Cartman

Irish, if the state ever does socialize the means of production, what makes you think that this will lead to communism/anarchy (i.e. the whithering away of the state)? If Marx were alive today, would he not say that it is time the Cuban state dissolve? Is Castro not betraying the revolution by retaining such massive control? Do you think he will declare as much before he dies? Why not? Is it not greed pure and simple? I would assume that most tyrants, to a varying extent, believe they are doing good by their people. Do you think Hitler hated Germans? I have enjoyed reading Marx. I particularly enjoy his wit and arrogance at times (which explains why I can stomach August ). But Marx must be read in context and his emotional zeal be tempered by disciplined logic. Check out Hobbes, Smith, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham etc. as well (not as user friendly, but insightful).

Well put August. ALL things being equal, I suspect that men have a better chance of getting elected. Men are probably perceived as being more vigilant in a political setting. If I, however, had to choose, I would take the "blind Jewish African wheelchair lesbian".

My understanding is that the Canadian health care system has been quite efficient particularly compared to the United States. Recently, however, we hear that costs are soaring. Assuming this is the case, does anyone know how Canada compares in terms of this rate of increase? This information may not be available as valid, comparable statistics on anything are hard to find. I suspect that regardless of how the system is funded, medical costs are increasing due to our aging population (which consumes more medical resources than other age groups) and the costs for new medical equipment.

If he really wanted private treatment so badly, why not go to the US? Would they not treat him?

I thought the worst was over, but here in Calgary we are asked to conserve water. Of course, I saw some pinheads continue to wash their cars and water their lawns. Why would you water your lawn after that much rain?

I tend to disagree. Welfare may be Robin Hood to an extent, but I suspect that the middle-class and the working-class pay for the bulk of this program if only because they are numerically much larger than the upper class. This matters not for my central point is that the police are paid by the same taxpayers, but the more affluent tend to receive better service than others. For example, if you live in a wealthy area of a city (say North end of Vancouver) and there are reports of drug users roaming the area trespassing upon private property and causing fear amongst residents, the police will most likely leap to action. If there are reports of drug users doing the same thing on the East side, the police will probably wonder why the hell you are even pointing this out to them. Why the difference? Why should some residents receive better protection by the state than others? All taxpayers must pay for this service, but the wealthy actually benefit disproportionately. There is no reason why communities could not self-police. Failure to self-police is easily perceived as the result of laziness (as many argue is the case for welfare). It requires only time, effort and minimal expense. Imagine if people actually got off their butts and patrolled their neighborhoods to identify those causing harm. Eventually, criminals would be too afraid for fear of being identified and punished. As it stands now, most people do not even report crime when it takes place and engage in "bystander apathy" when they see it. Why does bystander apathy exist? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect Because we are trained to be passive and let the police deal with our problems. If socialists, by definition, want more government, then why is it that the right seems to favour more police and taking crime out of the hands of individual citizens?

Maybe you are right.

I was specifically referring to the Canada Health Care Act. But, depending upon the numbers, I have little objection with the exception that profit may introduce inflated prices. This opens up an entire can of worms that I would rather avoid for purposes of this discussion. I thought you would believe it best determined by a free market rather than state intervention. In terms of the comparison of policing and welfare, I was playing devil's advocate by making the argument that the existence of both institutions may be perceived as the result of laziness. If people should rely upon themselves to make a living (i.e. no welfare payments), people could also self-police (I was thinking of Hugo's ideas on voluntary communities). Why consider the nature of the demand for one government service to be any different from another? As Hugo so eloquently stated: For Hugo, all forms of government = tyranny. This is logical and used consistently. Many others on the right tend to equate some forms of government services (i.e. welfare) as socialism, but others as (i.e. police) as capitalism. This is very convenient but illogical. It gives the right the ability to label welfare recipients as a bunch of lazy bums but parents who send their kids to school as normal, regular people. Both are using my money to funds these services. If I am being robbed, why do I care how the criminal spends my money?

