individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or 
>> property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others

AS: A simple statement, one I agree with. Yet you oppose tax cuts, and suggest that day care is underfunded by governments. Not an easy line to toe.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> >>individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or
> >> property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others
> 
> AS: A simple statement, one I agree with. Yet you oppose tax cuts, and suggest that day care is underfunded by governments. Not an easy line to toe.


One day, you will actually debate the questions, yes?
Never opposed tax cuts - let's start with ending corporate welfare first. Reducing personal income taxes. 
My day care position has been explained - heck it even reduces the tax burden....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> One day, you will actually debate the questions, yes?
> Never opposed tax cuts - let's start with ending corporate welfare first. Reducing personal income taxes.
> My day care position has been explained - heck it even reduces the tax burden....


I'd like the other topic to go ahead, but this is also interesting.

Do you oppose corporate tax cuts? Prefer them over personal tax cuts (same case you're making for child care applies here)?

Does the day care approach actually reduce the tax burden or have many externalities with some unknown net fiscal outcome? There's a key difference there. And, if you think the benefits are likely enough to outweigh the costs, given current information, then you may want to strongly support corporate income tax cuts before personal.  

Still, though, that long post by Beej looks like the topic to discuss. At least, that's what the rumours are.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej you'd be fighting a very uphill battle to claim early childhood ed/daycare does not have a net positive effect - every study has shown a $1 invested in that area returns many multiples ( up to 17x in some studies ) down the road.

Corporate tax loads versus personal are a knotty problem on a macro scale What I object to is the practice of many US corps of artificially lowering Canadian branch plant profits ( as simple as charging the Canadian branch $5 a copy for a "catalogue" -that might cost 3¢ to produce. Just print and charge the number up to the profit reduction you desire. 
So profits earned in Canada don't contribute to the tax income of the gov.

Certainly in Ontario there is a sense of wanting better value for the tax dollars paid rather than a lowering of taxes. Hazel said it right, not lower taxes, but better services for the money.
She delivers.....other levels of gov???........ugh


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> It is just the continued decline of personal liberty always under a flimsy attempt to appeal to a greater good.
> 
> It's great to see people passionate about promoting their priorities, but disappointing if they presume superiority of their priorities or that they have identified 'The Line' and that It has been Crossed.


Well, you have resumed what I feel/fear.... 

To your list
09 - Police cameras in public spaces
10 - Government database from various departments "sharing" information
11 - Sharing government information with other countries
12 - Implementation of face tracking technology (remember don't smile on that passport picture)
13 – Banking, credit card companies selling my information
14 – Government response terrorism


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej you'd be fighting a very uphill battle to claim early childhood ed/daycare does not have a net positive effect - every study has shown a $1 invested in that area returns many multiples ( up to 17x in some studies ) *down the road*.
> .......
> What I object to is the practice of many US corps of artificially lowering Canadian branch plant profits
> .......
> She delivers.....other levels of gov???........ugh


We are talking net fiscal benefit. That's a different calculation than standard 'benefit', which often exclude time value of money and are not always done very diligently. Time value of money is not a minor consideration either; for long-term benefit calculations it is often THE primary factor. Either way, the corporate tax cut case is quite strong.
......
That's transfer pricing; lower corporate taxes and fiscal benefits are different. The accounting industry has been loading up on transfer pricing analysts for years. I almost went into that line. I hope CCRA is well on top of this.

This issue in no way removes from the net fiscal benefit case for lower corporate (especially investment) taxes. Actually, lower corporate taxes reduce the problem and can make us the beneficiary of such practices (we become the zone from which to off-load costs). So, again, if using the net fiscal benefit reasoning for childcare, you're into strange territory. Best use the social desirability approach, otherwise you may get turned to the Beej side. beejacon 
......
She got what percent of the vote? There's your difference. The country is much more difficult to govern. Even for a federation, Canada is particularly difficult.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Well, you have resumed what I feel/fear....
> 
> To your list
> 09 - Police cameras in public spaces
> ...


So you at least understand my point of view? Liberty loss through being watched versus being able to do...'being watched' can lead to controlling 'doing' but directly controlling the doing is different. Like I said, we likely won't agree, but I'm looking for understanding.

