Michael Hardner

Hyperbole ! I think Canada does very well in the news department, considering how much smaller we are than other countries. The problem with television news is it's all driven from emotional flash-points, and there's never any resolution to the problems and conflict. It just keeps going on and on... Like a soap opera...

This is what I find so odd about this (mostly American) talk of UN reform. Would the US, England, France, Russia and China still hold veto power after any reform ? If this is really about reform and not dissolution, then do the proponents think that the US should hold sole veto power ?

RB: I think you make an error when you attribute any agenda to commercial television other than making money. No one is in the business of making propaganda for free, nor is anyone in the business of setting good examples. So the shallowness that you see in a 30 second commercial is there because it sells. Any collateral effect on society is a byproduct. If you want to do something about it, all you have to do is change people's values. This is about as easy as moving a glacier, or diverting a river but it does happen. Do you think an Aunt Jemima commercial, even from the 1970s, would be tolerated today ? I don't think so.

I'm sure if the Unions here thought their jobs were safe, and their wages would go up they would favour it too.

I think that this emotion is real, though, and it needs to be channelled somewhere. Politics, as we have seen on these boards, is related to identity and it needs to make people feel that they have a voice. I think that it may be time to reduce the role of the governing party in the day-to-day operation of many government operations. Good management might be better achieved if government operations were more open to more parties: political parties, and the interested public, ie. type of people who post on these boards. The governing party would still have the right to pass new laws. This idea addresses one of the chief complaints about the central government, that they are unaccountable and corrupt. It also would address a problem that has never been successfully tackled: our democracies were never intended to act as the giant service corporations they have become. Added: And to reiterate, it's important that these things be discussed outside the playing field of partisan politics. If we can do so, I believe we can agree on ways to have our cake and eat it too.

And this is why they win. Put three products on the shelf and the average shopper will grab at the one in the middle every time. This thread started out as an apolitical question about our political institutions and has descended into a partisan cockfight once again. Back to the main point: I sense some dispair in you, Auguste. But don't be sad. Think instead about the best things that these forums have done. On the surface, they seem to encourage ego-based argument and partisan backslapping, but even the most polarized of voters produces a better argument after being tested. I would submit that almost every regular poster will produce better thought out arguments after a few weeks or months on these boards. I know because I have seen it. I have seen people of both political stripes receive a real education in the best way - by talking to like-minded and opposite-minded individuals (in text form) and asking questions, and in the end holding a real opinion. I have also seen (although this is more rare) people of a political stripe modify or even change their own positions on major issues. This has happened to me. You may think that all of this is for naught. That a few enlightened individuals in a mass of voters will have no effect, but I think that eventually something very good will come out of these types of forums. ( Possibly even Rabble, and Free Dominion where I have posted in the past. ) Finally... I think you're right - that Democracy seems pointless today. Democracy seems ill to us because it was designed eons ago, in an era where opinions were written with a Quill and only the elite voted. If we want to revitalize it, we need to look beyond partisan politics and design a new democratic engine suited to today. I wrote an article on it here in response to an article by Allan Gregg of Decima research: The Politic

The preaching isn't done only to outsiders, but to all sinners, which is to say all people. The good part about religion is it exhorts people to be good. As religion slowly and surely dies, this good part is being replaced by materialism and sloth.

I think that there's something to that, but I also think that in many cases public institutions deserve the criticism. But much of the reason for their ineptitude is traced to politics also, IMO. Those governments who take 'pot shots' at institutions shouldn't be surprised, though, when other institutions suffer as well. In other words, what's good for the Federal Dept. of Goose, is good for the Federal Department of Gander. Or something like that...

Although the media is portraying the election strife we're seeing today as a reaction to the events of 2000, I'm not so sure. For some reason, American voters are very angry about what's going on right now. It's just just the war, or the economy, either. It seems to proceed from a deeply held image that people have of their country. Voters are seeing that image tarnished and are blaming the "other" political side. No matter who wins the election today, there will be a hangover of suspicion, and even more distrust of public institutions. I hope I"m wrong.

I believe Bush will win. If Kerry hasn't got a big lead by now, the last minute undecideds will go for the status quo. I have mixed feelings on this election. While I think Bush's policies have been generally bad for America, I don't think Kerry will do much better. And if Kerry wins, Bush's failures will be placed at Kerry's feet, not Bush's.

