Jump to content

-1=e^ipi

Members
  • Posts

    4,778
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by -1=e^ipi

  1. The treatment of indigenous children in these so-called schools was horrendous and appalling. I don't know why so many people find this surprising. The awful treatment of indigenous people has been known for a long time. Our first prime minister was arguably a white supremacist who went on and on about the aryan race, similar to the nazis. He directed the country to engage in countless episodes of violence against indigenous peoples. Yet we celebrate him by putting him on our money and erecting statues. Other people on our money include Laurier, who didn't want women or indigenous people to vote, and Mackenzie King, who turned away Jewish people prior to the holocaust and got his "PhD" on the subject of advocating against immigration from East Asia. Our national anthem was written by a guy that performed in minstrel shows wearing blackface. Canada is a country founded upon the rejection of enlightenment values. This is why we are not part of the U.S. English Canada was founded by people that wanted to preserve the backwardness of the institution of the monarchy. French Canada was founded by religious fundamentalists who rejected joining the U.S. because values like freedom of speech or separation of religion and state would go against their desire for Quebec to be a Catholic semi-theocracy (which it was until the quiet revolution of the 1960s). British North America continued to have slavery decades after it was abolished in the Northern U.S. Our anthem and our charter emphasize that this country recognizes the supremacy of "god", which is precisely the justification used to oppress the indigenous people in these schools along with their parents. From the perspective of some (but not all) of the advocates of these religious school systems, they were serving "god" and "saving" these indigenous children from their "savagery" by brainwashing them into their religion (if they didn't die in these schools). Religion and "god" has been used and continues to be used to justify terrible aristocracies around the world.
  2. No, you are confusing capitalism with free-market capitalism or laisser-faire capitalism. Free-market capitalism is a subset of capitalism, but is not the only form of capitalism. Capitalism is about using private competition to allocate capital within society. You can have more redistributive forms of capitalism such as in Norway. No, communism and nazism are subsets of socialism, at least under the traditional definition of socialism.
  3. Then how do you explain national socialists such as the nazis, along with other fascists? They were socialists because they believed that the means of production should be controlled directly or indirectly by the state. I don't think your definition of socialism is the most correct nor the most useful definition.
  4. It would be better to abolish things now, before they get worse. And for all we know, the queen might remain alive for another 100 years. Do we really want to wait that long?
  5. I agree. Lack of separation of media and state has very bad implications for democracy. If the state controlled media has a strong financial incentive to ensure that certain parties win elections and that other parties lose elections then they have a conflict of interest when it comes to covering elections. That said, we can advocate both for the abolition of the monarchy as well as support separation of media and state.
  6. Politicians in Australia have. They have elected republican prime ministers under both major parties.
  7. Have a national referendum. After the referendum passes, which territorial or provincial government would dare go against the will of the people to support an unelected monarchy? We should open up the constitution, our constitution is terrible. We don't even have proper constitutional protections for freedom of speech. This COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted how little rights the Canadian people actually have. Because the political establishment is against them. Replace the political establishment with governments or parties that better support freedom and democracy. Vote them out.
  8. I don't remember any of this. I'm not that old. None of the politicians have ever tried to abolish the monarchy, so references to the past seem of little value here. Have a national referendum on abolishing the monarchy. With a majority vote of yes, most of these barriers to abolition would crumble.
  9. Then how do you explain the fact that many other countries have gotten rid of their monarchies, including France, the United States, and India? Australia has even had referendums on abolishing the monarchy. Not with COVID-19.
  10. Or she doesn't use the power that she has. Do you think it would be a good idea to wait until we have a monarch that abuses power before trying to change things? It would be far better to get rid of the monarchy before problems arise, especially under the queen's children or grandchildren. Prince Harry is a dangerous authoritarian who even wants video games such as Fortnite banned. He also thinks that COVID-19 is punishment from nature for climate change. So instead of getting a real job like everyone else, we need her to be a ceremonial figure? Wouldn't it be better to have another citizen producing goods, services, and tax revenue like the rest of us? By choosing to continue undemocratic institutions such as the monarchy, we weaken our ability and effectiveness at criticizing undemocratic institutions in other countries. Currently, there is a Thai movement/protest for freedom and democracy, which the Thai monarchy is trying to crush. Stalin and Hitler were also symbols of the state. Other problems with the monarchy include: 1. It violates the principle of equality under the law. 2. It violates separation of religion and state as the British monarch is inherently the head of the Anglican Church. 3. It helps the narratives of the woke people to paint society as a white-supremacist patriarchal dystopia. This furthers their ability to push cancel culture and take over institutions.