Consider the census as a new thing. It would, under those circumstances, be considered VERY intrusive by many. We've become used to it and, I think, acknowledge the greater good of having that info. Not cut and dry though.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Now, some specifics that you have mention

_1)	Authorities scanning emails for key phrases_
Totally unacceptable. The chance of abuse is too great. No matter what the stated “goal”, it’s an invasion of privacy. 

_2) Banning alcohol_
No banning of alcohol, drugs or filling your latex underwear with goldfish and jello in the morning. 

_3) Banning pitbulls_
Stupid. I don’t like the dogs myself, but we should not be told what kind of dog to buy. Now if that dog attacks someone, shoot the owner (kidding)

_4) Tracking phone calls (not content)_
Only for billing purposes…..

_5) Utilities notifying government of suspicious water/power/gas consumption using some technically derived equation_
If you pay your bills… none of their business – remember drug use is permitted so I’d image the government setting up some kind of purchase point…

_6) Employment gender/race/language quotas_
Difficult question – I prefer merit base – I do understand where it has had to be used in the past.

_7) Conscription_
Harder one – depends on the circumstances, or social contract….


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Consider the census as a new thing. It would, under those circumstances, be considered VERY intrusive by many. We've become used to it and, I think, acknowledge the greater good of having that info. Not cut and dry though.


If the information remained private with no change of "escape", the I see nothing wrong with the census. I'm also not obligated to fill it out. 

Times change and I don't think the gov has kept up with it (in regards to privacy) - unless of course the mindset is not privacy...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Now, some specifics that you have mention


Great. And do you see how people would prioritise them, and others differently? Heck, some people advocate FOR some of them. Go figure.

So, with different priorities, the information-based ones are not all that interesting relative to what has already been done, just like a politician making a vacuous statement isn't interesting. Annoying; I'd prefer them to not do that; I will complain here and there; I will advocate for my position here and to people I come in contact with under the hopes of propagating my point of view; but not a fundamental shift in what has been happening for decades, regardless of what I think of the party in power. 

The country, in this one aspect, is not going down a path I like. I will make my statement, but don't expect to be able to turn the tide. People disagree with me. Overall, I think the country is going well and even moreso relative to other countries. 

That, to me, is what is going on.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> If the information remained private with no change of "escape", the I see nothing wrong with the census.
> .......
> I'm also not obligated to fill it out.
> .......
> Times change and I don't think the gov has kept up with it (in regards to privacy) - unless of course the mindset is not privacy...


Fair point. More trust for StatsCan than law enforcement entities. Can't say I disagree. 
.......
I'm not so sure about that. RM can help out with this one.
......
But it's the risk of the unknown that we are worried about, isn't it? Not an easy topic.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Now, some specifics that you have mention
> 
> _1)	Authorities scanning emails for key phrases_
> ....
> ...


_

Before I get accused of trying to hide my preferences...

1) I'd prefer not, but am more open to this than you. I acknowledge the enormous risk, but can see how controls (requiring judiciary involvement) can make this a workable sacrifice. See the info of action vs action difference? Does that make me wrong? Let's keep up this excellent discussion!

2) No. God no.  Seriously, no. Using 'crime-related' as justification is weak, as is health. See: controlling information of actions version action.

3) Not a big deal, but still has no purpose and is therefore wrong. There are better solutions (criminal responsibility for a pet's actions taking into account provocation). Even outside of other solutions, the premise was flawed to being with.

4) See 1, but this one is less invasive. Still, I understand the opposition but don't agree on the priority relative to other constraints to liberty that have already been accepted.

5) I'm ok with this given a strict separation of the technical definition. The calculation must be a strict wall between law enforcement and the utility. This can apply to 1 and 4.

6) Merit, mentor programs, specialised education/promotional funding. Don't codify such discrimination. 

7) Really tough. I'm tempted to say never, but WWI and WWII were so unusual that it makes you wonder about 'nevers'.

So you see how we differ. I don't think my opinions make me 'wrong' or 'neocon' or 'evil', but there are those who will think that. I'd appreciate a wide variety of people contributing to this to get an idea of priorities because people do think very differently about these things._


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

By law you are supposed to fill out the census. I'm a reformed druid that worships small bushes... 

