idealisttotheend

Why should we have labour laws or standards? Because companies whose only job is to act only in their own best interests cannot be counted on to act fairly or justly unless there is some incentive for them to do so, (as in laws or the threat of a strike). If the market exists to meet demands it follows that it's primary concern are those people who demand, i.e. workers. It follows further that while workers should not necessarily own the companies, it is in the market's best interest that the companies serve the people who demand as well as the owners. Or else there will be no one to buy the product. Therefore there must be a balance between the interests of the owners and the employees. Unions are a way to ensure this balance. . They benefit only insofar as another company has strong labour unions and therefore workers who can afford their products. Classic thieves’ dilemma. First chapter of economics 101: The market economy functions by assuming that people will act in their best interests by purchasing the lowest price product and that companies will act in their best interests by offering the lowest price possible and therefore taking business from their competitor. To argue that the [b} highest [/b] price/cost sets the benchmark is to argue either that the market has failed completely or that there is rampant collusion among companies when they set their prices and no real competition (possibly true in many sectors). As my excerpt from the interview with the Gilden VP shows companies are being forced to locate in the Third world (whether they want to or not), because if one does it then that sets the benchmark that all others must follow or be uncompetitive. In a completely rational (i.e. barter or other non monetary) economy this would have to be true, though the valuation of goods going each way could remain contentious. However if it were true under this system then no one would worry about the balance of trade and everyone knows that especially in Canada this is a key economic indicator (usually vis a vie the US). The US itself is desperately trying to decrease it's trade deficit through it's moentary policy (and this may be an election issue for them) in order to help their economy. The farther this balance tips (the more we buy vs. the more we sell) the poorer we get. This is key to my argument against out sourcing. And no I am not arguing against a monetary economy but I believe my point to be valid. If employees were weak ignorant naive and afraid then they would not defend their rights to democratic collective actions through unions as a way to defend their interests. We shall see, I suppose, if they are or if they aren't. Given the days of 'structural' unemployment levels they may well fall into poverty and begging on the street if they quit their jobs. It is all dependant on the economy and your place in it. If you live in Calgary then you probably would be okay, Gander you are probably in trouble. Especially the undereducated and unskilled, the jobs just aren't there. To be truthful I always disliked the seniority system that seems key to unions as it is not merit based. But the truth is that the company can often not be counted on to hire based on merit either. How many people whose only skill is kissing up get promoted these days? Again I'd argue that everyone has the choice to convince 50%+1 of their co-workers to have or not to have a union but to make it everyone for themselves takes away the right of people to an effective union if they wish it. The majority's freedom to an effective union outweighs the minority's freedom from a union if it is the wish of the majority to have one and so long as the minority can participate.

LR -7.5 (left) LA -4.46 (Libertarian) Are you suprised? I though not. I am closest to Ghandi. Ghandi was a good and wise man and I have always greatly respected him.

