Attention Forum Socialists

[Michael Hardner]

I don't believe you see how government has a tendency to extend itself beyond them and a democracy granting itself rights will not limit government but encourage it to extend itself beyond what is economically feasible.

You have said this before - how do you reconcile the reduction of government budgets that has happened steadily over the past 40 years with your view ? You seem to not trust voters to be prudent.

Ontario voters threw out Bob Rae in the 1990s due to the deficit and tax hikes, do you remember ?

Not trusting individuals to do the right thing is usually a hallmark of socialism, Pliny.

When it adopted the income tax it became authoritarian. It's only growing in it's mandate. What's a long way away? A generation? Or is it just until the economy is wiped out?

Forcing people to give via taxes is a forced tithe. We have already discussed the habit of calling taxation theft and so on on these pages. It's a community-imposed rule of giving, backed by force. There are many other rules (silly ones as well as smart ones) that are backed by the same force.

When we draw lines on the road, nobody cries that we're limiting their freedom to drive in the oncoming lane.

[nicky10013]

When were the good old days?

Governments are complicated mostly because of the Lord Acton's axiom - "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

We are now dependent upon government for many things and many people owe their livelihood to government, either through employment or contract. I would include the medical and teaching professions as well as public service employees in that count.

People aren't really dependent on government. After all, in the end we all pay taxes right? How can we dependent upon something we pay for?

Also to equate the expansion of government after say the great depression to personal corruption is a pretty big low. The New Deal and programmes like it gave a lot of hope to a lot of people out of work simply because the government didn't regulate the growing credit markets. Now, we've had people like you saying that any form of regulation is a form of corruption and surprise surprise, we land back in essentially the same mess we were in 90 years ago. Ironically, without the mass infusion of government cash into the economy, things would've collapsed, and no, it wasn't because of any income tax. It was due to piss poor regulation of the credit markets. Conservatives tried to tie what happened to over-regulation as they always do. However, they can't square it with the fact that none of our banks failed and our system is much stricter.

Karl Marx - "Democracy is the road to socialism." Can you see how Marx could have arrived at that conclusion?

So Karl Marx is right now? Before he was the devil. Make up your mind. This is what I was talking about in terms of the truth. When people go looking for it, they find it. Even in the most unorthodox of places.

That isn't what it says in my Oxford dictionary of politics.

A dictatorial form of centralized government that regulates every aspect of state and private behavior.

If you think Hitler did not have his hands on the macro-economy you must be dreaming. Regulating "every aspect" of behavior would have to include economic behavior. I realize that small business, the micro-economy, was left somwhat alone to serve the community. You were only in trouble if you were Jewish or a communist.

If Hitler controlled the economy, "private behaviour" wouldn't and couldn't have been mentioned. So, no. It didn't mean that Hiter controlled the economy as a socialist would. He put Jews out of business and banned Aryans from buying things at their store. Isn't that regulating unwanted behaviour? That doesn't mean that for the most part Germans couldn't do what they pleased. The government sought to regulate a certain behaviour and accomplished it. No control of the economy necessary.

Of course, that would be.

But the only right government should be guaranteeing is the freedom from the initiation of force or violence against the person and/or property of another by someone else.

Yeah, and that's your view but you don't have all the answers and people disagree with you. You're outnumbered. Democracy works. Hazaa!

It devolves into the rights of special interests. A national government if it is to deal with the protection of society cannot grant rights to one over another nor expect one to pay for the rights of another.

No, all rights do have to be provided equally. However, whose to say that health care and vacationing can't be universal? Again, you may not agree with your tax dollars being spent on such things, but in the end there is no theoretical basis for you to make the statement that those are "communist" rights or shouldn't be rights in general

They did that in Greece. And Obama is hell bent on giving as many rights as he can to his fellow Americans.

First of all the sitaution in Greece and the situation in the US are very different so try again. Secondly, god forbid politicians try and make life better for the constituents. Jesus, where the hell have I been thinking that democracy is about serving the people.