When it comes to the "unknown", no it's not a worry. Take your passport picture and the fact that you can't smile on it. Now, they don't even use the picture you give them (like in the old days), it gets digitized. You can't smile because they want to use now facial recognition software. How do you feel about being part of a CCD police line-up? 
It's the abuse of information. This cross pollination of information and lack of controls that I object to. Who gets that info/picture? The U.S.? France? My credit card company?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Great. And do you see how people would prioritise them, and others differently? Heck, some people advocate FOR some of them. Go figure.


In a very narrow focus, I can see how some to espouse these measures. In Montreal, police installed street cameras on St.Denis street in the hopes of reducing crime (drug trafficking). It worked for St. Denis Street – except that “crime” moved to adjacent streets. Crime was not reduced and now we have an expensive infrastructure to support. 
Here’s my “radical” streak – legalize drugs and the problem would be less…less government, less taxes…


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> When it comes to the "unknown", no it's not a worry. Take your passport picture and the fact that you can't smile on it. Now, they don't even use the picture you give them (like in the old days), it gets digitized. You can't smile because they want to use now facial recognition software. How do you feel about being part of a CCD police line-up?
> It's the abuse of information. This cross pollination of information and lack of controls that I object to. Who gets that info/picture? The U.S.? France? My credit card company?


On this issue, specifically, I'm ok. You need a passport to go to other countries, so their requirements do matter, even when invasive. It is their choice how and whom enters their countries. We can diplomatically influence them, but it is their sovereign decision, for better or worse.

Furthermore, Canadian passports were (are?) an abused international commodity that are too easily cheapened by forgeries. Control of information is important, and so is the relevance of a Canadian passport. Another tough issue. 

We're really getting to the source of differences here. As for transfering said info to other entities, I don't like that but such questions apply to all information (video rentals?) and, in the case of being allowed entry to another country, it is up to them. I recommend exploring this gigantic nation more.  

Great discussion by the way. Thanks.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Here’s my “radical” streak – legalize drugs and the problem would be less…less government, less taxes…


We agree for most drugs (more taxes, actually  ). The war on drugs (explicit and implicit) has been a complete failure and, therefore, a violent failure in balancing liberty and the public good. 

I can see the case behind drugs for which withdrawal symptoms may kill otherwise ok individuals (people need a second chance), but most drugs aren't under that category.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> So, with different priorities, the information-based ones are not all that interesting relative to what has already been done, just like a politician making a vacuous statement isn't interesting. Annoying; I'd prefer them to not do that; I will complain here and there; I will advocate for my position here and to people I come in contact with under the hopes of propagating my point of view; but not a fundamental shift in what has been happening for decades, regardless of what I think of the party in power.


I’m not married to a list of priorities. I’m familiar with the information based ones because I used to “control” a database with 20 million different users and saw the abuses done with it. That information was traded and sold with little concern to your privacy – all legal mind you, just unethical.

People, IMO, just don’t care unless it touches them directly. Even then, I’m sure would be ready to give up some privacy under any pretext or guise…

No, you can’t stop the tide but you can change some rules. Companies don’t need my SIN number. If I’m test driving a car, you don’t get to go to the back with my driver’s license – we know it’s only an excuse to run a credit check. You don’t need my postal code when I buy from your store.

This is not a partisan issue. At least not for me, it's a government one.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

* Authorities scanning emails for key phrases*
_1) I'd prefer not, but am more open to this than you. I acknowledge the enormous risk, but can see how controls (requiring judiciary involvement) can make this a workable sacrifice. See the info of action vs action difference? Does that make me wrong?_

I’d kill to see George Bush dance with Osama Bin Laden… 
So, have I woken anyone up? 
It’s being done and I have little faith in controls. Who is to stop the overseers of using such information for business gains? Political gains?

Sure you have controls against spying on your own citizens (easily ignored judging by the US) but what about the agreements between countries that allow them to spy on citizens. We have the US, UK, Canada and Australia/NZ exchanging roles….

