A conservative vs. a socialist (NDP) government

segnosaur · April 30, 2008

As an anology... lets say you agree to fix my car. You charge me $1000, even though the amount of work done is only worth $500. In that case, you have not stolen $1000, you've only 'stolen' $500... the rest of the money was a valid charge for the work done.

You've just condemned yourself. Paying $1000 for a $500 job isn't theft. It's capitalism - what the buyers are willing to pay. You might be upset at being overcharged, but you have a choice not to patronize the guy the next time you need your car fixed.

It was never meant to be a perfect analogy, since you can never have a perfect analogy when dealing with private business (since governments have the ability to force people to pay, unlike private business where people have an option.) I was only using that as a way to illustrate how some portion of costs were reasonable, while a higher cost (taxes) would not be. (I didn't want to waste time trying to come up with excuses why a user might be forced to pay more than he should.)

If you want a better analogy...

A long time ago, I lived in an apartment building. One of the tenants (who was locked into a year lease) sued the landlord, because certain things in his apartment were not being properly maintained from the time he signed the lease until he started the lawsuit. The courts decided that the landlord had overcharged based on the quality of the apartment due to the lack of maintenance. However, the courts did not refund him the full $600/month that he was paying in rent... instead, they refunded him only part of his rent (based on their belief that the apartment was only worth $550/month). So, in that example, the landlord wasn't "stealing" $600/month, they were only "stealing" $50 (the difference between what the landlord charged and what he should have been charging).

So, translating that into the socialist analogy... if you get a tax bill of $600 from a socialist government, not all of the $600 would have been "stolen"... if $550 goes to "useful" infrastructure (like roads, police, defense), that would leave $50 that is getting "stolen" to pay for (for example) free bongo drums for hippies, or whatever the socialist government wants to spend over and above the necessities. Complaining about the 'stolen' $50 is valid, even if the government will still need to collect some taxes.

On the other side of that equation, we can see how fascism is intrinsically in extreme right wing thinking. The CPC is refusing to acknowledge the importance of Elections Canada in maintaining democratic rules governing fair elections since they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Not sure if that's quite right. From what I understand, the conservatives were primarily concerned that all parties were engaging in similar practices, but it was only their party that has been investigated by Elections Canada.

By condemning and refusing to co-operate with the investigation into far election practices,

And if Elections Canada really was singling the conservatives out over this issue, would such condemnation actually be justified?

... the CPC has exposed itself as leaning towards the extreme. Removing controls and rules and supplanting them with absolute oligarchy rule is fascism that Musselini would have been proud of.

Do people REALLY think its convincing when you bring up the spectre of 'fascism' every time there's an issue with a right wing party? Really... the Liberals have also done damage to human rights here in Canada. (By the way, while I do see a practical pragmatic need to have certain controls during elections, I do find it ironic that ultimately it is a supression of certain rights, such as the right to free speech and the right to use my property as I see fit.)

DangerMouse · May 1, 2008

You've just condemned yourself. Paying $1000 for a $500 job isn't theft. It's capitalism - what the buyers are willing to pay. You might be upset at being overcharged, but you have a choice not to patronize the guy the next time you need your car fixed.
It was never meant to be a perfect analogy, since you can never have a perfect analogy when dealing with private business (since governments have the ability to force people to pay, unlike private business where people have an option.) I was only using that as a way to illustrate how some portion of costs were reasonable, while a higher cost (taxes) would not be. (I didn't want to waste time trying to come up with excuses why a user might be forced to pay more than he should.)

If you want a better analogy...

A long time ago, I lived in an apartment building. One of the tenants (who was locked into a year lease) sued the landlord, because certain things in his apartment were not being properly maintained from the time he signed the lease until he started the lawsuit. The courts decided that the landlord had overcharged based on the quality of the apartment due to the lack of maintenance. However, the courts did not refund him the full $600/month that he was paying in rent... instead, they refunded him only part of his rent (based on their belief that the apartment was only worth $550/month). So, in that example, the landlord wasn't "stealing" $600/month, they were only "stealing" $50 (the difference between what the landlord charged and what he should have been charging).

