Canadian Republicanism

[Matt]

Under a minority situation it would take the same amount of time to vote them out. And it's unlikely any party would do anything to radical to get them voted out since everyone wants to become re-elected it seems.

[Bizud]

Under a minority situation it would take the same amount of time to vote them out. And it's unlikely any party would do anything to radical to get them voted out since everyone wants to become re-elected it seems

 

Plenty of majority governments have become unpopular almost from the day they entered office. Gordon Campbell's Liberals are one excellent example. They defeated the incumbent NDP, winning 77 seats to 2 - one year later, polls had support for the NDP higher than support for the Liberals in most of BC. Majority governments go against the will of the public all the time. Minority governments rarely do. You know damn well that majority governments are harder to be forced out of office, that's just so blindingly obvious. That's why they last longer.

 

And look at the current situation. The Liberals have just been seriously implicated in a major political scandal, and it's quite possible the opposition will force another election soon. This is good; the government has done something bad and now the public will get to rethink their support for them (though, of course, the majority of the public voted anti-Liberal in '93, '97, and 2000 anyway, which is the whole point - FPTP makes it impossible to hold government to account, since a party can be re-elected to a majority without a majority [or even a plurality] of the votes - we got extremely lucky this time and got a minority parliament). If we were in a majority situation we'd be waiting another three years at least to hold these criminals to account.

 

Finally, I don't understand why you seem to be distateful of the idea that politicians want to be re-elected. Government doing what's popular is the essence of democracy. Government doing things that are unpopular is antidemocratic.

[Matt]

The B.C. Liberals defeated a majority government because people were fed up at the N.D.P. They voted heavily for the oppostion, I do believe that is democracy in action. The B.C. Liberals have been doing good for the province, cuts were neccessary, it's ridiculous to ask tax payers to pay more than they can give. That hurts future generations, and is wrong since it does not benefit the people in the future.

 

What proof is there that the Liberals are corrupt? Pierre Pedigrew recently said they cannot account for the money Brault is refering too. Scott Brison has also said that they had independant auditors look through the books and say that all donations were done with receipts. Scott Brison also defended the Prime Minister when Jack Layton unfairly attacked Paul Martin, Jack Layton basically said he should tell people his part in it. Scott Brison replied along the lines of the whole point of the inquiry was to protect the people who were not involved. Perhaps we should wait before accusing the Liberals of anything since the inquiry isn't finished, Bizud. That's the whole point of an inquiry is to find out what happened un-biased.

 

Also, Scott Brison is a good example of how people can vote for the person not the party. His riding was a Conservative riding, he won it a couple times as a P.C. even before he switched parties. But in 2004 when he ran for the Liberals instead of the P.C.s he won, some have accounted his win to him rather than the party.

[Bizud]

The B.C. Liberals defeated a majority government because people were fed up at the N.D.P. They voted heavily for the oppostion, I do believe that is democracy in action. The B.C. Liberals have been doing good for the province, cuts were neccessary, it's ridiculous to ask tax payers to pay more than they can give. That hurts future generations, and is wrong since it does not benefit the people in the future.

 

I never commented on the 2001 election, so I don't know what that's about. I said that they became unpopular - in a democracy, this is the definition of "bad" - almost as soon as they entered office. No, I don't believe it's a government's duty to "do unpopular things" that "need to be done." That's not democracy, that's oligarchy. And Canada has some of the lowest tax rates in the first world, the idea that the rich can't pay any more is just absurd.

 

Also, Scott Brison is a good example of how people can vote for the person not the party. His riding was a Conservative riding, he won it a couple times as a P.C. even before he switched parties. But in 2004 when he ran for the Liberals instead of the P.C.s he won, some have accounted his win to him rather than the party.

 

...so? When did I say anything about voting for people rather than parties?

 

What proof is there that the Liberals are corrupt? Pierre Pedigrew recently said they cannot account for the money Brault is refering too. Scott Brison has also said that they had independant auditors look through the books and say that all donations were done with receipts. Scott Brison also defended the Prime Minister when Jack Layton unfairly attacked Paul Martin, Jack Layton basically said he should tell people his part in it. Scott Brison replied along the lines of the whole point of the inquiry was to protect the people who were not involved. Perhaps we should wait before accusing the Liberals of anything since the inquiry isn't finished, Bizud. That's the whole point of an inquiry is to find out what happened un-biased.