Needs to take root? You don't see this progressivism as having taken root already?

Well, considering Harper is still hanging around, no, I wouldn't say it has completely taken root.

No. you are talking about a modern liberal.

The classical liberal was about limited government, freedom and liberty of the individual.

I am only considered conservative because I am anti-liberal. I am just as much against the conservative growth of government as the liberal.

Why can't the two be synonymous. There are such things as positive freedom and negative freedom. You think that the government doing anything impinges your freedom. I'm quite the opposite. The government doing more things for me makes my life easier. Why would anyone want to worry about having to pay premiums from month to month? I pay my taxes, I have my health card and I can go to any hospital in the country I want. That's far more free than you'd get in the states.

Furthermore, you're completely mistaken. As I said, read Mill's On Principles of Political Economy. You're in for a surprise. Modern conservatism really has very little in common with classical liberalism and believe me, you very much fit into the modern day conservative bracket.

So he got his wish? Or are we closer to the nanny state?

Aren't those two things essentially similar?

You don't recognize any biases?

Of course I have biases.

Yes. Capitalism exists and it is unfettered and unnregulated. We have a kind of mercantilism/corporatism.

Unregulated capitalism will never exist in the way people dream. It's the exact same as communism that it's actually a bit scary. The most unregulated and unfettered markets are generally scary places to be. 19th century London with the pollution and the child labour and the appalling living conditions. Then there's Somalia with no government at all. There are great markets with no controls at all. Unfortunately they sell Kalashnikovs to kids for two chickens.

The economy is already taken over. Globalism is reducing government control on the economy?? WE are about to experience legislation transferring wealth between nations and you are saying the government control of the economy is being reduced?

Isn't that what capitalism is about? Free trade is just mass capitalism on a global scale.

I think you really do believe that capitalism exists today completely unfettered and unregulated.

No I don't. Furthermore, I don't think it should exist in that form. Unfortunately for you, that isn't socialism.

If we want a democracy we have to be sure we are not just voting ourselves favour from the public purse. WE must understand the reason for limitations of government. That you understand it does not thrive outside certain economic parameters is to your credit but I don't believe you see how government has a tendency to extend itself beyond them and a democracy granting itself rights will not limit government but encourage it to extend itself beyond what is economically feasible. And economic feasibility is variable not a constant.

I agree that people should be educated about governance before they vote. Unfortunately, civics classes are a disgrace. Then again, schools are a waste of money, right?

Furthermore, the government's mandate is what it wants it to be so long as it doesn't interfere with a clear set of rights. Courts uphold those rights. They include the seizure of property, improper search and seizure, right to demonstrate, the right to free speech etc. The government is perfectly within it's own mandate to create yet another department. So what we have here is a case of stunning hypocrisy. You're accusing other people of coming up with rights that people just can't create. Yet, you're doing the exact same thing. You've created this right that the people shouldn't be burdened by bigger government and if god forbid the government does expand, it becomes socialist and authoritarian. You still have the right to vote, you still have the right to go out and protest. Certainly no one is arresting you for posting your thoughts on this discussion forum. Unfortuantely, that sort of thing does happen in China. You really should take perspective.

When it adopted the income tax it became authoritarian. It's only growing in it's mandate. What's a long way away? A generation? Or is it just until the economy is wiped out?

The further I get you to talk, the more inane the ramblings. So the politically motivated arrests, lack of civil liberties and lack of free and transparent votes don't matter as much as the income tax. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Also, look at how horribly the economy has hit by the tax. It only expanded 12% this year instead of the usual 15%. What a shame.

Edited May 27, 2010 by nicky10013

[Michael Hardner]

Also, look at how horribly the economy has hit by the tax. It only expanded 12% this year instead of the usual 15%. What a shame.

And tax money does end up in the economy, except it doesn't go to the same places as private investment.