If so, then your plan to make the popular vote 100% by force seems to paper over the problem. And your plan to give fringe parties more power isn't going to please the 50% that don't vote, either. Do you think that the 50% are all Green Party supporters ? They probably have the same voting habits as those who show up at the polls.

50 ? How did you arrive at that figure ? It all sounds good, MS, but in some sense you're describing all the parties there.

Within a minority government, TWO political parties have to be consulted before drafting laws. This means twice as much political interference in public policy. This increases the impact of political parties, not decreases it. This strikes me as shooting the messenger. If people feel disenfranchised (or could the problem be that democracy is too successful ? ) I don't think that the government should use a big stick approach. People need to be more civic minded, need to understand the relationship between public policy in their lives, need to care enough about the differences between the parties to get involved, and so on and so on... It hardly seems consistent to spoonfeed people, coddle them, and cater to their every whim as consumers on one hand, then expect them to go to a polling station and LINE UP on voting day on the other...

The problem of voter disenfranchisement is epidemic. I don't think that we can zero in on the Greens' (or other small parties') supporters voices not being heard as the cause, yet PR only addresses this part of the problem. Canadians have shown that they want social programs, but also good sound management practices. These steps seem to complicate the political picture, which means there will be more effort spent by all parties on politics. I really doubt that THAT is what the people want to have happen.

But why haven't other police forces liberated the Chinese people from slavery as you theorize ? The assumption is that there is another free state nearby that has the means to assist. If this isn't the case, then the slaves of the policed state remain slaves. And your point about the South is tied to that place and time. If the south had factories manned by slaves, then they would have had all of the advantages over the north.

I don't follow this at all. The US trades with China, doesn't it ? Or just escape and forget about it. I've read that argument before, but I don't think that slaves cost more than free men. It seems to me that this idea is used to buttress a 100% free-market philosophy. It's just not realistic. Is that the only difference ? Ok then.

In policing, then, who decides what constitutes imposition of slavery ? In a private system, its the person(s) who pay the police directly, not the citizens. The difference between a private force paid directly by a group of citizens and a local police force paid from the municipal tax pool is ... ? I disagree. Money began in Sumeria around 3000 BC, and was administered by civic priests.

And don't forget to post on these forums ! An excellent way to inform yourself.

Arguing about the bias of media misses the point entirely. Look at the issues you're discussing - scandals, gaffes and graphic violence. This should give you a clue as to the real problem. There is a dearth of suitable information available to the mass public. The information given is either too detailed, or entertainment-based. Why is the news entertainment-based ? Because media organizations need to sell information to make money. They will only behave "journalistically" if doing so helps that prime directive. Entertaining news reaches a mass audience and attracts advertisers. But making oneself aware of issues requires paying attention to less entertaining aspects of the headlines. The information on such issues is only available to the patient, and the studious. Therein lies our problem - we're trying to make reasonable decisions based on sideshows.

Hugo: I could buy into your philosophy if you were truly independent of the government that makes you its slave, but in at least two cases, you rely on the collective to assist you with your way of life: In policing: And in the use of a central bank, unless the money you're referring to is barter. So, given that you agree with the concept of a collective authority, you have to agree to the concept of compromise, and you're already on the slippery slope towards taxes and what have you.

Can we please stop using terms such as 'unfair' when it applies to PR ? 'Unworkable' is a better term. What you write, MS, has been true for Canada because minority governments happen in frequently. If we were in perpetual minority, we'd end up in perpetual gridlock.

Yes, and polling does a lot of the work before election day anyway.

I worked for the government as a student, and have friends who are in the civil service. The pension is good, but you have to submit yourself into the "machine". It's like 1984. God help any ambitious person who gets caught up in that - it will crush them.

I agree Sweal. It's futile to try and eliminate something which is part of human nature, but we can make failure less catestrophic. Did you realize that accounting preceeded language as a form of communication ? That is why our 'A' looks like an ox upside-down - it evolved from the accounting 'symbol' of an ox.

But I do think you can discuss the issue dispassionately, and take a pragmatic approach without justifying the act itself.