 

Either Paul Martin knew what was happening, in which case he's a crook, or he didn't know, which is almost as bad because it means he's incompetent. Either way, thank god for the minority parliament, which may give the voters a chance to rethink their support for the liberals. We wouldn't have that option in a majority situation. Whether they're guilty or not isn't the point; the point is that the collective opposition ought to be able to dissolve parliament if the public wants it enough (I don't mind frequent elections at all; I think we should have annual elections - this was something leftists were fighting for back in the 19th century and I think it's a terrible shame they've forgotten about it), and only in a minority parliament is that possible.

[Matt]

The whole point of proportion is to vote for the person or party you support and they might have some say.

 

The Death Penalty no longer existing is not exactly a popular decision yet it still has not come back. I believe that is a good thing for us, but people disagree. Unpopular decisions can be a good one depending on the situation.

 

If Paul Martin did not know about the scandal that could just mean it had nothing to do with the Liberals but a couple of their party members.

 

I have explained why raising rich peoples taxes would be bad before. They will most likely not pay them, but they will put it into the cost of their goods and/or services. This means it costs more for a poorer person to buy goods, this means they have less buying power. Layoffs follow, which means even more people have less buying power, and more layoffs follow. This could follow into a reccession and possibly even a depression. This does not help poor people, but actual hurts them further because they can buy less then before. This also leaves less money for social programs that could help them out.

[Bizud]

The one dimension where public will should not reign supreme is human rights, but that's a different debate.

 

I have explained why raising rich peoples taxes would be bad before. They will most likely not pay them, but they will put it into the cost of their goods and/or services. This means it costs more for a poorer person to buy goods, this means they have less buying power. Layoffs follow, which means even more people have less buying power, and more layoffs follow. This could follow into a reccession and possibly even a depression. This does not help poor people, but actual hurts them further because they can buy less then before. This also leaves less money for social programs that could help them out.

 

Yeah, dude, they can only "not pay them" if the govenment allows it. Layoffs are one way the business class lashes out when the people get too uppity - that's why the government should step in and take a more active role creating employment. Don't tell me this can't happen, there are too many examples of it to ignore.

[Matt]

The Liberals have been working on creating jobs, but the government cannot run the entire economy, that's more of a socialist principle. While Canada does have some aspects to it that are socialist we are also a democracy and should let people have a chance to create their business too. Plus under crown corporations, raises are rare so there is less incentive to work harder. Under a more free market system there is which leaves us competitive which we should not forget.

[Bizud]

Free market is a joke, no one takes it seriously. Norwegians have the highest quality of life in the world, period. That's who we should be aspiring to imitate, and if we do what they do, we could do it much better, because we have much more in the way of natural resources. Blah blah, crown corporations can't work, there's no incentive to be efficient, blah; just another capitalist myth long disproven.

[Matt]

Actually it's been proven, look at the ferry corporation which is starting to turn itself around now that it is being treated like a private corporation. We should aspire to be anybody but ourselves. We should be Canadians, we incorporate other traditions into our own such as the British one, but we do things our own way. We do not copy the rest of the world.

[Bizud]

And ignore the ferry workers who have almost striked several times. I agree that bureaucracy is bad, and we should endeavor to slim it down, but privatization isn't the answer. The NDP's biggest weakness is they've been afraid to downsize the civil service because that would upset the unions. The answer is to do it anyway while finding ways to create jobs that are actually productive; the Swedish model.

 

No, we shouldn't "copy" others, but if the citizens of other countries have the highest quality of life in the world, and live in much more egalitarian societies, maybe we should aspire to imitate those aspects of their society. I won't accept that Canada always has to be a business-controlled society.

Edited April 11, 2005 by Bizud

[TheKwas]

That's who we should be aspiring to imitate, and if we do what they do, we could do it much better, because we have much more in the way of natural resources.

