myata

What about left wing populist, liberal "for the greater good" "always know better than you what is good for you" beliefs projects?

Does the rock deserve to be attracted to the ground and fall? Wrong question: it's a law of nature. You can see it, admit and try to understand it. Or fall free and see what happens. Sure you can always check, that one is free.

Dinosaur (the last of): "Horror, o horror!!! Destroy and rebuild!" The rest of the (animal) world: "Look, nothing personal but we're living this way already a million years". ... By the way, have you seen that one, you know the dinosaur, of late? The end (evolutionary, dead one)

You are the last of the dinosaurs. No, there's none like you left in the developed, modern democratic world. Yes people can read and they can understand "representation" and "representative". No you can't win against evolution with dinosaur arguments. Can always try though, that one is free.

A step sideways from a track beaten by a million mindless, zombi-automatic steps into exactly same footprint is a truly scary undertaking, an unacceptable horrible risk, "destroy and rebuild", a catastrophe. For a dinosaur. "Why bother".

Amusing isn't it, that you just complained about governments treating you like a toddler, while advocating a system that allows them to do just that. Don't see the obvious connection, do you? Could it be because you have chosen to blindly believe a dogma, rather than think and examine things with your own brain?

Let's talk about facts. Are you saying that in a modern complex society there cannot be fourteen or twenty five defined and expressed issues, topics or areas of interests for involved citizens? Can a Great People's Party represent them all, accurately, fairly and importantly, effectively? Can exactly two Great People Parties aka default governing cliques entitled to a place at the trough for perpetuity? The answer is obvious to a smart three year old, faced with a dilemma milk or porridge says No! I want a banana! Just as easy as that. In the political sense this is a system for two year olds or those who couldn't care to think and create their living environment for themselves. Outdated, archaic and inefficient in a modern world as horse-driven carts. No, you can't prove that PR doesn't work because it's the most used democratic system in the developed world proven in dozens of instances: the reality itself disproves your claim. But you can succeed in proving that you are a dinosaur, oblivious and stubbornly refusing to see and admit the reality and the last one at that. A fact, by the way, too.

You are describing some alternative fantasy world while most of first world democracies have some form of proportional representation, and exactly one dinosaur still stuck with FPTP. In Canada, dreams come true)

Nonsense and untrue. Modern democracy works with coalitions. First citizens are represented by their representative bodies correctly and accurately (are those words there just by a coincidence?). Secondly, their representatives must find common ground to obtain the right to govern. That makes sense in a grown up, responsible society no? Instead we have two default and by definition opaque governing cliques and a joke ritual to pick the next turn at the trough. The only reason the system is not yet in a deep crisis is the size, a lot of stuff to dig out and sell. But getting there, slow but steadily, no surprises.

How many times have they done it already? Yay!

It seems to be a staple in the country: an opaque bureaucratic system that makes its own obscure rules that seem to work somehow but cannot be touch for fear of utter catastrophe. Is it good? Sure it's guaranteed to work if there's no big changes in the environment, everything is frozen exactly as it was ages back. And if there is? When you change and adapt you may not produce a perfect result every time, but you know how to improve what you have; and if you are at the top of your cycle, perfect as can be and came to abhor and avoid meaningful change at all cost - what could be your prospects? Let's see.

Attention PhD students and simply scientists, professionally or by the call of heart. To your attention is offered a concept of an interesting, intriguing and revealing statistical project. The idea is simple: over a period, let's say ten years, on this forum, we can take this specific one, we can take the topics that have been discussed here, and divide them into categories by perceived social impact. How is a matter of discussion and research but let's assume it is possible, eventually. The next step is evaluation of the action, addressing the issues. Here only a few categories: Something was attempted (a real, factual change in the observable reality, discussions, legislations, even appointed obscene $$$ public offices wouldn't count). Once more, we are interested in real, visible and measurable change in the reality of the country, not so much jerks, squeezes and squeaks of the bureaucratic machine. The former (change), and the latter (squeezes and squeaks) is not necessarily one and the same thing, an important assumption of the study. There was an observed, measured and visible improvement in the situation as a result of attempted action. And the last one, the action has been effective, observed improvement substantial and the problem or issue, etc., effectively solved. An example (converted to numerical format, for simplicity): Real action Visible effect Solved Cost to the public (added column) Issue 0 0 0 50M (e.g) Issue 1 0 0 Issue 1 1 1 and so on. Easy, no? Suggestions and improvements always welcome. An for completeness of picture one can add another column (see example): the estimated cost to the public (and that already includes all of the above). What do you think, wouldn't such a project be interesting and useful? Who could be interested in the connection of political theatrics and drama to the real, actual, measurable and factual positive change in the reality of the country?