[Pliny]

You have said this before - how do you reconcile the reduction of government budgets that has happened steadily over the past 40 years with your view ? You seem to not trust voters to be prudent.

You're dreaming. Budget reductions for 40 years?

The Liberals, under Chretien, did cut transfer payments to provinces. So the provinces had to make cuts but even then "cuts" meant cuts to "increases" in budgets, not actual cuts to the budget.

Voters seeing others, i.e., "special interests" getting benefits will feel unfairly treated. Governemnt will not alienate those special interests and lose votes by rescinding already won entitlements. They will instead tend to appease those who feel they are being treated unfairly with another entitlement in the name of "equality" or social justice.

Ontario voters threw out Bob Rae in the 1990s due to the deficit and tax hikes, do you remember?

Deficits and Tax hikes? But government budgets have been reduced for the last forty years?

The same thing happened in BC with the NDP and their spending.

Not only did Bob Rae increase the deficit and hike taxes but the economy was stagnant. If the economy is doing well people will be more tolerant of tax hikes. Deficits are due to decreased revenues, meaning poor economic activity with accompanying social discontent, or simply wasteful or exorbitant spending.

Not trusting individuals to do the right thing is usually a hallmark of socialism, Pliny.

Right you are. People need to be heavily regulated according to the socialist.

I trust people to act in their own interests, that doesn't mean selfishly. Their interests include family, community, country. I don't expect them to act in my interests unless it is in a very broad sense such as national interests. As for family and community, we won't necessarily share the same interests or face the same concerns and of course our own families and communities are more important than someone else's.

Forcing people to give via taxes is a forced tithe. We have already discussed the habit of calling taxation theft and so on on these pages. It's a community-imposed rule of giving, backed by force. There are many other rules (silly ones as well as smart ones) that are backed by the same force.

It's a community imposed rule of taking, backed by force.

When we draw lines on the road, nobody cries that we're limiting their freedom to drive in the oncoming lane.

When the rules are clear and understood they can be agreed to. When they cannot even be explained by the agency enforcing them we have gone too far.

Any activity needs rules to create order in the activity. You agree to the rules and you are allowed to participate in the activity. I don't remember anyone complaining about not being able to drive in the oncoming lane. It is within the mutual interest of all drivers and easily understandable by all, with the faculties necessary to participate, to not do so.

Having said that, I must have the ability to avoid someone who is driving in the oncoming lane and if that means swerving into the opposite oncoming lane then I must have that option available to me without fear of being refused participation in the activity.

[Michael Hardner]

You're dreaming. Budget reductions for 40 years?

Good point. I'm equating the cutbacks in taxes with reduced budgets but that may not be the case. Have you a link that will help us ?

Voters seeing others, i.e., "special interests" getting benefits will feel unfairly treated. Governemnt will not alienate those special interests and lose votes by rescinding already won entitlements. They will instead tend to appease those who feel they are being treated unfairly with another entitlement in the name of "equality" or social justice.

Deficits and Tax hikes? But government budgets have been reduced for the last forty years?

The same thing happened in BC with the NDP and their spending.

Not only did Bob Rae increase the deficit and hike taxes but the economy was stagnant. If the economy is doing well people will be more tolerant of tax hikes. Deficits are due to decreased revenues, meaning poor economic activity with accompanying social discontent, or simply wasteful or exorbitant spending.

Right you are. People need to be heavily regulated according to the socialist.

I trust people to act in their own interests, that doesn't mean selfishly. Their interests include family, community, country. I don't expect them to act in my interests unless it is in a very broad sense such as national interests. As for family and community, we won't necessarily share the same interests or face the same concerns and of course our own families and communities are more important than someone else's.

It's a community imposed rule of taking, backed by force.

When the rules are clear and understood they can be agreed to. When they cannot even be explained by the agency enforcing them we have gone too far.