So, translating that into the socialist analogy... if you get a tax bill of $600 from a socialist government, not all of the $600 would have been "stolen"... if $550 goes to "useful" infrastructure (like roads, police, defense), that would leave $50 that is getting "stolen" to pay for (for example) free bongo drums for hippies, or whatever the socialist government wants to spend over and above the necessities. Complaining about the 'stolen' $50 is valid, even if the government will still need to collect some taxes.

Not sure if that's quite right. From what I understand, the conservatives were primarily concerned that all parties were engaging in similar practices, but it was only their party that has been investigated by Elections Canada.

And if Elections Canada really was singling the conservatives out over this issue, would such condemnation actually be justified?

Do people REALLY think its convincing when you bring up the spectre of 'fascism' every time there's an issue with a right wing party? Really... the Liberals have also done damage to human rights here in Canada. (By the way, while I do see a practical pragmatic need to have certain controls during elections, I do find it ironic that ultimately it is a supression of certain rights, such as the right to free speech and the right to use my property as I see fit.)

Either way, Bush, Blair, Howard etc etc and every other right wing phoney will be back in the news in about a decade when the commit a scott peterson on their so-called loved ones....

charter.rights · May 1, 2008

You've just condemned yourself. Paying $1000 for a $500 job isn't theft. It's capitalism - what the buyers are willing to pay. You might be upset at being overcharged, but you have a choice not to patronize the guy the next time you need your car fixed.
It was never meant to be a perfect analogy, since you can never have a perfect analogy when dealing with private business (since governments have the ability to force people to pay, unlike private business where people have an option.) I was only using that as a way to illustrate how some portion of costs were reasonable, while a higher cost (taxes) would not be. (I didn't want to waste time trying to come up with excuses why a user might be forced to pay more than he should.)

If you want a better analogy...

A long time ago, I lived in an apartment building. One of the tenants (who was locked into a year lease) sued the landlord, because certain things in his apartment were not being properly maintained from the time he signed the lease until he started the lawsuit. The courts decided that the landlord had overcharged based on the quality of the apartment due to the lack of maintenance. However, the courts did not refund him the full $600/month that he was paying in rent... instead, they refunded him only part of his rent (based on their belief that the apartment was only worth $550/month). So, in that example, the landlord wasn't "stealing" $600/month, they were only "stealing" $50 (the difference between what the landlord charged and what he should have been charging).

So, translating that into the socialist analogy... if you get a tax bill of $600 from a socialist government, not all of the $600 would have been "stolen"... if $550 goes to "useful" infrastructure (like roads, police, defense), that would leave $50 that is getting "stolen" to pay for (for example) free bongo drums for hippies, or whatever the socialist government wants to spend over and above the necessities. Complaining about the 'stolen' $50 is valid, even if the government will still need to collect some taxes.

Not sure if that's quite right. From what I understand, the conservatives were primarily concerned that all parties were engaging in similar practices, but it was only their party that has been investigated by Elections Canada.

And if Elections Canada really was singling the conservatives out over this issue, would such condemnation actually be justified?

Do people REALLY think its convincing when you bring up the spectre of 'fascism' every time there's an issue with a right wing party? Really... the Liberals have also done damage to human rights here in Canada. (By the way, while I do see a practical pragmatic need to have certain controls during elections, I do find it ironic that ultimately it is a supression of certain rights, such as the right to free speech and the right to use my property as I see fit.)

Another poor analogy. A breech of a contract - in this case a lease - is cause for action against the landlord. The tenant can expect that certain things will happen under the term of the contract, the least of which is the landlord's obligation to maintain a safe, secure and healthy environment. The fact that the landlord was found liable for those damages has nothing to do with a socialist approach. Again the lease hinges on capitalism and the ability to offer the apartment to the market at any price he sets (save and except when rent controls have been put in place).

Taxes - even before they are paid - don't belong to us, and never did. They belong to the government as an apportionment on income earned, or on the transfer of goods. So nothing has been stolen, even if those taxes are misappropriated for services we don't like and don't use. It is the government's prerogative to redistribute the wealth. They have no obligation to do it according to

some sense of entitlement you may have. If the government wants to give our tax money to bongo drummers, or to rich art collectors to preserve their collections, there is nothing we can dfo about it. It isn't stealing, nor is it a socialist construct but rather it is a component of our society. Different political parties have different targets and those with the power get to decide where the taxes are spent. They can even raise more taxes by changing the tax structure, if it suits them to support uptight old guys in pinstriped suits.