ECHELON has been a massive intrusion into privacy and civil liberties long before terrorisms. ECHELON was long denied until New Zealand staff leaked locations…

The EU has spoken out against ECHELON recommending that people use cryptography. I’m sure criminals are, but its too cumbersome for most…
The UK countered with a law that says citizens have to give their encryption keys (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act)… 

Link: in preparation for a report on the existence of a global system for intercepting private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system). European Parliament T http://cryptome.org/echelon-ep.htm


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> You need a passport to go to other countries, so their requirements do matter, even when invasive. It is their choice how and whom enters their countries. We can diplomatically influence them, but it is their sovereign decision, for better or worse.
> 
> Furthermore, Canadian passports were (are?) an abused international commodity that are too easily cheapened by forgeries. Control of information is important, and so is the relevance of a Canadian passport. Another tough issue.
> 
> We're really getting to the source of differences here. As for transfering said info to other entities, I don't like that but such questions apply to all information (video rentals?) and, in the case of being allowed entry to another country, it is up to them.


It’s not the issue of a photo for a passport. Or even the passport (although I am still travelling without one). 
If the passport and the information contained on it were only used for the passport, I’d have absolutely no objections. Where is gets muddier for me, is when your picture and information get shipped to the UK and then distributed across the globe to “friendly” nation. When I have to position myself a certain way for the passport picture and that in turn can be fed into a database that does facial recognition – that’s an abuse of power. 

When the various government agencies start sharing that information, then I have issues. 

I’d have no problems if our government would use the information is a safe way. 

If the data was encrypted with two keys, say a government one and a biometric one based (my thumbprint) and you needed both to see the information, I’d be open to that. The citizen and the government share the information.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: The funding of child care only "saves" money because the government has decided it belongs in other businesses as well (i.e., it will be forced to take my money to fund a second program if it does not take it to fund the first).

>>every study has shown a $1 invested in that area returns 
>> many multiples ( up to 17x in some studies ) down the road.
Beauty! Let the parents of those kids invest a buck and reap the rewards themselves. Most of the so-called "benefits" are vapourware anyway.

Legalize all drugs. Ensure people are held responsible for their own actions, on or off drugs. No banning of smoking in restaurants. Encourage restaurants to declare themselves smoking or non-smoking.


So here are my choices:

My freedom and civil liberties include the right to spend what I earn. Every effort to tax it is an abrogation of those rights. There are certain things that government is probably relatively competent to handle, so if I want to buy nto those things (public roads, etc.) I should be expected to pay into this.

On the other items (I like items!):

_1) Authorities scanning emails for key phrases _
Yes, but if any abuses come to light, then scanning must go into hiatus for a prescribed period of time.

_2) Banning alcohol_
No

_3) Banning pitbulls_
No. Make owners responsible for the activity of pets. 

_4) Tracking phone calls (not content)_
As in number 1.

_5) Utilities notifying government of suspicious water/power/gas consumption using some technically derived equation_
Utilities are only composed of people. I suggest that utilities be deregulated and that each utility makes its offer to customers--they will or they won't make their information available to the authorities. If there is real evidence that a crime is being committed, I would expect individuals in those companies to come forward. 

_6) Employment gender/race/language quotas_
Never

_7) Conscription_
If people no longer feel their country is worth defending, said country no longer deserves to exist.

_8) The census_
No. I once refused to fill out my census form and was hounded unmercifully by government goons. My wife ultimately filled my form when an agent came to collect it while I was out because she thought I was going to get into real trouble.

_09 - Police cameras in public spaces_
No. And they don't work to curtail crime. However, as cameras shrink, I think people should carry them to fullfil the same function.

_10 - Government database from various departments "sharing" information
_No. Anything worth sharing shouldn't be there in the first place.

_11 - Sharing government information with other countries_
Police sharing information about criminals, and international plots, OK. Otherwise, no.

_12 - Implementation of face tracking technology (remember don't smile on that passport picture)_
No opinion. If a country decides you shouldn't enter their space without same, then you choose whether or not to go there. As long as a private company that asks this of me is not a government monopoly, then I can't argue with their right to request it. 

_13 – Banking, credit card companies selling my information_
No. I should be allowed to opt into a sales program where they give me commission on any sales, though.

_14 – Government response terrorism_
I don't get this one...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Legalize all drugs. Ensure people are held responsible for their own actions, on or off drugs. No banning of smoking in restaurants. Encourage restaurants to declare themselves smoking or non-smoking.


The only issue I have with that is that smoking harms others with second-hand smoke. No smoking in public and I can see where a restaurant would declare itself smoking or non-smoking. Ditto for bars. 
I find this one trickier for some reason - maybe because I'm opposed to public smoking... 