I just read this article off the G& M site. New Yorker reports Runsfield responsible for torture scandal It basically claims that there was a secret program to humiliate prisoners (physically and sexually) that was approved by Rice, Rumsfield and known to Bush in order to deal with the Iraqi insurgency. The source is a reporter with The New Yorker and it seems the last evidence that this was systematic and planned. It now seems clear that no law or convention is seen as applicable in how the American leadership treats people it considers 'enemies.' Consider: A) It always bothered me that there were so many photos out of Abu Grahib. If there is one thing the Pentagon learned from Vietnam it was to keep a tight control on any sort of media from it's operations. This includes pictures not taken by the media proper but that could end up in their hands. Now it seems these pictures were part of the plan. B The Quantanimo situation has shown that the Americans no longer believe in lawyers or charges for people in their prisons. Many are held without charges and it is unclear that they have done anything wrong at all, just that they might know someone who did. C) The Arar case is disturbing. The Americans picked him up at an airport on a stopover (he wasn't even intending to stay in the U. S.). They then deported him to Syria instead of keeping him there or turning him over to the RCMP in Canada. It remains nonsensical for them to argue that they did not think he was going to be tortured and then it is not hard to conclude that this is why he was deported in the first place (to a country the Americans consider an enemy no less). The evidence against him, he signed a lease for someone who might be a terrorist and attended a training camp in Afghanistan many years ago (the same camps resulting from CIA encouragement of Islamic fighters to fight the Russians). D) I originally thought this was like the Somali affair involving Canadian troops but always wondered at why there were so many pictures and now videos (including the ones we haven't seen) if it wasn't systematic. E) The New Yorker is no tabloid. I assume their lawyers are good enough that this would not be published unless it was an ironclad, corroborated, source. Therefore, it now clear to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the American leadership condone torture to get information out of people who aren't even the terrorist masterminds but "cabdrivers, brothers-in-law and people pulled off the street." (same article). I will admit that I have never really liked the American political system and foreign policy. Since they decided they had the right to approve the assassination of Diem in Vietnam it's been all downhill. I agree that most American's are decent people but I really have never agreed with their particular methods and goals of trying to run the world. This however is too much. Something is rotten in the District of Columbia and if they think the stink isn't travelling right across the world their arrogance is mind boggling. It is absolutely and totally idiotic for people who purport (however badly) to defend "freedom" to engage in this sort of conduct. Why don't they just hire Hussien himself to run the damn prisons with his sons. These prisoners have not even been proven to have done anything to begin with. 9-11 was a tragic act of mass murder that was unjustified in all respects and the perpetrators should be punished at reasonable costs (even if it means a military instead of a police operation against the people actually responsible). Terrorism is not however new, many many countries have been dealing with for a long time (including Britian) and no other country has resorted to such extreme measures to combat it. THe Iraq operation is justified in terms of 9-11 by the White House. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, Bin Laden hates Hussien as being everything that he pretends to oppose (a secular, slightly westernized, Arab state). Iraq had no WMD and if the Americans are really going to attack everyone with WMD then there is a long list. Yes it is harder to get information without torturing people but that is the price we pay to live in a society we like to believe is free and democratic. It is not too high price. In business, the difference between a good manager and a bad manager is that when it hits the fan the good manager sticks to the values and goals of the organization and calmly stays the course while correcting the problem. The good manager plans for bad times and has contingency plans to deal with said. The bad manger flails around and goes from one extreme solution to another, ignoring the strengths of his organization and usually eventually destroying the company in the process. What kind of manager is in the White House?? IMO the Americans have just lost any shred of claim to the moral high ground or to a greater understanding of the concepts of a free and democratic state. IMO the Americans have lost the right to claim that they can handle WMD any more responsibly than anyone else. IMO if the Americans were anyone else there would be a call for sanctions against them. IMO the American leadership is going to create so many enemies that we are all going to have to live in fear for our lives (and no I don't believe in appeasement of terrorists but I don't believe in pissing people off enough to create more either without any valid reason). IMO any American that is not ashamed of this better hope that at least the damn trains will run on time in the New World Order. If this is how the Americans are going to act as occupiers than I submit that the insurgents are justified in opposing them. I do not make such a statement lightly. Excuse me but this makes me livid, those are not the terrorist masterminds in those pictures, in fact they are not even suspected of necessarily killing Americans.

Given the current ethnic makeup of the country I think if we were going to introduce another we'd actually need about ten or fifteen, (aboriginal laguages, madarain, who knows what else). Maybe designating more languages 'official' is not the solution. as much as encouraging multilinguilism is schools and such. Senate reform, Senate reform, Senate reform.