The AI may know something. Common knowledge? Yes, extreme bureaucracy can definitely be very inefficient or even dangerous. Bureaucracy creates layers of complexity that can limit decision making. It encourages an environment where decisions are made for the 'greater good' rather than for the benefit of specific people or groups. This can often lead to an environment where individuals do not feel empowered to make decisions that could benefit them or the organization in the longer run.

"Because they can". It works perfectly as it is: MP salaries highest in the developed democracies, automatic annual rises rolling in. The army? The housing crisis? The health care? What? Where?! Here, would you like some brioches aren't they so good?

No need to invent the wheel. People elect truly independent representatives who cannot be controlled and will bring any questionable decisions to a public discussion immediately (not some decades belated); or people elect their representatives in the parties that represent their interests, freely without artificial constraints and barriers. Both are democratically legitimate and effective in finding solutions that population understands. This parody has only a remote resemblance and only because this is Canada and nobody can be bothered to care.

Is it so obvious to you? How? You have a special eye.. or a connection to the Supreme Genius office? How come this is not public information and no public discussion happened before this decision was made? The same happy "we just know best for your own good" tune, and why drop it really, IF WE CAN?

And only the all-knowing, all-seeing-through benevolent beyond any human measure the Honorable and Wisest Supreme Leader can single-handedly balance matters of this complexity. Right. How else, in the times of Adam.

There's nothing wrong with discouraging hatred. The question is, as always, in the details. What hatred? Why this kind of hatred and not that? Who decided which hatred? How it was decided and does it make sense? Will the proposed measure be effective in discouraging hatred? Or even have any chance of? In a democracy, all these questions are a) valid and b) answered. How many violent crimes were committed against homeless? Against women? Other social groups? Very recently, we had something very close to a witchhunt on people asking legitimate, meaningful questions? Do they all need obscenely paid public advocates too? Who decided? How? But Putins and Chen Un don't need to bother. Can go strait down to discouragement part.

You have to see those changes, not imagine them. Keep dreaming, just don't be surprised what you may wake up to.

And never have enough interests or will to create new parties or split the existing ones, with the bounds of partisan duality cut; and no new essential questions, issues, matters and agendas emerge... ever. How do you call a place like that? There was a word for that. Here's another way to look at the question though, not philosophical but more practical one: is Canada evolving, mentally, and physically, to a condition of Northern Mexico? Why wouldn't it? Name one reason. A one-bedroom apartment in a major city, over 2K. Median income in the country, 40K. The plan is to double the population within a decade.

How smart is the whole idea that you appoint a figurehead, bath them in an obscene barrel of taxpayer dough and it would change something in the reality, or could in approx. a million years? Who could come up with this notion, how and importantly, where?

I think what you are saying is that a real, meaningful change doesn't have strong stakeholders in Canada. One cannot argue with observed reality, but it seems to me it may not be a healthy disposition going forward in this world.

Yeah, exactly. They are both happy with the status quo (at the trough), and why would they want anybody else there? This happy idyll worked well in swimming in the minerals backwaters of the world of twenty million, but it's changing rapidly and they want to make it to 100 millions, with majority first or second generation third world. Is Canada becoming more like Northern Mexico? What's there to prevent it?

Nah why bother. The trough is right there and it's great as it is, complete with automatic annual rises. All the way to the third world, just check the peers in the FPTP team.

Michael says that in a market that you open up to competition, remove fences, guards and police, crazy unreasonable taxes, levies and just so fees - and in ten years you will find there the same three faces. Smart thinking, no? Or maybe he indeed knows something deep, inherent, about the place?