Need help with my an essay on political parties

[Splash]

Hi, my topic is Privacy and the Media. I am 70% finished my essay, and just need help finding some more bits of information.

The two other components I must include in my essay is "Political Spectrum- what is the political spectrum? Describe both the economic /fiscal aspect and the social-moral harm aspect. Where lawmakers would sit on the political spectrum?" and "Political Parties- what are the 3 parties? (explain and describe). Where do these parties sit in relation to your topic?"

I could not find any relevant information ANYWHERE, if anyone can please explain and post a link of the Liberal, Conservative, and NDP views on media or privacy.

Thanks, sorry if this is the wrong place to post this but I really have no other idea where I can acquire the needed information.

[Alta4ever]

http://www.moral-politics.com/

Good luck, people have written volumes on politics, with such a topic, you could write book.

[nicky10013]

Hi, my topic is Privacy and the Media. I am 70% finished my essay, and just need help finding some more bits of information.

The two other components I must include in my essay is "Political Spectrum- what is the political spectrum? Describe both the economic /fiscal aspect and the social-moral harm aspect. Where lawmakers would sit on the political spectrum?" and "Political Parties- what are the 3 parties? (explain and describe). Where do these parties sit in relation to your topic?"

I could not find any relevant information ANYWHERE, if anyone can please explain and post a link of the Liberal, Conservative, and NDP views on media or privacy.

Thanks, sorry if this is the wrong place to post this but I really have no other idea where I can acquire the needed information.

Is this a high school paper? If it's university then get out fast. Any professor who structures your essays is just too lazy to let people do real work. It's also usually endemic of the institution as the head of your department is too lazy to make professors actually do their job.

As for parties, I'd look through how the party votes on things generally viewed as a privacy measure. You can probably find legislation on wikipedia, find the date of the vote and just go back and cite hansard. A big indicator could be support for anti-terror legislation or other topics of a related matter. Better yet, the Privacy Act.

[Splash]

Thanks so far for the replies.

Yes, this is a highschool paper (I am in grade 12)

and the moral politics website, I have viewed it, and tried looking through most of the sections but I still can't really find much relating to my topic.

[nicky10013]

Thanks so far for the replies.

Yes, this is a highschool paper (I am in grade 12)

and the moral politics website, I have viewed it, and tried looking through most of the sections but I still can't really find much relating to my topic.

Cool! Keep making google searches. There's actually a google search engine called Google Scholar and it pulls up academic journal articles. You'll eventually find something even though its tough. Try and get to a university close to you as their libraries tend to be more complete.

[August1991]

http://www.moral-politics.com/

Good luck, people have written volumes on politics, with such a topic, you could write book.

I note that the Moral Politics test was created in 2004.

A long, long time ago (in 2004), I posted a link to the Political Compass test, created in 2001 (I believe). It seems to me that the Moral Politics test is a bad clone of the Political Compass test. (It also has at least one spelling mistake.)

Anyway, the PC website has some interesting thoughts on political theory. Good luck with your paper.

Edited January 7, 2010 by August1991

[Oleg Bach]

Tag the piece by being outrageous. Perhaps how media is now imploding on itself. An example would be the general irresponsiblity of media and their lust for more profit through sensationalism...or the fact that if these problematic times that we live in would not eccelerate to what is becoming an uncontrolable situation internationally. If this was 1941 and the media spewed out what it does not they would all be charge with treason.

[wulf42]

Cool! Keep making google searches.

Ah......where would we all be without Google??

[Smallc]

Using Yahoo and being frustrated?

[Oleg Bach]

Ah......where would we all be without Google??

Probably oogling each other and having more human interaction. I rarely Google..but I am not a student..have a good collection of unrevised books that give me a better sense of the changes that slowly take place as far as concepts.

[nicky10013]

Probably oogling each other and having more human interaction. I rarely Google..but I am not a student..have a good collection of unrevised books that give me a better sense of the changes that slowly take place as far as concepts.

I like books over the internet as well. Google Scholar just gives instant access to printed academic journal articles. When you're a student and writing 4 essays at once, being able to access information in a timely matter is a must.

[William Ashley]

.