I prefer decriminalization over the word legalize...




Macfury said:


> _1) Authorities scanning emails for key phrases _
> Yes, but if any abuses come to light, then scanning must go into hiatus for a prescribed period of time.


I get the feeling that you are okay with the removal of civil liberties under the guise of "security"... let's continue...




Macfury said:


> _3) Banning pitbulls_
> No. Make owners responsible for the activity of pets.


Wow, we actually agree... 



Macfury said:


> _4) Tracking phone calls (not content)_


See n#1 for my comments  



Macfury said:


> _5) Utilities notifying government of suspicious water/power/gas consumption using some technically derived equation_
> Utilities are only composed of people. I suggest that utilities be deregulated and that each utility makes its offer to customers--they will or they won't make their information available to the authorities. If there is real evidence that a crime is being committed, I would expect individuals in those companies to come forward.


I don't see deregulation as an option - here we disagree. Unless you can see "composed of people" as the equivalent of a province... beejacon 



Macfury said:


> _6) Employment gender/race/language quotas_
> Never


Back on the same track but for different reasons I suspect..  


Macfury said:


> _7) Conscription_
> If people no longer feel their country is worth defending, said country no longer deserves to exist.


Interesting take. Not sure I agree with the argument... 


Macfury said:


> _8) The census_
> No. I once refused to fill out my census form and was hounded unmercifully by government goons. My wife ultimately filled my form when an agent came to collect it while I was out because she thought I was going to get into real trouble.





Macfury said:


> _09 - Police cameras in public spaces_
> No. And they don't work to curtail crime. However, as cameras shrink, I think people should carry them to fullfil the same function.


Uhmm, interesting angle...




Macfury said:


> _13 – Banking, credit card companies selling my information_
> No. I should be allowed to opt into a sales program where they give me commission on any sales, though.


And how to you feel about Apple iTunes and store tracking information on you?





Macfury said:


> _14 – Government response terrorism_
> I don't get this one...


Sorry, the passing of the Patriot Act in response to terrorism and an excuse for various civil liberties...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

We'll poke a hole in one of Macfuries favourite theories



> Cameras Reduce Johannesburg Crime
> Ciaran Ryan, February 2003
> 
> Johannesburg -- once dubbed the crime capital of the world -- is shaking off its image as a hostelry for gangsters and misfits. Two years ago, the business community decided to do something about the city's infamous crime rate which, in the space of a few years, had virtually vacated the central business district (CBD) of suits. Businesses deserted the CBD for the sanctuary of burgeoning new business centers such as Sandton and Rosebank to the north.
> ...


hmmmmm real world evidence....not your fav "vapourware" for facts you refuse to acknowledge.

By your standards just pitch the entire public educational system, water system , fire fighting, why let's just HIRE our own judge, opt out of the traffic laws...I don't like the,..........let's just set up cage warefare on each street corner and let the winner emerge to rule the neighbourhood.

Your laissez faire nonsense has been tried and found wanting........humans are a mix of competitive and cooperative traits, neither fully one nor fully the other. Working rationally within the evolutionary design parameters seems to me a good start point....it got us this far.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Heat gettin' to ya Doc? I thought so...

I didn't say that cameras couldn't move crime elsewhere...just that they ultimately have been found wanting as a source of true crime reduction. I have no problem with private citizens installing the cameras on private property if it makes them feel better. I actually researched the topic quite thoroughly for a client and got some well analyzed material showing that the cameras haven't worked well in Canada. 

I suppose you could put cameras everywhere, considering your laissez faire attitude about the placement of cameras..then those dirty criminals would have no place to hide.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sorry MacDoc. I may have been a little hard on you. It's probably difficult for you to see the world as you know it sold off piece by piece, But I prefer it that way...I let you enjoy your 1960s social experiment without squawking too much... now move aside while we bulldoze it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I actually researched the topic quite thoroughly for a client and got some well analyzed material showing that the cameras haven't worked well in Canada.


And I'm sure YOUR research was unbiased.... :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I had no interest in the outcome AS. I was just asked to collect reports from cities that had tried it. They wouldn't have paid me to just cite one internet article supporting one contention or another.


----------