As someone who obviously knows his/her history than I think we both realise that this is the fundamental question of the current revolution. I have to compete with a robot whether I want to or not. Since Taylorism and Ford's assembly line cutting the production time for his magneto to a 1/4 of the old time the question here is, is automation in the best interests of humanity (and this is not obvious) and if it is then who should reap the benefits? (These are not properly robots but the concept is the same). Automation did lead to the famous $5 day and cheap cars (and define the century in economic terms at least) but more and more we see companies making larger and larger profits due to automation while workers see little or any benefit. Prices have not dropped in line with the drop in production costs (see Rifkin The end of Work). Else we would be seeing deflation and not stagflation (which we are not even seeing anymore). If we accept that we are homo economis (to borrow from Ms. McQuaig) then we are in grave danger of making the human race redundant and obsolete in economic terms. Or at least except for anyone with an IQ over 120 or so who can do the "skilled" jobs. We will likely find ourselves short of these people in any event, at least until those jobs can be automated which is quite possible. This will create (and is creating) all sorts of social problems unless dealt with soon (like before the next recession, the savings rate is already at zero, there is no more money to borrow). However this is probably the subject for another 'thread'. This I disagree with vigorously. If we were talking about trade between equally wealthy countries (as Mr. Smith intended) I would agree. But this is far from the reality. A worker in a third world country is not on the same level as a robot and maybe it is because we don't see the difference that things are the way they are. It is just a new way to race to the bottom. Furthermore it is not in our best interest in the long term (the long term being something both the market and our system of government are very poorly set up to address). Either: You believe in a national economy (or some approximation thereof) in which case we are paying other people (no matter how little) to do 'our' work resulting in both a transfer of real wealth (again no matter how little) to other people and reducing the circulation of money between employees and employers resulting in a shrinking of GDP. You believe in a global economy in which case than equilibrium will soon set in lowering our living standards and raising the people who we are 'trading' with i.e. getting to produce our products. Indeed I do not, this is why I defend my right to form a union even a closed shop union. A union (may) protect me from pressure and intimidation by my employer including pressure on my wage by hiring people excursing their "right" to not belong to the union and to work for a lower wage. Or to force me to work overtime because if I don't I will be fired. I defend the right to form a union for the very reason that it can protect me from coercion by my employer. Furthermore the argument that "we must belong" is a fallacy (in the case of unions not governments). We must belong only insofar as 50% +1 of our co-workers feel we must. As soon as 50% +1 do not agree we must belong than the union is toast (even for those who still want to belong). There (should be, though there usually is on the employer side) no pressure intimidation or threats involved in this press therefore it is not coercion. It is a balance. Martin, unfortunately (I like the man himself but he has surrounded himself with incompetent advertising men/women for advisers and shown no mettle necessary to actually bring his ideals into practice). The Alliance/Conservatives made a serious mistake in keeping Harper as this is clearly their election to take from the divided and unfocused Liberals. The man has too much baggage (like 'firewalls' and such) and while he is the slickest (most polished) leader they have had in awhile that same slickness will lead people to distrust him and not vote for him. If they'd gotten Lord, Klien or even that intellectual giant Harris I think they would have taken it, (or possibly even Strahl or Grey someone with a little better connection to the common folk and with more of an honest reputation as honesty will be The Issue).

I guess you are right about the weather but I think it goes down hill from there. Elections sir. Always elections. By your own logic we should throw out every provision we have against bribing people who hold public office. The market could decide who gets what law passed based on how much they can afford to bribe any given politician. Now the market may indeed have a lot of influence in too many instances given the recent leadership conventions of the Liberals and the Alliance/Conservatives and the sponsorship scandal. But I contend this is the worst example of how things should be run while you seem to think that it is the best. Furthermore by leaving voting to the markets it, by definition, ensures that people with more money get more votes while people with no money get no votes. In practicality, this is often the case but again I submit that this is the worst example of democracy and not the best. Of course we could argue about how the market distributes the 'votes' in the market but that is another argument. Having the 'vote' go to people with money only though is another reason the CBC is essential. All the 'left wing' causes that CBC is purported to defend are not in the ecomomic interest of private networks to report on and therefore issues affecting people with insufficient amounts of money may not be discussed. Homeless people or the mentally ill have no money and don't buy things that are advertised on the news therefore it is not in a private networks interest to report on things that affect them. You have stubbornly and consistently refused to deal with my argument that I cannot choose not to support CanWest Global. Who are the advertisers that I should not support? If I buy a product from any business that does advertise with CanWest does that mean I necessarily support them, that I want to contribute to the business’s advertising budget? How can I choose a bank that does not advertise, for example? Markets are designed to be competitive not co-operative. If they were not competitive they could not function and competition is diametrically opposite co-operation. Indeed math is hard, which must explain why so many people misunderstand markets so badly. Again I reiterate my argument that I can do nothing to affect CanWest by purchasing decisions that are indirect to CanWest itself. Therefore I have no vote in the market. Where is the price difference on the food I buy or my bank's service charges based on where or whether or not they advertise and how much they spend? Which one doesn't advertise on a private network (or the CBC itself)?!? Or do you seriously contend that anybody makes a decision to buy or not buy something (or what price they are willing to pay) based whether or not they support the media in which said company advertises? Do you? If people do, how does CanWest know this? If I want to do this myself, is there some practical way for me to do it? I certainly can't find any way, short of buying nothing.