The two other components I must include in my essay is "Political Spectrum- what is the political spectrum? Describe both the economic /fiscal aspect and the social-moral harm aspect. Where lawmakers would sit on the political spectrum?" and "Political Parties- what are the 3 parties? (explain and describe). Where do these parties sit in relation to your topic?"

Is this for Canadian and International Law? One of my best classes in High School.

Political Spectrum is that left right center thing... right leaning parties favor privatization and reduction of public rights for private benifit (usually of the majority and major private stake holders (re fascism)), left leaning spectrum favors socialism and reduction of private rights for public good (for the major social institutions which have been nationalized, as well as the public re: bolshevism). Center moderates just mean they do both things and don't fit the mold to either thing completely.

Political parties in Canada and the world vary in where you might place them on the spectrum eg. The Federal Liberals have shifted as a left of center party to a centrist party and back, while the conservatives are suppose to be a right of centre party but are often quoted as a centrist party. The NDP having their routes in Communism, labour movement, anticorporate etc.. generally are seen as left of centre.

Fiscally it is too narrow to apply left right to it although people try, eg. fiscal conservative, tax and spend, etc.. some governments favor a small government with private interests and third party outsourcing of the public, which instead of levying taxes (Although taxes rarely go down from the process) they charge service charges for those who use the service. Other elements of fiscal policy may directly relate to social programs, that being supporting social welfare, or favoring a make it yourself policy standpoint. The haris conservatives are a good example of what would be closer to Feudal Serf Policy, with Ontario Works, rather than base social welfare, instead people without employment were forced to work for under the legal minimum wage for the government for base level subsistence.. this however is still a social welfare program, much like the guarenteed work that started social welfare in France back in the 1800's, it goes back further though. Basically what is potrayed is that right leaning fiscal policy favors development of private industries, while left leaning fiscal policies favor developing social programs. Both tend to spend a lot though. The difference is who sees the benifit, in right it is private citizens, in left it is the public. There is no clear line because the party system in Canada is so varied and damaged. It is easy to say that the Cons are right, the liberals are centralists, and the NDP are left, but this is not wholely always the case, the liberals attract both left and right leaning individuals, the NDP are not purely libertarian, yet some conservatives, for instance Max Bernier are seen as politically libertarian. Yada yada.

I'd suggest you examine the policy platform of each party then determine, does this policy beneifit individuals or the public as a whole. If it is private individuals it is right, if it is public then it is left, and if it is both or neither it is centrist.

For the liberals you could look here:

http://www.liberal.ca/en/party/documents

but also at each Liberal Riding Head/MP / candidate etc... on their writings.

NDP can be found here

http://www.ndp.ca/xfer/campaign2008/Platform_2008_EN.pdf

cons can be found here

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/4739/

Part of the issue is that parties often don't follow their policy platform, make compramises, and break promises and commitments, lie, and sell out public interests. So looking at the laws and who voted on them can help also. In reality though, Canada is a Right leaning country with left leaning parties who tend to make laws regarding economic policy or private rights - but it appears left leaning because the public exercises their acts criminally and there is a generalized social corruption which manifests within the political and legal systems which insures private exercise of rights, yet compromises public rights in whole -furthering right leaning stance of social reality regardless of how far right the governmental reality is. It isn't a free world people don't support a free world, they gave the power to cops and people bent on institutionalizing the individual for being free.

Edited January 7, 2010 by William Ashley

[BubberMiley]

Uh...just so you know, teachers never ask questions that can't be answered by the readings they've assigned.

[William Ashley]

Uh...just so you know, teachers never ask questions that can't be answered by the readings they've assigned.

You wern't an advanced/university level student were you?

Ever had an ISU or research paper?

[Bugs]

Hi, my topic is Privacy and the Media. I am 70% finished my essay, and just need help finding some more bits of information.

The two other components I must include in my essay is "Political Spectrum- what is the political spectrum? Describe both the economic /fiscal aspect and the social-moral harm aspect. Where lawmakers would sit on the political spectrum?" and "Political Parties- what are the 3 parties? (explain and describe). Where do these parties sit in relation to your topic?"