With all due respect Hugo, is this not a given? I mean, if there are no police to catch criminals then there will clearly be a lower crime rate. I suppose if you eliminated the police altogether, the crime rate would be zero but that is not the same as saying that crime ceased to exist. Even if reported crime is what is used as the "crime rate", if people know the police are on strike, they will probably not bother to report the fact that they were victims of property crimes which are the majority of crimes in this country. Violent crime comprises only about 12% of all reported crime in Canada. I find this an absolutely fascinating observation because I have always been pissed off at the lack of policing and attributed it to a right-wing agenda which demands lower social expenditures (which include the police, courts and prison system) and greater personal freedom rather than stricter state control. I would agree that there is a lack of policing in our society and it has the potential to become a much more serious problem. Of course, we have to police the police as well. (ps does it not make sense to have fewer police than the US though? If you compare Toronto with Chicago for instance, the latter has a homicide rate per 100,000 over 5 times as high as the former).

No particular incident sparked this thread. Rather, it has been my observation that some on the right believe that universities are centres for some left-wing agenda and I am not convinced by these suggestions (the argument is similar to the one made about the Liberal media). My experience is that most institutions are run by rather right leaning individuals and that professors come from all walks of life. Frankly, I suspect that most professors don't really care what students think because their own research is what concerns them. To say that universities are less than tolerant for right-wing ideas is rather disconcerting and I have been waiting for people to identify any instances of such and to know what they have done about it. No takers yet.

Would you happen to know the title of the legislation? I find this rather interesting. (Hey IMR, don't you just love the weather in Calgary today? :angry: )

It strikes me as odd that taxpayers fund the CBC and it appears to do little to allow all parties, even the fringe ones, to offer their ideas to any significant degree. I would truly enjoy seeing members of each party hammer it out on issues they consider important rather than leave it up to any one source. Perhaps ratings would not be high but then again, the CBC should be more of a public service anyways.

I do not want to put words into Hugo's mouth, but it appears as though he finds all government to be oppressive by nature. As such, government institutions such as the police, the courts and regulators are, by definition, oppressive features of our society and tend to generate misery for the most part. For him, government seems to be "socialism" (feel free to correct me if I am wrong Hugo). Others are not as consistent and tend to abuse the term (and thereby slander those who consider themselves democratic socialists). For some, it is socialist to want national day care, but not socialist to expect a national court system. It is socialist to desire welfare and employment insurance benefits, but not socialist to demand nicely paved roads and clean water. What is the difference? If you believe that the government should not redistribute wealth in the form of taxes for things like health care or welfare, I could just as logically argue that I should not have to pay money to protect you from criminals when I am quite comfortable in protecting myself. If I am a vegan, why should my tax money go towards assisting the slaughter and consumption of animals (BSE bailout) and if I am an environmentalist, why should my money go towards the construction of yet more roads? Further, if it is laziness that generates the demand for welfare, is it also not laziness that creates the demand for policing? Again, what is the difference? If you expect any form of government assistance, you are, in a sense, a socialist. There is a difference between socialism as put forth by Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and Jack Layton. Pretending that they are the same really reduces the overall intelligence of the board. Admittedly, debating the meaning of a word is tiring and even academic, but abuse of these terms is more loathsome and arguably hypocritical.

I do not find Harper particularly charismatic, but I certainly do not think he is entirely to blame for his current situation. He had no choice but to demand non-confidence votes and he probably knew this was not the best time to call them, all things considered. Had he chosen not to call the votes, he would have looked weak and ineffective in the eyes of his party. Even worse, had he actually won one of these votes, he knew Liberal support was still too strong to gain a majority for his party. With a minority government, who could he rely upon to make government work? Would the Bloc be an ally? I doubt the NDP would be very supportive of much legislation. The Liberals would also not be particularly helpful. This was an impossible situation and he probably was somewhat happy with the result. Perhaps Harper is not the greatest leader, but he is not the most serious problem Conservatives face. The problem is that Canadians are simply not yet willing to embrace the direction they suspect the Conservatives want to take. And please, let us avoid the excuse that the Liberals have some sort of all-powerful, mysterious, brain-washing, fear mongering machine that the other parties cannot get their hands on.