Too be fair, although Canada has more in the way of natural resources, we also have alot more people/consumers (4.5 million compared to 32 million). And although I don't have the stats to back it up at the moment, I'm pretty sure that Norway has more resources per capita than Canada does. Lets not forget that Norway is the 3rd biggest exporter of oil at the moment.

[Matt]

People will strike though whenever their wages are lowered though. People do not like to give up extra money it seems. And we have no reason to copy other societies, I think we should progress as Canadians.

Edited April 12, 2005 by Matt

[Bizud]

Okay, but progress towards what? I think we should be progressing towards a fairer, more compassionate, more egalitarian, collectivist society, where democracy has been extended to include democratic control of the economy (and for workers, democratic control of the workplace), free of hierarchy and illegitimate authority and tyranny, including the tyranny of the so-called "free market," where most people possess only one commodity of value - their labour - and are "free" to either rent themselves to others or else starve. That's roughly the line I see us progressing along, and we've come a long way. Remember that fourty years ago universal health care seemed like an impossible dream. Along the way, certain institutions, which were previously held up as absolute "rights" are abolished (such as nobility and feudal rights, or the "right" to own slaves) because they are found to be detrimental to the realization of new, actual rights - such as the right to health care, the right to not be enslaved, the right to vote, a woman's right to control over her own body, etc. This is an ongoing process - liberal representative democracy cannot be the final form of human societal organization. Further down the road, other "rights," for example the "right" to own wealth, land, and the means of production as property, will be challenged, re-examined, and, I believe, abolished.

 

I think in many ways, there are some nations who, as recognized by the United Nations, have made much more progress in these areas than we have, and I think that we should seriously examine emulating these countries in some respects. That's progressivism, as I see it. So what's one reason to emulate Norway? How about eliminating the debt? How about eliminating child poverty? How about a more egalitarian society in general? How about virtually eliminating unemployment? How about free post-secondary education? Those are some nice things I'd like to see Canada striving for right now, and they're all very do-able. That's not to say we should just look at Norway and copy all their policies - I think some of their laws and practices smack of authoritarianism and nationalism, and I think those are, in general, very ugly things.

 

The point is that we should be constantly taking a look at where we are, figuring out where we want to be, both in five years and in fifty years, and figuring out the best way to get there, using our own experience and the experiences of other countries as guides. So when the Liberals, or the Conservatives, say that we have to lower taxes, and that'll help the economy so much that we'll have tons of money to spend on wonderful social programs, we should look at other countries who have decided they want wonderful social programs, and have successfully realized that aim, and we should take a look at what they did. And while we're at it, we should take a look at countries that have followed the prescribed solution - lower taxes - and take a look at the state of their social programs. And then make up our own minds.

[Matt]

Communism is one form of government, one which you have basically suggested there. What you have to remember is Conservatism is a growing force in North America, which is a throw back to the old. Why it is happening is not really important at this venture, but it is happening. Also we have our social programs to start with, but people need to work, it is unfair for them to say sit around instead of being ""free" to either rent themselves to others", because people will stop working over it. That can damage our economy. Our economy is as ever bit as important as people because it is not possible to help them without money flowing in. You can give examples of other countries, but remember this, Canada is a different country than a European one. I am not saying that we should go copy North American countries either. But we should progress in ways we can like building a stong economy so we can put money back into the programs, like we did in the big boom during the fifties. We should continue to pursue ways of continuing to be understanding everyone. We can try to help people down on their luck, but without money coming in from the economy, our resources to do so are quite limited. I believe the way we can help people is by helping them receive a job. We can use the extra money in from taxes that have now been generated to help more people. And then we can keep working to help people out that way.

 

Also free post-secondary is a bad idea because in Europe less people get to go to University. We do try to help people in this area too because more people have a second chance to turn their school life around, they can go to college and work at trying to become better and they can take University Transfer courses so they can go back onto that path. It is a trade off either way, help more people but you have to charge them some money, or help less people and charge them nothing. I personally would rather see the more people, more money option because some people need it or else they would have to take jobs they do not want to take simply because they cannot go to post-secondary due to lower grades. That is an area we should not generalize because some people can work harder and will given the chance.