I could not find any relevant information ANYWHERE, if anyone can please explain and post a link of the Liberal, Conservative, and NDP views on media or privacy.

Thanks, sorry if this is the wrong place to post this but I really have no other idea where I can acquire the needed information.

Let me take a stab, my own personal conclusions. I think this spectrum idea is almost entirely ideological. It confuses the issues to know that someone is right-wing or left-wing. To understand what I mean you have to understand that the two phrases could effectively be translated into the terms bad guys and good guys. And we all know who the good guys are, don't we?

As an example, conjure up the vision of the left-winger. Almost certainly, you are involved with notion of the dispossessed getting their due, of idealism, of a kind of social heaven where everyone gets everything they want, regardless of income. It's like a Valhalla for the 'helping professions'. Contrast that with the vision of the right-winger. Basically, it's Hitler.

A lot of people in Canada end up acting as if people who think the government should balance its budget are the sizing them up for a horrible fate. Every time some barbarians are skinning missionaries alive, someone will start calling them right-wing, just so nice people know who to support. On the other hand, no constitutional usurping worries us if it comes from the left-wing Hugo Chavez.

This is all such nonsense, particularly when you reflect on the fact that the Nazis were a socialist party. I don't mean to make a big thing of this, except to illustrate how ideological the spectrum idea is. However, the full name of the Nazis was, in English, a mouthful like the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party. Who do you think they were appealing to? One of their early themes was that they were the national socialist party, in opposition to the international socialistt party -- the Communists. It's from this framing notion that the smugness of the left comes from.

Google Jean Fitzpatrick. She has a notion that better covers this territory. Basically, the spectrum that really exists is one that runs between minimal government and totalitarianism. You can identify stages on a scale of totalitarianism, and show a startling correlation of the size of the state and the restriction of general freedom in the population. I think it makes a lot of sense. Consider the case of privacy. The reason it has to be defined, and requires policy, is because big organizations are invadings ours all the time. Privacy is a rear-guard action that the government itself evades. Privacy issues are chiefly used to protect specific civil servants from being identified, as parts of cover-ups ... Guité felt his privacy rights were violated, after all.

Just saying ...

Edited January 7, 2010 by Bugs

[nicky10013]

Let me take a stab, my own personal conclusions. I think this spectrum idea is almost entirely ideological. It confuses the issues to know that someone is right-wing or left-wing. To understand what I mean you have to understand that the two phrases could effectively be translated into the terms bad guys and good guys. And we all know who the good guys are, don't we?

As an example, conjure up the vision of the left-winger. Almost certainly, you are involved with notion of the dispossessed getting their due, of idealism, of a kind of social heaven where everyone gets everything they want, regardless of income. It's like a Valhalla for the 'helping professions'. Contrast that with the vision of the right-winger. Basically, it's Hitler.

A lot of people in Canada end up acting as if people who think the government should balance its budget are the sizing them up for a horrible fate. Every time some barbarians are skinning missionaries alive, someone will start calling them right-wing, just so nice people know who to support. On the other hand, no constitutional usurping worries us if it comes from the left-wing Hugo Chavez.

This is all such nonsense, particularly when you reflect on the fact that the Nazis were a socialist party. I don't mean to make a big thing of this, except to illustrate how ideological the spectrum idea is. However, the full name of the Nazis was, in English, a mouthful like the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party. Who do you think they were appealing to? One of their early themes was that they were the national socialist party, in opposition to the international socialistt party -- the Communists. It's from this framing notion that the smugness of the left comes from.

Google Jean Fitzpatrick. She has a notion that better covers this territory. Basically, the spectrum that really exists is one that runs between minimal government and totalitarianism. You can identify stages on a scale of totalitarianism, and show a startling correlation of the size of the state and the restriction of general freedom in the population. I think it makes a lot of sense. Consider the case of privacy. The reason it has to be defined, and requires policy, is because big organizations are invadings ours all the time. Privacy is a rear-guard action that the government itself evades. Privacy issues are chiefly used to protect specific civil servants from being identified, as parts of cover-ups ... Guité felt his privacy rights were violated, after all.

Just saying ...