Why? Do you believe they should have a monopoly on labour? Would you like to see our monopoly laws [where labour unions were exempted many years ago] dropped? What is undemocratic about it? What about the rights of all the non-union workers? In fact, allowing labour unions the monopoly over labour that they presently have does in fact remove rights from non-union workers by denying them employment at unionized sites if they do not wish to be represented by a labour union. The world has changed drastically and the "strike" has become an outdated weapon. Corporations have matured and workers have matured... Time to use more mature tools. Of course everything is relevant.. you live in a low wage jurisdiction and costs are lower. Speaking of farming out production to lower wage countries -- who do you think are the biggest cheerleaders for strong labour unions in the country where these products are marketed? You guessed it.. these same corporations. When you have a product manufactured in Canada for example with union labour they market the product in this country at a modest profit. This then becomes the benchmark for pricing. Take this locally produced product of the market and you would see these same prices tumble. So, in effect, labour unions throughout Canada is what is enabling these corporations, that you condemn, to make these massive profits for the products they manufacture in other lower cost jurisdictions... Give this some deep thought before responding!!!! Indeed I have been giving this some deep thought for awhile now. Myself, I have no desire to compete with, or be more 'productive' than a worker in communist China. It is not for me to decide. If 50% +1 of the workers of a given organization want a union they should have the right to it, if 50% +1 don't then they should not have a union. But because they have ought to have the right to collective action (freedom to) some people may have to live with a union they don’t necessarily agree with (resulting in some loss of freedom from). Broadly you yourself have stated that 75% of workers are non-unionized so this hardly constitutes a monopoly even if all unions did work together, which they clearly do not. We have seen unions competing against each other recently in Alberta with health care unions and early union history is rife with competitions between various unions. To reiterate: As a worker I am "denied employment" at any company that I do not choose to follow the directives and standards of. Is it my "right" to work there even if I don't agree with management? Why then is it my right to work there if I don't agree with the union (which I can at least vote to change)/ Furthermore, do I have the "right" to not pay my taxes if I don't wish to be represented by a government. Clearly not as this would result in chaos and undermine democratic government. I have only the right to influence the laws of said government or change it, not to simply not participate even if I have no desire to be represented by the current government or no government at all. Such as? I'll give you that, the wages people make in third world countries can get people more than they get here. However neither you or I would ever want to trade places with these people. The reason no one from the third world is participating in this august forum is because they cannot afford computers and internet connections, to say nothing of food and decent sanitation. This argument is clearly insane. Kindly name one corporation that is cheerleading for strong labour unions. It is in their best interest that unions are strong because this ensures adequate wages allowing people the money to buy their products but corporations never recognize this and it will eventually hurt them (and us right along with them). As for benchmark pricing we both know that is the lowest cost per unit that sets the benchmark and not the highest price. Evidence of this follows This VP has just admitted that the price is the same no matter their costs and that they feel they have to move to a third world county to compete against the lowest labour costs of their competetiors. Gilden can keep their prices up because the classic thieves dilemma has not caught up with them yet. There are still people with well paid jobs (possibly thanks to unions but not necessarily) who can afford to buy Gilden's products at the old prices. And because the average consumer does not realize how much their costs have dropped they do not cry bloody murder that Gilden's labour costs have dropped 1000% but their price has not. Please give one example of a unionized clothing company in Canada that is allowing Gilden to charge these prices. As to the union, everyone knows full well that any sort of secondary manufacturing job still in Canada can easily be farmed out even to the US and so get in line or the company will be shut down and move, (remember MCI in Winnepig among others). This applies to the wage rates of non-unionized workers just as well. Work for what we give you or we'll move to China, (this is the real "right" you are defending). Furthermore your argument is specious for the very reason that the market is supposed to give us the lowest price by having companies with lower costs lower their prices to compete with their higher priced, higher cost competitor’s. If this is not happening, (and you are arguing that in fact the highest cost product is setting the 'benchmark' which I assume is the price) than why not? Do we need to rewrite all the economic theory of the free market which says this is impossible? Of course we do since consumers are not seeing the benefit of the lower labour costs you defend but I doubt you’ll agree. If you really believe that unions in Canada are pushing prices up then I take it your argument against unions means you feel that corporate profits are too high? Are you willing to go on record and say this? If not then why bother to argue against the unions? Please don't say freedom because the idea of collective action is the heart of democracy and means that some must accept that which they do not like if it is the desire of the majority, so long as they are able to become part of that majority. Anything else is anarchy not freedom. But then when people can work only for themselves that makes them compete with each other which is exactly what you want since it pushes wages and standards down, doesn't it?