 

Canada has been eliminating the debt since 1993, it is a slow process but the Liberals have been working on it.

[Bizud]

Eliminating the debt by transfering it to the provinces...

 

Whatever, dude, it's obvious you buy the capitalist dogma (lower taxes = better economy! That must be why the US is a hell on earth for very large chunk of its population while Norwegians and Swedes live better than anyone else!). I don't. The so-called "conservative movement" in North America is two parts - one, evangelical hicks are growing in number in Canada and the US, which has a lot to do with depoliticization. Marx got it exactly right, religion is the opiate of the masses. People need to participate in something meaningful to help make a difference in their lives - if they can't do that, they'll turn to someone who says "you can make a difference - come to church," and they'll put their faith in a god to help them feel better about themselves, the world, and their place in it. It's almost a universal that as industrialization and modernization progress, the role and predominance of religion decreases. That just hasn't been true in North America, though, and I think its because of the weakness of the labour movements here.

 

Two, globalization and treaties like NAFTA empower the business class and remove power from the worker. For example, there's little to be gained from striking anymore in many cases, because often a company can just set up shop in some country where people haven't even won the right to strike. Workers are afraid to stand up and say "Hey, pay me enough to feed my kid or we'll strike for it." That's incredibly wrong, the right to secure employment (and thus income) is a right on par with healthcare - and remember, in real terms people are earning less and less. Tell me, Matt, how would you resolve this dilemma? Would you even consider it a dilemma?

[ecnarf]

Excellent points, Bizud.

 

Speaking of health care in the U.S., approximately 40 million people are without health insurance in the states. That's larger than the population of Canada, and over 10% of the population. What happens if those people get into a car accident? The money comes out of their own pockets, and couple that to the fact these people generally work low-paying jobs, may well already be in debt and are possibly struggling to make ends meet - its just undoable.

 

Lowering taxes can help the economy, when it's done right. And that's not to say that lowering taxes in exchange for cutting social programs is good, either. Currently in the U.S., George Bush's tax cuts went almost exclusively (in dollar terms) to the top half of the population, and it's contributed to 2/3s of the deficit. Taxes have to be cut to the people who buy more things, and those are the lower class. Why? Rich people already have most of the things they need - a house paid for, big screen tv, three cars and a boat, and only need to buy small things on a regular basis, such as clothes or food. People who don't earn as much probably pay a mortgage and finance a car, or use public transportation. They also have lower margins of income and spend only on necessities. When taxes are cut and they have some funds freed up, they might be able to get themselves out of personal debt, or start buying things they don't need - as Voltaire said, "The superfluous is necessary". That is, luxury items may not be necessary for survival, but they are good for the economy. Give rich people a few extra thousand dollars a year, and they won't blink. Give poor people a few extra thousand dollars per year, and they will spend it. Which makes more economic sense?

[Matt]

I'm talking about raising big business tax which will not help at all, ecnarf. I've been through what will probably will happen too already.

 

Business has the right to make money too, they took the risk on the people they employeed and it is expensive to replace people so they should be able to make some money off of the person. Maybe we should rethink what people buy these days too. I know people who do not have a lot of money, yet put computers, tvs, etc. into their kids rooms. Right there could be a cost saver. Money is wasted when it should not be. But if we do not have a strong economy we do not have money to help people that do those types of things.

 

Also the debt has to be paid off or it will continue to build up leaving less for the people every year.

[Bizud]

Your right, the debt should be paid off, but not at the cost of social programs that keep some people (barely) from living in poverty. Low taxes are a luxury, adequate social programs are a right.

 

Business has the right to make money too, they took the risk on the people they employeed and it is expensive to replace people so they should be able to make some money off of the person. Maybe we should rethink what people buy these days too. I know people who do not have a lot of money, yet put computers, tvs, etc. into their kids rooms. Right there could be a cost saver. Money is wasted when it should not be. But if we do not have a strong economy we do not have money to help people that do those types of things.

 

Wait...you're saying it'd be okay to restrict what families buy for their kids, but not how much profit a corporation makes? Are you on drugs? That's fascism (one accepted definition for fascism is the government running the economy in collusion with big business).