You're an idiot. The Nazi's weren't socialists, they were fascists and being a Liberal doesn't equate you with Stalinist totalitarianism. We have a bigger government in Canada than people in the states and I can tell you for certain that we're no less free.

There is a spectrum but what this fear monger wants people to think is that there is no such thing as conservative authoritarianism. It goes both ways. Swing too wildly out to either side and both use extreme ideology to protect the community. The Nazis did it to protect themselves and their buddies in big business who operated privately. The Soviets did it to protect their monopoly on state ownership. There's a gigantic difference in ideology, they just used the same methods to enforce those ideals.

Edited January 7, 2010 by nicky10013

[Michael Hardner]

I don't mean to make a big thing of this, except to illustrate how ideological the spectrum idea is.

What does that mean ? How ideological the spectrum is ? It is a spectrum of political ideologies, isn't it ?

Isn't that like saying how colourful the spectrum of colours is ?

[BubberMiley]

You wern't an advanced/university level student were you?

If you were, you would be aware that such courses don't ask questions like "what is the political spectrum?"

[ToadBrother]

You're an idiot. The Nazi's weren't socialists, they were fascists and being a Liberal doesn't equate you with Stalinist totalitarianism. We have a bigger government in Canada than people in the states and I can tell you for certain that we're no less free.

Churchill called National Socialism Communism's ugly little child. At the same time, it was a more clearly authoritarian system that tolerated private enterprise, providing it was in the service of the state. In reality, Nazism was whatever Hitler needed it to be to gain power. And as can be shown by the clear hatred of Communists by even the early post-WWI German fascists, it weren't socialism in any meaningful sense of the word.

[nicky10013]

Churchill called National Socialism Communism's ugly little child. At the same time, it was a more clearly authoritarian system that tolerated private enterprise, providing it was in the service of the state. In reality, Nazism was whatever Hitler needed it to be to gain power. And as can be shown by the clear hatred of Communists by even the early post-WWI German fascists, it weren't socialism in any meaningful sense of the word.

Yeah, I agree. In the end political scientists of all stripes have a hard time nailing down what fascism really is. The only broad consensus is that fascism is a totalitarian state which embraces private markets in the service of hyper-nationalism which is stoked by the leader who has a cult like following. There are also claims about ultra-conservatism. Mussolini wanted to bring back the Roman Empire. Hitler wanted lebensraum in Russia to turn back the clock so all Germans could (read: forced) go back 100 years to the blissful peasant life which had once existed before extreme industrialization of the 19th century.

Whatever it was, it wasn't socialism. Hitler chose the words National Socialism to lure in the poor and uneducated workers who thought they would be helped by a Nazi government. In the end, they kind of did. They were all drafted.

[William Ashley]

You're an idiot. The Nazi's weren't socialists

Some of their characteristics were very socialistic on paper.

"The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:

Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

"

The conservatives IMO are far more Fascist than Hitler for what that is worth.

[Michael Hardner]

Some of their characteristics were very socialistic on paper.

"The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:

Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

"

The conservatives IMO are far more Fascist than Hitler for what that is worth.

WA - it's a real shame that you post something to add to the conversation, while following it with ridiculous hyperbole calling the Conservatives of Canada fascists. It's utter crap, and cheapens the board - turning it into a FOX name-calling contest. Away with you !

[DrGreenthumb]

WA - it's a real shame that you post something to add to the conversation, while following it with ridiculous hyperbole calling the Conservatives of Canada fascists. It's utter crap, and cheapens the board - turning it into a FOX name-calling contest. Away with you !

I guess the truth hurts.

[Michael Hardner]

I guess the truth hurts.

The truth being - Harper is worse than Hitler ?

[Alta4ever]

Churchill called National Socialism Communism's ugly little child. At the same time, it was a more clearly authoritarian system that tolerated private enterprise, providing it was in the service of the state. In reality, Nazism was whatever Hitler needed it to be to gain power. And as can be shown by the clear hatred of Communists by even the early post-WWI German fascists, it weren't socialism in any meaningful sense of the word.

Don't forget that fascism was spawned out of the progressive movement in the US. Mussolini was looking to do much of what woodrow wilson did with his war time socialism policies.