The issue isn't whether EC has singled out the Conservatives - which they haven't - but the CPC's reaction to the investigation. If they believed they had done nothing wrong then it would have been easy to come forward, give EC the information they needed and take their lumps if they were wrong. However, it becomes patently clear the CPC knew they were doing wrong while they did it and even while getting caught, they steadfastly refuse to co-operate even to the degree of acting like fascists in declaring that no one has the right to question their behavior. Harper has very much acted like a dictator progressively being more demanding and less accountable since he was elected. Since extreme conservativism leads to fascism, a pattern begins to emerge that perhaps all that right wing thinking is leading them down that slippery slope.

The right wing in history has more often been the architect of reduced human rights, preferring the privilege that comes with elitism as the argument for their poor human rights record. They argue against gay rights, women's rights and aboriginal rights with the idea of creating opposition to recognizing that equality cannot come without equity. Of course equality under the law and equity under the law are two different things and the CPC is quick to sacrifice equity (and thereby undermine equality) in an effort to protect elitism and their white male power cadre that once not only ruled the country but fully ran it as they saw fit, as well.

So the argument of socialism versus conservatism cannot be made without accepting that the extremes can and do lead us towards fascism and communism, but that does not mean that in a small comparative it must be the case. In fact there is little difference between the Liberals and CPC, or the Liberals and the NDP because they are all relatively just one side of the political centre. The only difference for the most part is how they choose to spend those tax dollars and who benefits from them. If you want to have an honest debate about Marxism or Fascism then we start by realizing that neither can work unless they are in a vacuum. And while the philosophy of conservativism or socialism can go either way, in Canada they are very much the same thing, with the only difference being who the ruling party sees as being the poorest.

MontyBurns · May 1, 2008

Governments collect taxes. What do you suggest they do with the money?
Conservatives Collect Money....

Conservatives have been in power switching between them and the Liberals since 1867. Collecting Money..

Conservatives were in charge of Alberta since driving out the Social Credit and Conservatives Governments

COLLECT MONEY.....

So if you are suggesting that Governments collecting money is Stealing.... then many would agree with you.

What Governments do with those COLLECTED/Stolen Funds... Is disperse them for Capital Projects, Corporate Friends, and Social Services, such as Military, Judges, Courts, Health Care, Firefighters, etc....

I still recall the scene in Gangs of New York, with the Private Firefighting Companies fighting each other and stealing from the homes while the homes burned.

What would you rather, low taxes under conservatives or high taxes under socialists? Me, I like low taxes. It's my money and I want to be in charge of spending it not some socialist. Seeing social programs getting scrapped gives me great joy.

flamoriken · May 4, 2011

Hi!

this is a very old thread from many moons ago, i know

I was googling "NDP vs Conservatives" just to educate myself on Canadian politics, and this thread came up on the first page.

I will not say much of anything, but, it is very clear that the majority of the people that have participated in this thread have no real political insight and were (are) flat out wrong in their understanding of what Canadians want and how politics in Canada have evolved.

it is 2011, now, and NDP has over 100 seats, poised as the direct opposition to a majority Conservative government.

I am curious if the original participants of this thread are still around, and what they think of themselves saying what they have said three years back to almost today.

Edited May 4, 2011 by flamoriken

cybercoma · May 4, 2011

Your question may have been valid two years ago but I'm afraid it looks like the NDP is going the way of the dinasaur and will have to fight it out with the Greens for any political relevance. I'm not really sure how they can turn their fortunes around but as an Ontario resident, but the Jack Layton/Olivia Chow combo comes across as Toronto centric - and although it has some play in Vancouver, I think it tunes much of the rest of the country out.

Prescient you are not. :lol:

This thread is a lesson in predicting the future. Don't do it.

Bonam · May 4, 2011

Hi!

this is a very old thread from many moons ago, i know

I was googling "NDP vs Conservatives" just to educate myself on Canadian politics, and this thread came up on the first page.

