Jump to content

Conservative Social Justice


Recommended Posts

eb,

Gathering concrete examples of back room malfeasance is like gathering evidence of insider trading, which is where E.M. would come in handy. The suggestion of corruption is a little more than overwhelming and the inability to prove its not occuring definitely didn't help Canadians who's lives and livelihoods rely on trust in our public officials. In the case of DFO in this light Tunagate comes to mind. Some of our military friends might be interested in watching this clip to its conclusion.

But the analogy doesn't work.

This is about setting quota limits, and rules - all of which are public knowledge - and then monitoring catches, which are also public knowledge.

The suggestion of corruption, in your case, isn't overwhelming to me. Maybe I'm thick, but what specifically happened ? Some corporations bought up quotas of fishers. That doesn't mean corruption to me.

QUOTE

So... if we have collaborative and responsive government, why would we still need EM on politicans ?

Because corruption like rust never sleeps, ever. Why is it such a stretch that we base our governance on the certain knowledge that power and weath corrupt?

Right, but the collaboration and accountability would seem to render the extreme EM solution unnecessary.

Do you have any examples of other collaborative management models that have overcome such contentious issues as I've raised that succeeded in the absence of E.M.? How about any that explored or tried E.M. and gave it up as being to impractical? I've provided one that's proven and tried, can anyone provide one's that's been tried and proven not to work?

I'm not rejecting EM outright, but only as a method to keep politicians honest. Any politician who agreed to it would be rightly ridiculed for grandstanding.

Of course, who could forget this concrete example...recall that Conrad Black was largely incriminated on the basis of evidence that was captured by surveillance cameras. wink.gif

...which he presumably didn't know were there.

If he knew they were there, and that the evidence would be used against him would he have been so dense as to try to sneak out his files ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not rejecting EM outright, but only as a method to keep politicians honest. Any politician who agreed to it would be rightly ridiculed for grandstanding.

No less so than when they do anything else I suppose. Perhaps most people just take it as a given that while regrettable corruption just doesn't warrant a whole lot of concern and many probably think its the grease without which the wheels just wouldn't turn. The only catch is if you break the golden rule, which of course is, don't get caught.

...which he (Black) presumably didn't know were there.

If he knew they (cameras) were there, and that the evidence would be used against him would he have been so dense as to try to sneak out his files ?

No. That's the whole point of monitoring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eb,

So how do you monitor an individual (as opposed to a physical space) without letting somebody know that they're being monitored ?

Why would you want to do that? Signs that display "These premises are under surveillance" are to deter wrongdoing. The idea is to try and counter the impulse to do something wrong.

Try looking at this from the perspective of the person who is tired of always being mistrusted and who's decided that mistrust is seriously compromising their ability to do their job effectively. As in the case of fishermen, monitoring allows one to prove otherwise. I suppose if you want to dismiss this as mere grandstanding then I would suggest your heart really isn't into collaboratively finding ways to make our government more accountable or transparent. You're still not trying hard enough to see any good in this.

As I've said earlier the monitoring I'll be subjected to is randomly audited. I know the camera is watching but I don't know what portions of the record will be viewed. If something comes up during a random audit a deeper audit is triggered. If the deeper audit reveals more inconsitencies I will be required to have a human observer. I should add that out of a couple of hundred vessels using E.M. for about 5 years now not a single one has had to undergo a full audit. The system works and I fail to see why it can't be adapted to work in the case of monitoring officials.

I would suggest something along similar lines for government officials working on things that are particularily sensitive to people and public misperceptions or doubt about impartiality. The real trick here is to correctly determine what is sensitive and ensure the auditors are a third party with no affiliations with the people being audited.

I think audits should be conducted by a Secrecy or Transparency Commission that works with a combination of volunteer and elected citizen's groups. I've long thought developing councils of elder citizens - advisory pools of collected shared wisdom and experience - would be a good idea in any case and this is definitely an area I think they could play a useful role. I'd certainly want to also include youth in these processes so they can learn from older people how to conduct themselves in them.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, people aren't going to act improperly when the camera is on them. [edited to add: That means they'll wait until they're out of the camera's range] Your whole purpose is to prevent corruption, but you can't use technology to make people honest.

A better approach is for the government to conduct hearings in the open, and to publicize their decisions and the rationale for them. From your description of the problem, it's mistrust with no actual evidence of misdeeds. To me, this mistrust sounds like more of a cultural problem. Trust needs to be built over time, and continued co-operation hopefully will achieve that end.

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, people aren't going to act improperly when the camera is on them. [edited to add: That means they'll wait until they're out of the camera's range] Your whole purpose is to prevent corruption, but you can't use technology to make people honest.

Do you honestly think the government believes that? Yes there is a problem that people can wait until they're out of range. That is why I suggest a increasing use of monitoring in the event of inconsistencies. The more there are the more you're monitored. Don't tell me the technology doesn't exist because it most certainly does.

A better approach is for the government to conduct hearings in the open, and to publicize their decisions and the rationale for them. From your description of the problem, it's mistrust with no actual evidence of misdeeds. To me, this mistrust sounds like more of a cultural problem. Trust needs to be built over time, and continued co-operation hopefully will achieve that end.

What about the cultural awareness that power corrupts? How much evidence of this do you need? How much time does it take for this trust to build? It seems people have been talking about corruption for at least as long as they've been talking about the weather. No one does anything about that either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eb,

Do you honestly think the government believes that? Yes there is a problem that people can wait until they're out of range. That is why I suggest a increasing use of monitoring in the event of inconsistencies. The more there are the more you're monitored. Don't tell me the technology doesn't exist because it most certainly does.

