CBC, VIA Rail considered for auction block: Documents

[jdobbin]

For the record, I'm THRILLED at the idea of CBC being sold off. It's a failure. The fact that it's a failure is a testament to how little people watch it. Other than Hockey Night in Canada, it's a waste of a channel.

Few people watch any Canadian TV. For many Canadians, they wouldn't mind the end of all Canadian-owned-made TV.

[segnosaur]

One issue is a funding of a public corporation, the other is civil liberties. They don't belong in the same sentence.

Once again... I brought the issue of gay marriage up as an example of how the majority is not always right.

But in the case of funding a public corporation, right or wrong, it's the majority that decides.

As I've said before, the majority is not necessarily right. Any person's opinion regarding funding of the CBC should be decided on the merits of the arguments, not on just what the majority wants.

You know, you'd figure being a fan of CBC would make you smart, but its amazing how brain-damaged people are by totally missing the point... I'm not dealing with the issue of liberties, I'm dealing with the issue of automatically assuming the majority is somehow always right.

I'm sorry, was there some relevance to this?

Yes, both you and smallc made the same mistake.... I very clearly made the statement that the majority is not always right. I used gay marriage as an example. Rather than deal with the issue that I quite clearly layed out, namely the majority is not always right, both you and he decided to jump in and claim that gay marriage is different than public funding.

Well duh... I never claimed that they were the same, only that the majority opinions are not always correct, or in the best interests of the country.

I figured if someone is a CBC fan, they'd be so much smarter than the masses watching privately produced content and they'd be able to pick up the point of the statement, i.e. the majority is not always right, and recognize the gay marriage thing as just an example.

Of course, I could also point out that by funding the CBC the government is depriving me of my property rights (i.e. taking money away from me for activities that I will not be using.) Granted it is nowhere near as serious as the issue of gay marriage, but its a question of degree.

And the majority doing so deprives me of my right to property.

Granted, we live in Canada, where they never actually bothered putting property rights into the constitution, but most people still think they should have some right to their actual property.

You could argue that, but it's a moronic argument, so about all you'd accomplish is to make yourself look like a moron.

The fact that you don't agree doesn't make it 'moronic'.

So, where exactly don't you agree? Do you think that we, as Canadians, just shouldn't have the right to property? Or do you think its just a question of degrees, where we should accept some abuses to the right to property, only if its a small amount? Would the government be morally right if they decided to take ALL your money, property, etc. if they wanted to further fund the CBC? After all, you seem to have no problem with the government taking SOME of your money to fund the CBC. Where do you draw the line? You happy loosing $30/year to fund the CBC? What if the government decided $300/year was better? Or $3000/per year? Please tell me at what point you'd say "Ok, now the government is abusing its authority".

You do not have absolute control over where your tax dollars are spent.

Please point to where I claimed you should get absolute control over where your tax dollars are spent.

I've been quite clear in previous posts... the government should limit its tax collection and spending to areas that either involve natural monopolies, or areas where private sector involvement is just not feasible.

Period. Want to change how they're spent, get someone elected who will change it.

That's just like the faulty "its ok because its popular" argument.... The fact that some politician is popular enough to get elected does not make their policies correct or in the best interest of the country.

Tell you what, though. Don't like paying taxes for some things you don't like, move to Somalia. That's a Libertarians dream, methinks.

Ah yes, spoken like a true person ignorant of the concept of Libertarianism.

You see, Libertarians are not anarchists. They do not want to see all taxes eliminated, and all government funding cut. Libertarians do see the need for taxes to fund certain fundamental infrastructure, such as the court system, police, military, etc. in order to maintain stability. Somalia does not qualify.

Frankly, there is no country in the world which would qualify as a 'Libertarian dream'. So suggesting that people move to Country X is an impossible solution.

The argument "If you don't like it, Move" is about as impractical as those who might say "If you don't like the drug laws/racism/etc. in the U.S. you should move". People have a right to stand up for what they believe in, and if the best argument you have against them is "If you don't like it, Move", then you should probably reexamine your own opinions.

[jdobbin]

For the record, I'm THRILLED at the idea of CBC being sold off. It's a failure. The fact that it's a failure is a testament to how little people watch it. Other than Hockey Night in Canada, it's a waste of a channel.

And how do you feel about all Canadian TV? Should it all be eliminated? End Canadian content? End Canadian ownership? End simulcast? End all CRTC regulation? End all cross ownership?

If CBC is sold, can private networks do better? They don't perform very well now if you look closely. The private networks need subsidies, protection and rules to operate.

All Canadian TV is a on the dole. The question is whether it achieves anything and if the alternative would be worse.

My guess is that if all Canadian TV was an affiliate of U.S. TV, we would probably not have much Canadian programming at all. The only programming that might survive is hockey but I don't place any bets on it. An American owned channel would probably not fork out the cash for something that has zero interest in the U.S.

I don't really know much about VIA rail, but I don't really see the need for it.

All public transit is someone on the dole. Eliminate it all.

Or at least that is how some people think.

Sell national parks next. Waste of good timber land and hunting grounds.

Edited June 3, 2009 by jdobbin