[Matt]

Your right, the debt should be paid off, but not at the cost of social programs that keep some people (barely) from living in poverty.  Low taxes are a luxury, adequate social programs are a right.

 

Business has the right to make money too, they took the risk on the people they employeed and it is expensive to replace people so they should be able to make some money off of the person. Maybe we should rethink what people buy these days too. I know people who do not have a lot of money, yet put computers, tvs, etc. into their kids rooms. Right there could be a cost saver. Money is wasted when it should not be. But if we do not have a strong economy we do not have money to help people that do those types of things.

 

Wait...you're saying it'd be okay to restrict what families buy for their kids, but not how much profit a corporation makes? Are you on drugs? That's fascism (one accepted definition for fascism is the government running the economy in collusion with big business).

I never said we should restrict what people buy. What I said was is there are ways to conserve money, especially on un-neccesary expenses such as TVs, and Computers in people's bedrooms. If people are so worried about money, that would definitely be one cost saver for people that are not well off.

 

Also the debt has to be paid off, I do not believe we should put that off. We should work out ways to create jobs for people so they can support themselves.

Edited April 13, 2005 by Matt

[Bizud]

More comprehensive social programs need to be created, we can't put that off. It's absolutely criminal that in a country as rich as ours you still have to pay for post-secondary education. It's absolutely criminal that in a society as rich as ours there are still homeless people everywhere. It's absolutely criminal that, to my knowledge, only two of of the ten provinces (including BC) have anti-scab legislation. It's criminal how overworked nurses are. And so on and so forth. Don't give me any crap about how we can't afford a society that provides these very basic things (I mean, if other countries can provide them, surely Canada can), because we most certainly can. There's plenty of wealth to go around and we all know damn well where we're going to have to get it.

 

I never said we should restrict what people buy. What I said was is there are ways to conserve money, especially on un-neccesary expenses such as TVs, and Computers in people's bedrooms. If people are so worried about money, that would definitely be one cost saver for people that are not well off.

 

Hey, people don't have enough money, let them sell their posessions, right? They're not entitled to the same quality of life as the rich; you only deserve what you've worked for and earned yourself, right? Plutocrat.

[Matt]

People can keep what possesions they want, but some of what we value are not neccessities.

 

My views on Post-Secondary Education:

Also free post-secondary is a bad idea because in Europe less people get to go to University. We do try to help people in this area too because more people have a second chance to turn their school life around, they can go to college and work at trying to become better and they can take University Transfer courses so they can go back onto that path. It is a trade off either way, help more people but you have to charge them some money, or help less people and charge them nothing. I personally would rather see the more people, more money option because some people need it or else they would have to take jobs they do not want to take simply because they cannot go to post-secondary due to lower grades. That is an area we should not generalize because some people can work harder and will given the chance.

I believe that is how we can help people. People make mistakes, but especially when they are younger, however, if we adopt a European system like you have suggested, we would be taking away their second chances that Canadians have created over time. I believe people deserve a second chance, especially in Education. It's a trade off to let more people to college and university, but by paying less, less receive the chance to better their careers.

 

Nurses received wage increases lately, but if you would like to see more Nurses, the B.C. Liberals are the way to go in B.C. The N.D.P. did not raise the amount of classroom space in Nursing/health care type courses, the Liberals did. As more people come out of those programs, we are likely to see more nurses around to help relieve the current amount.

 

We can only create the amount of social incomes along with the amount of income we have to spend on them. There are so many dollars, and no more unfortunately.

 

The way to help homeless people is to help them find a job so they can be working, thus having an income coming to hopefully stay off the streets.

[Bizud]

I believe that is how we can help people. People make mistakes, but especially when they are younger, however, if we adopt a European system like you have suggested, we would be taking away their second chances that Canadians have created over time. I believe people deserve a second chance, especially in Education. It's a trade off to let more people to college and university, but by paying less, less receive the chance to better their careers.

 

I don't understand what you're talking about with second chances, guy, I just said free education.

 

We can only create the amount of social incomes along with the amount of income we have to spend on them. There are so many dollars, and no more unfortunately.