I will not say much of anything, but, it is very clear that the majority of the people that have participated in this thread have no real political insight and were (are) flat out wrong in their understanding of what Canadians want and how politics in Canada have evolved.

it is 2011, now, and NDP has over 100 seats, poised as the direct opposition to a majority Conservative government.

I am curious if the original participants of this thread are still around, and what they think of themselves saying what they have said three years back to almost today.

A lot of the thread's participants are still around, though not all. I don't think the original poster is here. I think it's clear that most people did not expect or predict the surge of the NDP in this election. In fact, making such a prediction even 5 weeks ago would have seemed ludicrous.

Scotty · May 4, 2011

With the recent rise of the NDP (popularity now near 20%) and Harper's total disregard of good governance, do you think the NDP would form a good government? Would you have more faith in a Conservative government or an NDP government if you compare the two federal parties?

A huge chunk of the 'support' for the NDP is a fad, and the people who support them don't even know what they stand for.

ToadBrother · May 4, 2011

A huge chunk of the 'support' for the NDP is a fad, and the people who support them don't even know what they stand for.

You can be sure that by the end of four years, the NDP will stand for whatever those people stand for. The Tories morphed in much the same way after absorbing the PCs. You go where the votes are or you end up like Reform; stunted and unable to grow.

Edited May 4, 2011 by ToadBrother

Scotty · May 4, 2011

You can be sure that by the end of four years, the NDP will stand for whatever those people stand for. The Tories morphed in much the same way after absorbing the PCs. You go where the votes are or you end up like Reform; stunted and unable to grow.

The problem is the NDP has two audiences. It has the Quebecois types who it appeases by supporting expanding Bill 101, by supporting the law to make all SC judges bilingual, by opposing the clarity act, by suggesting he'd reopen the constitution. Mulcair derided the Conservatives for 'attacking Quebec' during the election by its dismissal of separatists as possible partners in a coalition government. This sort of thing is bread and butter for the Quebec victim people, but it won't sit well for long with NDP supporters in Toronto, Hamilton and BC.

cybercoma · May 5, 2011

A huge chunk of the 'support' for the NDP is a fad, and the people who support them don't even know what they stand for.

Yup. The voters are too stupid to know what they're doing. All of the voters that voted for Conservatives, though, they're smart. Right?

punked · May 5, 2011

Conservatives of Canada need to keep calling the voters of the country stupid. I bet for the next 4 years it will play really well.

lukin · May 5, 2011

Conservatives of Canada need to keep calling the voters of the country stupid. I bet for the next 4 years it will play really well.

Where do you come up with this drivel? Or is that just the typical NDP socialist caucus mantra?

punked · May 5, 2011

Where do you come up with this drivel? Or is that just the typical NDP socialist caucus mantra?

You guys are the ones making fun of the MPs that the people of those ridings CHOSE to rep them even before they get into office. You make it clear you think the people of those ridings will regret everything they have done and they must be stupid to do such a thing. Good luck with that for the next 4 years.

lukin · May 5, 2011

You guys are the ones making fun of the MPs that the people of those ridings CHOSE to rep them even before they get into office. You make it clear you think the people of those ridings will regret everything they have done and they must be stupid to do such a thing. Good luck with that for the next 4 years.

Most of the NDP MPs in Quebec are going to provide some entertainment. when will layton take the muzzles of of them punked. I'd like to hear about their visions for Canada...especially the bartender's. :lol:

punked · May 5, 2011

Most of the NDP MPs in Quebec are going to provide some entertainment. when will layton take the muzzles of of them punked.

I agree there will be some good times ahead. Maybe hearing some fresh honest voices will be a good thing for Canada. I know Lukin you just want to hear from life long politicians who all have the same socioeconomic back round and are former Doctors, Lawyers, Lobbyists, and business men but I want to hear from all of Canada. I guess that is where we disagree.

The NDP is the first federal party to have 40% of its caucus be women. Let's see what they can do before we tear them down. Don't Conservatives believe in the Canadians peoples choices?

lukin · May 5, 2011

I agree there will be some good times ahead. Maybe hearing some fresh honest voices will be a good thing for Canada. I know Lukin you just want to hear from life long politicians who all have the same socioeconomic back round and are former Doctors, Lawyers, Lobbyists, and business men but I want to hear from all of Canada. I guess that is where we disagree.

