Ignatieff's Isaiah Berlin lecture

[gordiecanuk]

Any thougts on the Liberal leader's speech?

Obviously it won't appeal to hard core dogmatic Conservatives or Dippers...but then the success of the Liberal party has always been in staking out the middle ground. It seems to me that Iggy does a decent job of just that....appealing to both wavering NDP and Conservative supporters.

[bush_cheney2004]

Any thougts on the Liberal leader's speech?

Obviously it won't appeal to hard core dogmatic Conservatives or Dippers...but then the success of the Liberal party has always been in staking out the middle ground. It seems to me that Iggy does a decent job of just that....appealing to both wavering NDP and Conservative supporters.

A wonderful civics and history lesson for sure, but the oh so typical references to American government and institutions are ironic given that the Liberal Leader left Canada to live abroad for so many years, including a five year stint in that place with a different notion of individual and freedom.

Edited July 10, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

Pretty good speech. I disagree on certain points of course.

I like this sentence, for example:

A liberal’s disagreement with a socialist or social democrat comes down to this: we both seek equality, but the only equality a liberal thinks is worth striving for is an equality of freedom.

But he then goes to praise things like affirmative action, putting the lie to his earlier statement.

He says Liberals stand for a limited government, and Conservatives seek to ever reduce government, and yet both parties preside over the relentless expansion of government.

I also disagree with this statement:

That new economy will have to support ever larger numbers of older people on a shrinking base of the working employed. So a government with foresight will have to encourage immigration, raise productivity support retirement pensions and provide health care for those who have left the work-force.

The solution is not ever-increasing immigration and devoting a larger and larger proportion of our national resources to health care, but rather a revitalization of our culture and of our economic reality so that our population does not shrink but rather keeps growing, keeping a stable, youthful, demographic.

[gordiecanuk]

The solution is not ever-increasing immigration and devoting a larger and larger proportion of our national resources to health care, but rather a revitalization of our culture and of our economic reality so that our population does not shrink but rather keeps growing, keeping a stable, youthful, demographic.

With our birth rate the hope of a 'stable, youthful, demographic' is a pipe dream. We'll soon have roughly 1/3 of our population at retirement age. If we're looking for senior citizens to drive our collective prosperity there won't be any.

Unless we're talking about outlawing all abortions and removing birth control products from the shelves...then we're going to have to look as seriously hiking immigration levels.

[Bonam]

With our birth rate the hope of a 'stable, youthful, demographic' is a pipe dream. We'll soon have roughly 1/3 of our population at retirement age. If we're looking for senior citizens to drive our collective prosperity there won't be any.

Unless we're talking about outlawing all abortions and removing birth control products from the shelves...then we're going to have to look as seriously hiking immigration levels.

Abortions? Birth controls? What are you talking about. The solution isn't to force people to raise unwanted children, but to enable them to want to have more children. Why do people avoid having children? In our culture, it is most often either lack of time to devote to raising them, or lack of money to provide for them. To correct this we need to look at the overtaxation that we impose on the middle class, which still forms the majority of the population. We need to re-examine the social expectation that both members of a couple should work full time, so that there is at least one parent that is able to spend time raising their children. We also need to look at the causes of our out of control real estate prices that make it impossible for even upper-middle class professionals to afford a house in the city they grew up in.

Of course, there is also the constant oppressive guilt-ridden propaganda of how we are overpopulating the Earth, how we should stop having children, how we are to blame for all that is wrong in the world that weighs on the subconscious of so many people. I've talked to so many random people in various conversations that just blurt out "the world has too many people" or "it's better for society not to have kids". It's just ingrained into them, as if it's a self-evident fact, and when I dispute the statement and make arguments to the contrary most look as if they had never even considered such thoughts before.

Why did the demographics of Western nations do just fine for thousands of years, maintaining a youthful, growing population, and now suddenly, amidst our newfound prosperity, ease of life, growing life expectancy and living standards, we are suddenly all growing old and dying? It is a problem with our culture, not with our people or our population. We are not defective models that need to be replaced. The demographic decline can be solved by revitalization, and an examination of what we are doing to our own societies, not by mass immigration.

