myata

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?

God couldn't create a stone they couldn't lift. But Canada is mightier!

It's perfect as it is (for us). Abandon all hope (the motto).

Any fair democratic system can work. You can have a system of independent representatives (like the US) with a legal prohibition of interference with elected representative's will and other related essential changes. Proportional representation is a clear alternative that works in many or most developed democracies. Preferential vote is less common but it can work too, combined with removal of all barriers to entry of new parties. Canada now is the only FPTP in the (supposedly) developed world. In addition, with tightly controlled parties and hand-managed deputies and an absolute lack of checks and controls, there are severe barriers to entry of new political players. That makes legitimate the question, is Canada still a real, genuine democracy; by what virtue(s) and for how much longer?

Boris Johnson noticed an interesting trend: even high level Republicans (or even more so) fear of being chastened by certain media characters. This is not the first time of course, but the trend is becoming more pronounced of recent, or can one say, persistent and continuous? The names, change. The trend, keeps popping up. Why though? Why independent representative of the free people, in a proud one of the oldest true democracies on the planet, in particular leaders should and would be fearful of anyone? But there's nothing partisan about it of course. On the other side across the isle we just observed trigger-syringe happy "for your own good" politics that couldn't be questioned in a calm and rational manner. The direction appears to be universal. And the cause, in the root and foundation: FPTP, first past the post wins all. - From a forum of free and independent representatives of citizens only one logical step: effectiveness takes to forming of political groups, cliques. - Only one more, creates a setting, ecosystem of exactly two major ones not counting insignificant fringe. Same point: if you aren't as big or bigger than your opponent, you lose, always. And the final one, partisanship. Because there are only two possible outcomes, you win or you lose, your opponent becomes more than a fellow citizen with different views; an adversary and eventually, the enemy. One more time: with FPTP all of this is a package, a given. It will happen, you will get it and no theatrics would change anything in the essence. But it doesn't stop here. Even within your own clique you aren't secure. You have to constantly look out for and beware of groups and smaller cliques because the one that is louder and stronger will have more chances standing up to the strong sworn enemy, and a weaker ones, calling for understanding and compromise, can be seen as helping them. Not can, were in fact. Tucker, Fauci, Trump and all the other cases before them are the symptoms. FPTP creates a real problem in the society, that of political polarization and all the way to extreme partisanship. It cannot solve or rectify it by its very nature. Starting with independent and free you end up anything but. And that's in a real democracy. Now US is a strong democracy with intelligently and thoroughly thought through and constructed system of checks, balances and controls. Canada is not. So when an authoritarian clique forms here the society will be helpless and then: anybody's guess. FPTP is also (or should one say, naturally?) the preferred system of communist dictatorships and third-world quasi democracies. "Your representative" on paper or in a pretty pic, so easy to manage in any number of ways behind the curtains. Beware, you were warned. No blissfully blind walking into this paradise.

And so we keep coming back to the same celebrated theme. Too much or not, who's there to decide that, how? Independent citizens representatives, we don't have those sorry. Correctly reflected and represented political views of the population, not here, try next door maybe. Again Michael: who decides what is and isnt' too much, how they do it and why they can do it? Can you decide what isn't too much for me, and I, for you? Can I ask you for a few grand tomorrow, it's really not too much (I say) what?

Take this example. An aboriginal from Amazon jungle comes to live in the greatest democracy, then claims the right to serve citizens, on their pay with nothing but a leaf on the interesting spot OK in summer. Because of their deeply held amazon believes and traditions. What? How's it any different? Only one democratic country would make a great multicultural conundrum out of this case. Is it a coincidence that it's also the only one with a third-world level pseudo-democratic quasi representation system?

"Supposed" freedoms and real ones is not the same thing! Supposed freedoms become real ones only by the will of free citizens to make and keep their governments responsible and accountable at all times. Putin and Chen Un know, but Canada?

And a smaller ("insignificant" as they like to call it) insult to injury: throwing citizens no scratch, residents dough at some figurehead appointed on a whim is firmly becoming the main approach to most complex problems of the modern society. Will it work? Can it? Who's interested to guess?

Could it be Canada though? Take France. In France, they have a proportional system. In France, right wing parties have been increasing their share of vote. It tells, in a language, the message, mainstream parties something. To see and try to understand and react to. France is France, it's citizens are French not some holy angels from some ideal universe. And if majority of the citizens aren't comfortable with being served by someone in attire directly associated with most oppressive regimes on this planet, French parliament reacts to the will of French citizens and makes it a law of France. That's it. Matter closed. Now, a simple, binary question: what could be terribly wrong with that picture? Who said it, why how, and proven in an open and transparent discussion that it makes some sense? Or would it be something deeply wrong with those who believe that they can take some abstract formula, without as much as understanding of what it actually means in the reality, and impose it on the society, just because they can, have no one to respond to, no checks, controls or reasonable limits? One reason only, the only one needed: because they can.