The NDP is the first federal party to have 40% of its caucus be women. Let's see what they can do before we tear them down. Don't Conservatives believe in the Canadians peoples choices?

Oh, I'm looking forward to it.

punked · May 5, 2011

Oh, I'm looking forward to it.

Glad to hear it.

Battletoads · May 5, 2011

I have far more faith in the left. Mostly because they give a shit about the middle and lower class.

Sandy MacNab · May 5, 2011

I agree there will be some good times ahead. Maybe hearing some fresh honest voices will be a good thing for Canada. I know Lukin you just want to hear from life long politicians who all have the same socioeconomic back round and are former Doctors, Lawyers, Lobbyists, and business men but I want to hear from all of Canada. I guess that is where we disagree.

The NDP is the first federal party to have 40% of its caucus be women. Let's see what they can do before we tear them down. Don't Conservatives believe in the Canadians peoples choices?

I wanna know if they have always been women or if they've seen a surgeon along the way.

dre · May 5, 2011

I have to make a qualification on your statement that socialism does not work.

I will agree that socialism does not work as a form of government however, Families, business, in fact any organization or enterprise has a socialist structure. The difference between government and any other organization is that government is an agency of force and coercion. It does not invite voluntary co-operation it compels it. If we, as citizens, were briefed upon every law and agreed to it then it would be workable as a government. This is my opinion at the moment.

Remember, Capitalists love a monopoly, if they could ever have one. Socialists do too, but they legislate them.

I have to make a qualification on your statement that socialism does not work.

Ideological absolutes dont work PERIOD. Not socialism OR capitalism.

The difference between government and any other organization is that government is an agency of force and coercion.

Government doesnt really exist as an entity to force and coerce its really the majority of the population thats coercing a minority. For example... most of us dont want to be murdered on the street so we (through the government) use force against the minority that wants to murder.

This is human nature, and youre never going to escape it no matter what you do. It happens when a group of children are playing in a sandbox, or within any other group of people in any other situation. Whining about this is tantamount to complaining about the sky being blue or water being wet.

When humans interact in nature they form authority structures that govern behavior. Not just sometimes... but ALL the time... whether its an ancient tribal council, or a modern democracy.

As for the silly slogan people keep repeating about people "voting for their own privilege" or voting to "steal money from the capitalists" this is just dopey. Most poor people dont even vote, and the ownership class (capitalists) has way way more control over government policy than the poor ever will.

dre · May 5, 2011

A huge chunk of the 'support' for the NDP is a fad, and the people who support them don't even know what they stand for.

Kinda like the "fiscal conservatives" that voted for the biggest spending government in history? :lol:

dre · May 5, 2011

I think what you're doing there is illustrating a Strawman fallacy.

I don't think anyone here really believes in a no-tax situation. (That would best be defined as anarchy.) However, there is a difference between wanting a government to collect taxes for basic services (e.g. military, courts, etc.) and the socialist ideal where there is even greater government spending (in some cases in areas that are already served by private interests).

Saying that a socialist "steals money" doesn't necessarily mean that all taxes collected by a socialist government are stolen, only the part that goes to spending areas that are considered excessive.

As an anology... lets say you agree to fix my car. You charge me $1000, even though the amount of work done is only worth $500. In that case, you have not stolen $1000, you've only 'stolen' $500... the rest of the money was a valid charge for the work done.

Saying that a socialist "steals money" doesn't necessarily mean that all taxes collected by a socialist government are stolen, only the part that goes to spending areas that are considered excessive.

Considered excessive by who? Your Uncle Pete? That definition is utterly and completely subjective.

TimG · May 5, 2011

The NDP is the first federal party to have 40% of its caucus be women. Let's see what they can do before we tear them down. Don't Conservatives believe in the Canadians peoples choices?

Let's see. The over 50% come from ridings thought to be unwinnable. Now 40% of the caucus is female. Hmm. I don't think the NDP deserves any credit for this turn of events.