[gordiecanuk]

Abortions? Birth controls? What are you talking about. The solution isn't to force people to raise unwanted children, but to enable them to want to have more children. Why do people avoid having children? In our culture, it is most often either lack of time to devote to raising them, or lack of money to provide for them. To correct this we need to look at the overtaxation that we impose on the middle class, which still forms the majority of the population. We need to re-examine the social expectation that both members of a couple should work full time, so that there is at least one parent that is able to spend time raising their children. We also need to look at the causes of our out of control real estate prices that make it impossible for even upper-middle class professionals to afford a house in the city they grew up in.

Of course, there is also the constant oppressive guilt-ridden propaganda of how we are overpopulating the Earth, how we should stop having children, how we are to blame for all that is wrong in the world that weighs on the subconscious of so many people. I've talked to so many random people in various conversations that just blurt out "the world has too many people" or "it's better for society not to have kids". It's just ingrained into them, as if it's a self-evident fact, and when I dispute the statement and make arguments to the contrary most look as if they had never even considered such thoughts before.

Why did the demographics of Western nations do just fine for thousands of years, maintaining a youthful, growing population, and now suddenly, amidst our newfound prosperity, ease of life, growing life expectancy and living standards, we are suddenly all growing old and dying? It is a problem with our culture, not with our people or our population. We are not defective models that need to be replaced. The demographic decline can be solved by revitalization, and an examination of what we are doing to our own societies, not by mass immigration.

I think you're missing a fundamental reality, the weathier countries in the world are the ones with the lowest birth rates....The poorest nations on the other hand, lots of kiddies.

So obvioulsy its not a question of wealth. Canadians have a far greater capacity to provide for children than parents in the 3rd world.

This is a complex issue, but I would argue that the higher our standard of living climbs...the fewer kids Canadians will be having.

[Bonam]

I think you're missing a fundamental reality, the weathier countries in the world are the ones with the lowest birth rates....The poorest nations on the other hand, lots of kiddies.

So obvioulsy its not a question of wealth. Canadians have a far greater capacity to provide for children than parents in the 3rd world.

People in the third world have a different culture and a completely different reality than we have here. I am not talking about them, I am talking about our situation.

Through the 18th and 19th century, and the first half or so of the 20th, as our standards of living improved, our population exploded exponentially. Now, suddenly, as they have improved even higher, our birth rates are collapsing and our population is growing old. What has changed? I would argue that it is our cultural and social norms and expectations. Just a few generations ago, families with three or more children were common, and now they are rare (except among some cultures of immigrants). Why? What is the difference? This needs to be looked into and corrected.

This is not an unfixable, irreversible phenomena, although it does have dire consequences if it goes unchecked, those consequences being extinction of the races that undergo such a trend. Birth rates below replacement levels are a serious issue and they need to be investigated and addressed.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Bonam

[Molly]

This needs to be looked into and corrected.

Birth rates below replacement levels are a serious issue and they need to be investigated and addressed.

Wow. There's some serious thread drift, and a set of statements that scream for reply!

I would suggest that reduced birthrates, rates below replacement, represent a success!. 'No time, no money' as reasons not to breed willy-nilly basically translates to 'other, more desireable things to do with my time and money'. Through the 18th, nineteenth and early 20th centuries, health and healthcare improved, so infant mortality fell, exploding population. It wasn't until the latter part of the 20th century that it was within reach to do anything to prevent having more children than you were willing to raise!

[benny]

Any thougts on the Liberal leader's speech?

Berlin is famous for having been the first to distinguish positive and negative freedoms. By not saying a word about this distinction, Ignatieff speech seems so boringly irrelevant.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/be...of-liberty.html

[Bonam]

I would suggest that reduced birthrates, rates below replacement, represent a success!.