  11. Meanwhile, the military swears allegiance to a foreign Queen and her successors instead of to Canada or to Canadians...
  12. Because the queen is unelected, just like Xi Jinping. I support democracy.
  13. I love not being able to edit previous posts. This is such a greater feature of these forums!
  14. I having a thread title with opposite meaning as your poll title was confusing. I accidentally voted yes.
  15. Ultimately, there are going to be some trade-offs between creating incentives for productive behaviour (such as incentives to work, incentives for capital investment, incentives to create new technologies, and incentives to increase human capital) and reducing income inequality through transfers. The incentives for productive behaviour are important since they allow for a society to produce and consume more goods and services, but some redistribution of income can be important since the value of an additional dollar to a poor person can be much more than the value of an additional dollar to a rich person. The approach of utilitarianism as advocated by the liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill might be one way to deal with these trade-offs in order to maximize the well-being of society. Regarding homeless people, one approach that could be taken would be to have a capitalist society, but you tax society somewhat in order to provide a universal basic income. A universal basic income has a number of attractive features, such as avoiding bureaucratic costs and the need for means-testing, being simpler, and avoiding strong disincentives to work that can occur with other welfare programs (for example, in Canada, some low or middle income people can face an 80% effective tax rate on the additional dollar of labour income earned). Many economists have advocated for universal basic income such as Milton Friedman and Greg Mankiw. It is not necessary to overthrow capitalism and embrace mass state planning in order to deal with homeless people, as some advocates of the Great Reset or the Green New Deal might advocate. Similarly, to deal with other relevant issues, it is not necessary to overthrow capitalism. A capitalist system with some government intervention in the economy might be better since the system would still take advantage of competition over the allocation of capital. For example, to deal with climate change, one simply needs to impose a pigouvian tax on emissions of greenhouse gases; an approach that has long been advocated by various economists. But it appears that in public discourse, the only options being present to the public are to either do nothing or that they must embrace mass central planning of the economy and the government must pick and choose winners and losers by embracing crony capitalism (the government might prefer the term 'strategic partnerships') in order to deal with the issue.
  16. Thank you for your curiousity. A variety of definitions of 'capitalism', 'socialism' and related words. But, I would argue that the most useful of these definitions are the traditional definitions, which you will still find some version of in dictionaries. Here are definitions from the Merriam-Webster dictionary: Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. The reason why I think the traditional definitions are the most useful is because they both deal with the allocation of capital within society, which is very important for the prosperity of society. In economics, physical capital would refer to things such as tools, buildings, computers, etc.; really anything physical that workers use to be more productive and produce goods and services. If a society has more physical capital, it can usually produce more goods and services as its workers will be more productive, resulting in a more prosperous society. There are other forms of capital, such as intangible capital (software, trademarks, patents, etc.) and human capital (the education/experience/knowledge of workers), although the traditional definitions of capitalism and socialism may often focus more on physical capital. Since capital in society is a scarce resource, how it is allocated can affect the ability of society to produce goods and services. As an example, you might have 2 factories that produce crayons, but one might be more productive than the other (such as having a better manager, a more innovative production process, or a workforce with better mental health); as a result, the decision about which factory should be able to expand its production first could have consequences for the production of crayons within society. In addition, a society would (implicitly or explicitly) have decisions not just about which factories should get additional capital, but also which industries should get additional capital, and if some of society's productive capacity should be used to produce future capital goods rather than future consumption goods. The disagreement between capitalism and socialism under the traditional definitions isn't so much one of inequality of income in society, but rather a question of efficiency. Is a society more productive if it has a central planner (i.e. government) control the means of production and allocate capital, or is it better to have decentralized decision making and competition of capital? Socialists of the past argued that a central planner might be better able to coordinate the production of goods and services in society and might be more altruistic in the allocation of scarce