August, I suspect that you know the answer to your first question. People get excited about sports (even politics) because they feel as though they are part of the larger community. It does not matter whether their particular actions affect the outcome. You might as well ask why people in church sing together. Symbols and community are important to humans. Many people cannot live without being in society. Why do you bother to post here as opposed to simply writing down your thoughts on paper at home? In the past you have often referred to the importance of symbols. You are right about some people not contributing in earnest, though I believe that everyone does it at some point in time. You analogy to a sports fan screaming at the television is hilarious because I think it is true. Though I think people are being too hard on Sweal, I agree with Argus that his use of the word "whinge" is, well, antediluvian.

Since the NDP suggests more government, are you proposing the opposite? That is, the eradication of government? Can you explain why the NDP wants more poverty since this is always the result? Is this possibly a plot of some sort?

Here is a problem with the program as I see it. Ideally, the law should not discriminate so should women who already stay at home and care for their children be compensated for doing so? I suspect that many couples with one breadwinner will be close to the poverty line (LICO). I have no problem with my tax dollars going to support people who are struggling, but deciding on who and how much will be very difficult will it not? Does anyone know how the government plans to do so?

I was going to place this under provincial politics, but I think it is also a moral issue. Have you ever been discriminated by a professor or other educator due to your political beliefs? If so, did you report this behaviour to authorities (i.e. Dean or equivalent)? If not, why not? IME, most administrations in universities are from all walks of life. They will hear the complaint(s), review and re-evaluate completed work anonymously and hear from witnesses if need be. Of course, if there is a track record of making complaints, well, then I suspect that you will not be taken as seriously.

Hugo, are you sure about the fact that child care became expensive when the government intervened or are you speculating? I am not sure myself, but it interests me enough to find out. I suspect that there may well be other reasons. Now I have to react to this statement IMR. I would argue that there are many professors in universities that are most definately not socialists (ask Greg if his supervisor is a socialist). I teach numbers so political bias is not really an issue but IMO, professors are able to separate their political beliefs from their teaching. All of my right of centre students feel completely at ease and included in all of my classes.

Sorry IMR, that particular comment was not directed at you. I was referring to Bakunin who leaves the impression that the federal government is useless at best. If people really feel that way, then they are proposing anarchy or fooling themselves that provincial governments are completely effective and responsive. I agree with you that too often Canadians readily accept government intervention as the only solution to social issues. I have reservations about this program (though I have not examined it very carefully) as well. In general, I agree with you that it should not be directed at middle class folks, but only the truly needy. But here seems to be the problem. When Peter Mansbridge interviewed Layton during the last election, one single parent (in Vancouver) claimed that she had a good job, but with two children, her daycare expenses ate up about a 1/3 of her income. She has a middle class job, but child expenses put her into relative poverty. I guess it depends on how "poverty" or "needy" is defined.

I actually agree with much of what you have written. But, what about a single parent with two children who pays a disproportionate amount of their income on child care (to the extent that they find it difficult or impossible to make ends meet)? Child care is quite expensive. What would be your alternative in the above situation?

If you believe government to be entirely inept and corrupt, then why not agree with Hugo's ideas of the eradication of this dinosaur? At least he is consistent and honest. I have seen nothing to convince me that provincial governments have been any better than our federal governments.

Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have forgotten that they should be offering Canadians a progressive agenda for positive change. Both appear very dirty. I don't blame Canadians for being so cynical.

If I recall correctly, during his "victory" speech, Mr. Parizeau claimed that around 60% of Quebec voted in favour of separation. I found this odd considering the actual vote was more like 50/50. Then, after saying that they lost due to "money and the ethnic vote", I realized that he was only counting francophones. I suggest you take a careful look at the PQ. How can a party allow such an intolerant person to become leader? Why were people cheering when he made such hateful comments? Should Quebec ever separate, I question whether the "ethnic vote" will count.

That is a pretty dirty label to throw around so easily.