Your extremely well researched and very detailed attack on closed shop provisions is interesting. It, of course, only exists to undermine unions and of course that is only done to reduce wages By a measly average of 8% in 1999 (StatsCan, The Daily, Sep 26,2002) though it has been higher and that is what you want to get rid of. "Right to work" provisions are clearly undemocratic and have nothing to do with rights and everything to do with removing them. Unfortunately words such as "rights" and "freedom" have been hijacked by one side of the political spectrum in their attempt to look like they act for the good of the masses. The Fraser Institute's "Economic Freedom" index (tracking tax rates) and the 'Patriot' act in the US are examples of the new Orwellian language which some of us thought only existed in fiction or autocracy's. I fear that since our society is based on these very concepts that we are going to go the way of the Roman Empire. But then I am an idealist right? I have no particular love of unions, having worked for one and researched them some myself. They are particularily flawed institutions and these days are only for people who for the most part don't need them. Nevertheless they are (or rather could be) a powerful tool for workers to maintain the balance between employers and the employed. Right to work laws basically take away this right. Given: that 50% + 1 of workers need to vote for a union for it to be certified and given that 50% + 1 of workers can vote to decertify it, a union is a democratic institution. These people who are supposed have the 'right to work,' have the right to convince their fellow workers that a union is not in their best interests and have it decertified. Or they have the right to vote to change the policy of that union they don't like. But in a democracy, the minority must often follow the policies of the majority. Surely you do not suggest that an employee have the 'right' not to follow a company directive or that I should have the right to not pay my taxes or break the law as I see fit? Right to work laws effectively make a union impossible and you know it. Collective barganing agreements are useless as is the protection of workers to strike. Therefore unions themselves are useless. Your intention is to make us more 'productive.' Productivity in the economic sense is the art of doing more work for less money. Since it is often not possible to do more work or work harder, it comes down simply to be paid less money. The less we are paid the more productive we are. There is a good argument that it was Canada's low 'productivity' (while being able to sell into the US market) that accounted for the good times of the 70s and 80s. People who make less spend less and so there is no net benefit to anyone but the more 'productive' countries (such as communist China) and of course the companies who farm out these jobs to communist China reducing their costs while at the same time charging the same prices and therefore greatly increase their profits. Of course this is only short term (unless and until the Chinese start paying six months wages for a pair of shoes) but the obvious result of the current race to the bottom (what, you mean people have to make money to spend money, by God) is lost on almost everyone. People were given the right to unionize for a reason. The common man was finally seen to have earned it after fighting and dieing in the great wars. The depression pointed out the problems of the capitalist system (GM for example made a record profit in 1937 the same year they were closing plants and cutting people’s wages, there’s a depression on don’t you know. No matter how badly run they often are, they are run by the people who are supposed to have the power in this country. Part of having a union is that the majority of workers will act for all the workers. This ensures against a race to the bottom (the person most deperate for a job set the wage rate for everyone). A minority may disagree with their union but their recourse is to join with others to become the majority or to get rid of the union. To argue against a closed shop is to argue against a democratic government becaue the principle is exactly the same. But then that argument is coming is it not, or have we already had it since we have been dismantling and discrediting democratic government since the FTA was made law?

I wonder if the net effect of Mr. Devine's action to run as an independant will be to split the vote and have the Liberals come down the middle? I wonder if Mr. Devine knows this and is doing it to punish the Alliance/Conservatives? Actually it might be very interesting because if he wins than this will be a slap in the face of the CPC for dening who was obviously the more popular candidate the right to run. Very bad for the (former) champions of grass root democracy. Interesting to that they would deny him, he was never even charged with anything I belive. Look how PC the Alliance has become under Harper.