You missed my point about Ontario - they voted OUT Rae and voted IN fiscal responsibility. That fact seems to becrap your theory, doesn't it ? That's right - I said "becrap". New word.

[Pliny]

People aren't really dependent on government. After all, in the end we all pay taxes right? How can we dependent upon something we pay for?

Some are entirely dependent upon government. Some First nations are entirely dependent upon it. Welfare recipients are entriely dependent.

Dependence doesn't mean destitution either. Doctors, nurses, teachers are all dependent upon government collecting their paycheques for them. This is one of the reasons that a bad economy is looked upon as such a disaster by governments and they need to ensure the economy is always expanding.

A lot of people depend upon government.

Also to equate the expansion of government after say the great depression to personal corruption is a pretty big low. The New Deal and programmes like it gave a lot of hope to a lot of people out of work simply because the government didn't regulate the growing credit markets.

They didn't regulate themselves. Government is the one that determines the ease of credit expansion. Commercial Banks don't just make up money from nothing all on their own. The central bank was established for precisely that reason and to prevent bank runs on banks that overextended themselves using fractional reserve banking principles.

The New Deal prolonged the agony and extended the depression far beyond where it should have gone. In the end it wasn't the Gr-r-r-eat Roosevelt that ended the depression nor his New Deal.

His five year plans were not much different than Stalin's except for the brutality. Roosevelt had to respect private property rights, somewhat.

Now, we've had people like you saying that any form of regulation is a form of corruption and surprise surprise, we land back in essentially the same mess we were in 90 years ago. Ironically, without the mass infusion of government cash into the economy, things would've collapsed, and no, it wasn't because of any income tax. It was due to piss poor regulation of the credit markets. Conservatives tried to tie what happened to over-regulation as they always do. However, they can't square it with the fact that none of our banks failed and our system is much stricter.

Meanwhile Capitalism continues unfettered and unregulated. The banking industry in Canada is a corporate cartel. There are thousands of banks in America. If Canadian banks had been told by their government to go ahead and make ninja loans so people could own their own homes and the government promised to buy up those mortgages then we would have experienced some bank failures in Canada. But maybe not, since there are only seven or eight. As it turned out, because of low interest rates and easy credit, we still had to bail out the economy to the tune of thirty billion in a stimulus package. Which also shouldn't have occurred.

So Karl Marx is right now? Before he was the devil. Make up your mind. This is what I was talking about in terms of the truth. When people go looking for it, they find it. Even in the most unorthodox of places.

Yes, and I also found some truth in dialectical materialism.

Even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

What happens to people who don't go looking for truth?

If Hitler controlled the economy, "private behaviour" wouldn't and couldn't have been mentioned. So, no. It didn't mean that Hiter controlled the economy as a socialist would. He put Jews out of business and banned Aryans from buying things at their store. Isn't that regulating unwanted behaviour? That doesn't mean that for the most part Germans couldn't do what they pleased. The government sought to regulate a certain behaviour and accomplished it. No control of the economy necessary.

Sorry. He financed the Third Reich somehow and in the midst of a world wide depression too. Now how could he have done that? Did he just have high taxes?

Perhaps you don't know how governments try to control economies. First, they establish a monopoly on the money supply and the creation of money and credit. They use taxes and tariffs and have things like corporate welfare in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. They licence and favour the right people and disallow fair competition.

People under those circumstances will behave properly.

Control of behavior is guaranteed that way.

Yeah, and that's your view but you don't have all the answers and people disagree with you. You're outnumbered. Democracy works. Hazaa!

Oh yes. I'm outnumbered and I don't pretend to have all the answers. It seems governments are the pretenders in that respect or else all would be fine and dandy - It's not. If government resolved half of the problems they promised to we would be doing all right. It can't - because the majority believes it can, doesn't seem to improve it's statistics.

The truth is that all of the problems of society will never be solved. Government doesn't even attempt to minimize them; lest it be deemed unnecessary.