 

And some people have a lot more of those dollars, and can thus pay a lot more.

Edited April 13, 2005 by Bizud

[pearanoid]

Matt, I'm having trouble with your logic here with regards to homeless people.

 

You say lower taxes, which no doubt will lower money to social programs.

 

Then you say help homeless people by getting them jobs. It hard for someone who has nothing to make a resume and recieve phone calls and show up at job interviews looking respectable. Some sort of social program would be necessary for this.

 

And many homeless people don't have the necessary training to work at many jobs. To get it, they need education, which costs money of course. And you don't want to help them get that second chance for free.

 

It's a really complicated problem. You seem to offer a lot of ideas for what needs to be changed, but you're not really offering coherent solutions. What you keep suggesting is stuff that's either happening or has been done in some form. Yet the problems are still here. I think Bizud has some interesting ideas that should be thouroughly considered.

[Matt]

I believe that is how we can help people. People make mistakes, but especially when they are younger, however, if we adopt a European system like you have suggested, we would be taking away their second chances that Canadians have created over time. I believe people deserve a second chance, especially in Education. It's a trade off to let more people to college and university, but by paying less, less receive the chance to better their careers.

 

I don't understand what you're talking about with second chances, guy, I just said free education.

 

We can only create the amount of social incomes along with the amount of income we have to spend on them. There are so many dollars, and no more unfortunately.

 

And some people have a lot more of those dollars, and can thus pay a lot more.

Free education would only benefit the best and brightest as shown through the European system. Less people have the chance to use the education system in Europe because it is free. This means the people who did not do well in high school for whatever reason would not get that chance to go college, upgrade their courses and go back onto the education path which can lead to better careers. In Europe, if you are not on the right path towards University, than you have no other choice but to go into apprenticeship programs and lose the chance to do some jobs you may of preffered to do because of low grades.

 

In Canada, more people have the chance to utilize post-secondary education. This means that everyone has to pay a service charge so that more students can use that system though. This means people who may have had to accept jobs they were not interested in before, can now continue to go to school, and if they work hard enough to upgrade their courses, go to university and find the job they would prefer to be doing. Some people will have to work hard to pay for it, some will have to take out student loans, but at this is only temporary compared to a life of having to work crummy jobs simply because some people did not want to pay a little bit of the fee so they could take part in University as well.

 

Ecnarf, you are right homeless people most likely have little work experience. But, usually the higher up jobs do not come into the economy later. What this does is build up peoples work experience as well as create a stepping stone for them. As the company is gaining more and more business in one area they are more likely to begin considering moving an office to that area to over see operations there. This can either help the now former homeless person if they promote within (which some companies (such as hotels)) do, or help a trained professional who learned what he needed to know at one of universities. Lets say the trained professional is one of the second chance people I mentioned who would not have had that chance had there been free education. Right there we have helped two people. The best case secenario is definitely they both get hired for headquater type jobs of course, but at the very least both people are not on the street.

[Bizud]

Free education would only benefit the best and brightest as shown through the European system. Less people have the chance to use the education system in Europe because it is free. This means the people who did not do well in high school for whatever reason would not get that chance to go college, upgrade their courses and go back onto the education path which can lead to better careers. In Europe, if you are not on the right path towards University, than you have no other choice but to go into apprenticeship programs and lose the chance to do some jobs you may of preffered to do because of low grades.

 

In Canada, more people have the chance to utilize post-secondary education. This means that everyone has to pay a service charge so that more students can use that system though. This means people who may have had to accept jobs they were not interested in before, can now continue to go to school, and if they work hard enough to upgrade their courses, go to university and find the job they would prefer to be doing. Some people will have to work hard to pay for it, some will have to take out student loans, but at this is only temporary compared to a life of having to work crummy jobs simply because some people did not want to pay a little bit of the fee so they could take part in University as well.

 

I. Just. Said. Let's. Make. It. Free. I. Didn't. Say. Make. It. Harder. To. Get. In.

 

Stupid.

 

"But how do we do that?"

 

How do you think, TAX THE RICH THROUGH THE FUCKING EAR.