Thank you for clearing the uncle thing up, I appreciate it. Yes I suppose that civil service jobs are more secure (though Mr. Cherry, Mr. Milewski, Ms Gartner, the casts of various CBC sponsered series, CBC camera operaters that have been automized and others may disagree). Now that I think about it maybe with the CBC they are not. The civil service as whole though definately does have a problem as the current scandals plauging the federal governement are a testement to. You yourself though admitted that you like the CBC and that it is "smart," it can't therefor be that bad despite the proverbial rich uncle. I myself don't find it to be a lower quality than the private networks, usually. Job security can be an asset as journalists are more free to say what they like. Or do you simply have to offer me something I need? I need food, I may give you the money voluntarily only insofar as I choose not to starve, use a bank, buy clothing etc. There is no reason a civil servant shouldn't feel good and useful. Not because they have simply kept their jobs for another day but because they have done whatever it is they do for the public good and in a professional manner. This may sound strange for this generation but in the 50s and 60s it was expected and rewarded. . Indeed! I can elect the people who have final resposibility for the CBC, I can participate in defining it's goals and values, it's funding level, hell I can complain about it's "bias" and someone will have to listen. What did the young Asper (is it David?) do to get his power? Who elected him in a free vote? What can I do to get him replaced as head of CanWest global or change that network's editorial position on Israel for example? Not buy his paper? I already do that and it doesn't help. Go to the competition, what competition (except nationally of course). Even if there is competition (does the SUN chain count?) they get money from mostly the same companies CanWest does. Seems to me I have a bigger say with the CBC. Which is probably why the CBC is so often talked about, we know that we do have some small say in how it is run. Nobody bothers to even sugest that we have a say over the Edmonton Journal so why talk about it?

Obviously I'd prefer #1 myself but would certainly not expect it. But I don't see how it applies to this situation. Please expand.

Thank you for the article, I didn't know so many countries still had conscription. Indeed ths state can compel me to serve in the military (if necessary but not necessarily, in the great Canadian tradition). That is exactly my point. While I am free, the democratically elected parliament, acting on behalf of the majority of my fellow citizens, has the right to compel me in certain ways. That may include taking away or restircting my "property" at certain times. You yourself pointed out that we do have laws regarding property that have not changed. If I do not want to be conscripted I have to vote for a party that opposes it at election time or write my MP to see that it is not instituted between elections or take any other democratic action to affect the policy. I do not need a constitutional protection against being conscripted.

Canadian acting schools now have classes in how to 'talk American.' Are you telling me if you put a Texan and a Newfoundlander together they will sound the same? How about a Manitobian and a New Yorker? That's very interesting, this "real" world. I wonder why it is then that American youths traveling abroad wear Canadian flags on their backbacks? Or why Canadians are often told to ensure that they make some sort of prominent display of their country of origin so they aren't confused with Americans? In fact while I have not been to Eupore myself everyone I have talked to who has gone, says that they are disliked until people realize that they are not Americans but Canadians. Apparently we have a reputation for being 'polite' and 'nice' and the Americans have a reputation for being arrogant and for their various empire-buiding activities. American foriegn policy and Mr. Bush are extremely unpopular in Eupope and relations are at or near an all time low. In addition many people in Eupope remember what the Canadians did for them in the world wars which was considerable.

About AFs concerns about C-250... I think the operative difference is between being taught safe anal sex practices (which I must say was never taught where I went to school) and learning or using them. I don't think any sort of information should ever be feared and it is the person's choice on whether or not to make use of it or reject it as garbage. They should however be given that choice. Similarly members of a community may have a right to hold a gay pride parade but other members of that same community have the right simply not to participate in, watch or go anywhere near said parade. It's about living together. I would be concerned however, if C-250 is interpreted by the judges to make it illegal for people to argue that gay sex is wrong. Gay sex was illegal (and considered a psychiatric illness) just 36 years ago and though I would never personally ever agree that the state does indeed have any place in the nation’s bedroom, it has to be legal to continue to discuss it and for people who disagree to be able to voice their concerns. Again I would not agree with that it should be, but I suppose it is not inconceivable that it be made illegal again.