An example of the guilt-ridden propaganda I mentioned. I can't quite fathom the mindset that applauds the dwindling and decline of one's own people (assuming you are of a group whose birth rates are below replacement).

[benny]

An example of the guilt-ridden propaganda I mentioned. I can't quite fathom the mindset that applauds the dwindling and decline of one's own people (assuming you are of a group whose birth rates are below replacement).

The strength of a people is not at all reducible to a number.

[Bonam]

The strength of a people is not at all reducible to a number.

No, just to the change in that number over time. If a people are growing in number, they are prospering, if they are falling in number, then they are dwindling. This is true for ethnic or racial groups, religious groups, humanity as a whole, as well as any other species. It may be an oversimplification at times, but I'd say it's generally a good gauge.

Which animals are endangered? Those whose numbers are low and keep dropping. Which animals are not at risk? Those which number in the millions and whose populations are holding steady or growing.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Bonam

[Smallc]

Only one problem with that. There is only one human race.

[benny]

No, just to the change in that number over time. If a people are growing in number, they are prospering, if they are falling in number, then they are dwindling. This is true for ethnic or racial groups, religious groups, humanity as a whole, as well as any other species. It may be an oversimplification at times, but I'd say it's generally a good gauge.

Which animals are endangered? Those whose numbers are low and keep dropping. Which animals are not at risk? Those which number in the millions and whose populations are holding steady or growing.

Humans are not vermin.

[gordiecanuk]

Berlin is famous for having been the first to distinguish positive and negative freedoms. By not saying a word about this distinction, Ignatieff speech seems so boringly irrelevant.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/be...of-liberty.html

Iggy's speech was more than long enough, I don't think espousing views on limiting one's freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre would have made it any more relevant. There's no disputing the man's intellect, that's for sure.

[Bonam]

Only one problem with that. There is only one human race.

You don't think it makes sense to preserve some semblance of diversity? You think the human race should merge into one giant monotony? No whites, no blacks, no chinese, no Indians, no natives, just one homogenous mixture? I think that each distinct group which still has the potential to be preserved should be preserved. The natives are now few in number, and so there is some focus on maintaining their culture, their identity, and yes, their gene pool, and preventing it from disappearing and merging into the collective. Is it so wrong for other groups to think ahead and hope never to themselves be in that position?

Humans are not vermin.

Analogies are not your strong point.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Bonam

[Smallc]

You don't think it makes sense to preserve some semblance of diversity?

There's no danger of diversity going away any time soon.

[benny]

Analogies are not your strong point.

My analogy is fit.

[Molly]

I'd like to thank you for posting that Gordiecanuck ( and to ask Bonam to start a different thread about that hobby horse, somewhere else.)

It's an interesting read, and I largely agree with the descriptions within it, but it certainly points out my own position, on the very outside edge of the Liberal party, but not so far over as to be able to accept Harperism. Folks have been given to calling the parties, if not the philosophies, centrist Tweedledee and Tweedledum, but they are NOT.

[noahbody]

There's no disputing the man's intellect, that's for sure.

He's supported the green shift, the gun registry and the idea of a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc.

[benny]

He's supported the green shift, the gun registry and the idea of a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc.

Strategic intelligence.

[jdobbin]

He's supported the green shift, the gun registry and the idea of a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc.

Harper supports cap and trade, he did support the gun registry and the idea of a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc.

[benny]

Harper supports cap and trade, he did support the gun registry and the idea of a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc.

Intelligence begins by mimicking.

[gordiecanuk]

He's supported the green shift, the gun registry and the idea of a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc.

Ignatieff supported the leadership of Stephane Dion, that's the way politics works. But once he took over the leadership he repudiated the green shift and backed away from teh coalition.

There are conservatives MPs who support Stephen Harper...but there are specific policies with which they disagree. When leadership changes, so does party direction.

[Smallc]

Although to be fair, a carbon tax was something Ignatieff supported while running for leader. Thankfully he changed his mind.