Mind reading technology doesn't exist, though. I guess the best option open for your way of doing things is lie detector tests.

What about the cultural awareness that power corrupts? How much evidence of this do you need? How much time does it take for this trust to build? It seems people have been talking about corruption for at least as long as they've been talking about the weather. No one does anything about that either.

Of course power corrupts, and humans also fail in hundreds of other ways. Have our institutions all failed until now ? No, they haven't. Have some patience, and make an effort to build bridges within your community. Technology isn't the answer here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Power does corrupt. Once a lawyer of Judge beleive they are all powerful - they become corrupt..because they believe there are no consequences to their acts and no one to answer too. This goes with everyone who reaches a point of power where they feel invincable. They become lawless because there is no rule of law...because instead of inforcing the law - they believe they are the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

2 posts above !

Your idea on the other thread about real-time citizen interaction with parliamentary committees is a good one, I think. This is a better approach than the mistrustful monitoring solutions we've been discussion.

In fact, it's a hybrid of monitoring and the type of interaction you described in an earlier post, between fishers and a responsive government group.

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 posts above !

Your idea on the other thread about real-time citizen interaction with parliamentary committees is a good one, I think. This is a better approach than the mistrustful monitoring solutions we've been discussion.

In fact, it's a hybrid of monitoring and the type of interaction you described in an earlier post, between fishers and a responsive government group.

Lets go with that approach then. I figured you were be bumping this discussion to that one. See you there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then there's Eyeborg

I'll definitely be keeping my eyeball on this guy. This is a fellow I expect could relate to what I've been yaking about. His inspiration apparently stems in big part from a desire to explore the ramifications of living in a society that is increasingly under more surveillance with each passing day. This is the cutting edge of sousveillance, to view from below.

I think I'd give my right-nut for one of these but given the technology of miniturization and the effort to create a camera with a wireless modem that can be embedded into the frame of a pair of glasses I might not have to.

Its time that Big Brother embraced the horror.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it is time to form a new political party. One in which fiscal responsibility and social justice are the paramount concerns of the party. The justice system keeps letting criminals out of jail and the governments keep spending more than they have. It is time to reduce bureaucracy and eliminate much of the public sector upper echelons. It is time to start making folks accountable and responsible, from the lowest citizen to the highest elected official.

To me, fiscal responsibility can only mean one thing: feeling a duty as income earner to reveal publicly how easy it has been for me (relatively to others) to earn this income so that the tax I will pay can be fixed strictly proportionally. In other words, I think my tax rate should be strictly inversely proportional to (real) sacrifices I have gone through to get the income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're all waiting with bated breath to find out what you do.

Speaking of bait, I'll be 30 miles offshore putting in 18 hour days soon. Elvis will be watching over us. Elvis is the computer that stores the E.M. data that the GPS plotter and cameras record. Fishing for a living sure ain't what it used to be.

I'll have to remember to pee over the blind side of the boat lest some poor tender monitor dies of fright.

Arrrrggghh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're all waiting with bated breath to find out what you do.

Speaking of bait, I'll be 30 miles offshore putting in 18 hour days soon. Elvis will be watching over us. Elvis is the computer that stores the E.M. data that the GPS plotter and cameras record. Fishing for a living sure ain't what it used to be.

I'll have to remember to pee over the blind side of the boat lest some poor tender monitor dies of fright.

Arrrrggghh!

Don't we have auctions and a labor market so that each job may be allocated to the one sacrificing the least at work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blind justice? The legal concept in the case of a judge dealing with a crime committed in the past is one thing but when decision makers deal with future outcomes they need to keep a lookout in all directions to ensure the outcome is just.

There is a difference between an opportunity to work and the work itself. Fish and other common property resources are not work.

We live in a society that insists on attaching a moral imperitive on individual productivity - each individual is responsible for carrying their own weight within that society. If it is more important to our society that every individual must work to be considered morally acceptable to society then the only solution to too many workers and not enough work is to share the work, or the benefits of working.

Given this I'd say the people that allocate opportunity have the greater moral obligation to ensure they don't trap individuals in a untenable contradiction. When they do, I would say that justice is definitely blind not to mention deaf and dumb.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blind justice? The legal concept in the case of a judge dealing with a crime committed in the past is one thing but when decision makers deal with future outcomes they need to keep a lookout in all directions to ensure the outcome is just.

There is a difference between an opportunity to work and the work itself. Fish and other common property resources are not work.

We live in a society that insists on attaching a moral imperitive on individual productivity - each individual is responsible for carrying their own weight within that society. If it is more important to our society that every individual must work to be considered morally acceptable to society then the only solution to too many workers and not enough work is to share the work, or the benefits of working.

Given this I'd say the people that allocate opportunity have the greater moral obligation to ensure they don't trap individuals in a untenable contradiction. When they do, I would say that justice is definitely blind not to mention deaf and dumb.

- Justice is always represented blindfolded to signify that impartiality is important to her.

- Our society is in crisis; to me this means we have a good opportunity to rethink all our imperatives.

- With his Lockean Proviso, it's Robert Nozick that I think has done the most to define conservative social justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Justice is always represented blindfolded to signify that impartiality is important to her.

I suppose, but justice is not a person its a thing. Its how its used that does count though.

- Our society is in crisis; to me this means we have a good opportunity to rethink all our imperatives.

I'm with you there.

- With his Lockean Proviso, it's Robert Nozick that I think has done the most to define conservative social justice.

I cleave more to Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic. Justice will be just what it is - with no prefixed partiality attached to it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    John Wilson
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • exPS went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • exPS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...