I believe most of the Native societies here before the Euopeans arrived not only didn't have property rights but didn't understand the concept. Were they somehow oppressd or not free? And why do property rights have to be in the constitution anyway? If I have a large supply of hashish or child pornography is it then my property and do I then have a constitutional right to it. If not because it is illegal, then why can't guns or cars or anything else that we now consider property be made illegal therefore voiding the constitutional protection on it? I don't see the benefit.

The primary argument against the CBC seems to be that it is funded by the government through taxes. The thinking, usually espoused by it's detractors is that this is forcing people to pay for the CBC while people are not forced to pay for private broadcasters. The question, and it applies to the free market economy in general, is where do these private broadcasters get their money? From advertising, paid for by private companies. Where do the companies get this money, from you and me, (the people who buy there products). You and me, the same people who pay the taxes which help to support the CBC. Now the argument goes that we are legally compelled to pay taxes and we are not legally compelled to buy products from companies who buy advertising. But from a practical point of view this is completely irrelevant. Whether we are legally compelled to buy products or not we have no choice. We need food, we need clothing, we need banking services, we need transport. Name one grocery chain that does not advertise, one bank, one credit union or department store. Nobody can be reasonably expected not to purchase things from these business, if we didn't we would starve or not be able to cash our pay cheques. If you do find a business that does not advertise, it is without a doubt a small business and the economics of scale ensure that you will not pay a lower price for the product you receive and that in terms of practicality you will end up shopping at the larger, advertising business more often than not. Can any individual make an informed choice about how much of the purchase price of any given good or service goes to advertising? People who dislike the CBC, usually because of it's editorial position, complain that they are being forced to pay for it. I myself don't agree with CanWest Global more often than not. Do I have the option when I shop somewhere that advertises on one of their platforms to not pay the cost of advertising? Can I get two cents taken off the price of my hamburger when I go to McDonalds because I do not support CanWest? If I can't, am I then to be denied the ability to purchase a Big Mac. And can I reasonably choose simply not to bank with any bank that advertises on CanWest, are there any banks who don't?. Furthermore, if I do not like Global or the National Post it follows that I do not know who does and doesn't advertise there. How can I even know if I am or am not supporting a business that advertises with them. I contend that any average individual cannot make a reasonable and informed choice about whether or not to support companies that advertise on any given network. When you consider that many companies advertise on multiple networks including possibly the CBC it becomes even more convoluted. Therefore a reasonable individual is no more able to "freely choose" to support a private network than they are the CBC, (certainly I don't feel that I can) The argument for and against a public broadcaster is the same Left Right argument that occurs in every sector of the modern economy. It is not a matter of who pays for it, though the companies in question will do everything to convince us that it is. We pay the taxes and we buy the products, all funds come from the individual at some point. It is simply a matter of who controls the funds that we give them. Is it the government or a private company who decides how to disperse these funds. The CBC is essential because as a goverment agency it answeres to goals and objective above and beyond simply what advertisers will pay for. I admit that it can lean left sometimes (probably because of this independance) but there's the SUN chain and the National Post to name two that are unabashedly on the right and the CBC can serve to provide balance. People argue that if it can't make it economically by selling advertising than the market has decided it is not needed. But media (and specifically the CBC) is not always about being a simple popularity contest. Take for example information programming. It is in the interest of any democracy that the people who make the decisions (the voters) have access to 'hard' information in sufficient quantities and from sufficient sources if they want it. More people may prefer the latest reality show to the Fifth Estate, or a newscast that focuses on local crime rather than broad national issues, but it is in the public interest that the people who do want this information get it even if they are in the minority so they can make informed decisions about 'the big issues' and participate in democracy to a higher degree than their neighbours might. This programming is essential and is best delivered by a public broadcaster to both allow these programs to be seen irregardless of how many Big Macs they sell and to maintain a greater level of journalistic independence. Yes people complain about the bias of the CBC and that it is beholden to one government or another but then no one complains about the National Post's bias simply because the National Post makes no claim to not having a bias in the first place. The CBC does try (and often succeeds) in mainainting a reasonable degree of objectivity. Just had to get that off my chest