resources within society. Capitalists of the past argued that that a central planner might not have perfect information, might not properly understand the preferences of the people (i.e. what goods and services do people actually want), might have limited ability to process all the complex information in society (whereas decentralizing decision making could better process all the information), and that the central planner might be susceptible to corruption. This was a dominant question during the cold war, and the results of the cold war suggest that the capitalists may have had the stronger position. In present day North America, the definitions used have become various, vague, and/or shifted from their traditional definitions. People might often refer to 'capitalism' to mean 'free-market capitalism', an extreme form of capitalism with very limited state intervention in the economy. On the other hand, people might use 'socialism' to refer to any economic system with some state intervention in the economy (such as state provided healthcare services). One issue with these new definitions is that they remove the importance of the allocation of capital in society. A second problem is that these definitions allow people to use disingenuous bait-and-switch tactics to try to convince people to their economic position. Such as a socialist saying 'if you think that their should be some government intervention in healthcare then you must be against capitalism and for socialism' or a conservative saying 'if you support any government intervention in healthcare then you must be a socialist or communist'. With respect to the issue of income inequality within society, while it is possible to have unequal capitalism (such as free-market capitalism) and egalitarian socialism (such as communism) it is also possible to have egalitarian capitalism and unequal socialism. A good example, of egalitarian capitalism would be Norway, where you have private ownership of capital, to take advantage of decentralized decision making and competition over the allocation of capital, but the government then taxes the economy somewhat to reduce income inequality and provide some goods and services for society. On the other hand, the various forms of fascism, such as nazism, are examples of unequal socialism, since they advocate for mass central planning and state control over the economy while simultaneously advocating for an unequal society. This is why nazi stands for national socialists (national socialist worker's party), and why fascist leaders such as Mussolini said things such as "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." To make things more confusing, there is also the usage of 'crony capitalism'. In crony capitalism, you might have corporations and supposedly private ownership of capital. But, corporations would only tend to do well if they are friends with the government in power (so get special treatment) or proclaim their ideological allegiance to the government in order to get special treatment. In a crony capitalist society, the government would pick and choose winners and losers, by taxing or regulating the losers, while giving special treatment to the preferred companies. While crony capitalism might appear to be capitalism according to the law, in effect it isn't capitalism since the society is not taking advantage of the decentralization of decision making within society nor of the competition over the allocation of capital. The fascist regimes of the past engaged in crony capitalism. The Chinese Communist Party also engages in crony capitalism, since only companies that proclaim their allegiance to the CCP will be allowed perform well. A cynic might even argue that many Canadian governments at the federal or provincial level frequently engage in crony capitalism, rather than allowing for competition to occur.
  17. It would be very helpful if you could provide your definition of capitalism. I see a lot of definitions thrown around by critics of 'capitalism' and a lot of people saying 'capitalism' is bad with out providing a definition (or even people pushing the idea that capitalism is systemically racist so needs to be dismantled in order to create the inclusive and non-capitalist economy). I would argue that any definition of 'capitalism' that does not involve the word 'capital' is probably wrong.
  18. Communism was also a great idea to reconfigure the word economy to make it better for everyone. Communism was supposed to make things more equitable and inclusive.
  19. I think that the AI polling by Advanced Symbolics is pretty reliable (they predicted Trump winning in the last election). https://advancedsymbolics.com/us-election-2/ So I will say, Biden: 350, Trump: 188
  20. I don't think it is necessary to refer to Arruda's weight, and it may break forum rules. Perhaps you should edit your posts and the thread title?
  21. As-tu un lien? https://www.journaldequebec.com/2020/09/22/covid-19-et-regles-sanitaires-les-policiers-pourront-ils-entrer-dans-les-maisons Is this link relevant? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/guilbault-police-covid-19-warrant-ticket-gatherings-1.5735339 The charter is a lie. We don't actually have charter rights. Sections 1 and 33 make sure of that. Of course Canadian nationalism prevents Canadians from seeing this, which means they never demand having actual constitutional rights.
  22. Thank you for catching my typo. I meant the Communist Party of China.
×
×
  • Create New...