No, all rights do have to be provided equally. However, whose to say that health care and vacationing can't be universal? Again, you may not agree with your tax dollars being spent on such things, but in the end there is no theoretical basis for you to make the statement that those are "communist" rights or shouldn't be rights in general

Of course there is a basis. If I don't want the treatment offered in my health care and would prefer a different treatment I have no option. Perhaps we should have the right to a permanent vacation?

They are "socialist" decreed entitlements paid for out of the economy. They are only as good as the economy and as viable as the the people are productive. Entitlements encourage sloth and mediocrity in the economy. They are a societal death warrant.

First of all the sitaution in Greece and the situation in the US are very different so try again.

Requiring the same solution - being bailed out.

Secondly, god forbid politicians try and make life better for the constituents. Jesus, where the hell have I been thinking that democracy is about serving the people.

Don't know. Where have you been? Democracy without limits on government allows it to become a government of/for special interests, voting themselves entitlements...er.. rights, not the people.

Why can't the two be synonymous. There are such things as positive freedom and negative freedom. You think that the government doing anything impinges your freedom. I'm quite the opposite. The government doing more things for me makes my life easier. Why would anyone want to worry about having to pay premiums from month to month? I pay my taxes, I have my health card and I can go to any hospital in the country I want. That's far more free than you'd get in the states.

Yes and you can join the line up and take or leave the suggested treatment.

Furthermore, you're completely mistaken. As I said, read Mill's On Principles of Political Economy. You're in for a surprise. Modern conservatism really has very little in common with classical liberalism and believe me, you very much fit into the modern day conservative bracket.

That's where classical liberalism sits these days. I Suppose you will argue that classical liberalism is liberalism. Why does the Label "Classical liberal" exist? There is a departure from modern liberalism.

Unregulated capitalism will never exist in the way people dream.

Well at least you see the economy is regulated.

It's the exact same as communism that it's actually a bit scary.

The socialist does see Capitalism as scary. As though it is a criminal activity and will exploit people and not provide any entitlements. government has to provide entitlements....er...rights.

The most unregulated and unfettered markets are generally scary places to be. 19th century London with the pollution and the child labour and the appalling living conditions.

Well, slavery was abolished. I would think that since it was the industrial age pollution would be bad. Child labour? You mean like in third world countries today? Appalling living conditions? My grandparents came to Canada and lived in earthen huts in minus thirty degree weather. Seems appalling by today's standards.

For economic conditions to improve production must occur. Initially, the conditions may be extreme but without production and hard work living standards don't improve.

Most people believe that their living standards are the result of government regulation but government cannot provide something that doesn't exist. Of course, it is thought that the bourgouisie will greedily keep all the wealth for themselves as if people will work for nothing without rebelling.

Then there's Somalia with no government at all.

It's an interesting fact that there are three countries in the world without a central bank. Somalia is one. Iran and North Korea are the other two.

Somalia does have an historical social structure. Establishing a central government in Somalia would override the existing division of power. There is no shortage of individuals who wish to centralize power in Somalia. This is destabilizing. But then that's the idea, to destabilize and then centralize power. Somalia keeps resisting changes and heavy interventions in it's social order. It looks like anarchy, doesn't it? Really it's forces breaking down a centuries old social structure to establish a central authority.

There are great markets with no controls at all. Unfortunately they sell Kalashnikovs to kids for two chickens.

Perhaps price controls are the solution. Make it four chickens?

I don't know what you expect in a place where the sanctity of the person and property are not respected. I would call for justice but when the government itself is corrupt and steals from it's own citizens then I would be glad to buy a kalishnikov for just two chickens.

Isn't that what capitalism is about? Free trade is just mass capitalism on a global scale.

Here's a simple lesson in capitalism. I have a dollar and someone has a pair of socks. I decide I would prefer to have the pair of socks over having my dollar. That doesn't guarantee I will get a pair of socks for my dollar. The person who has the socks must think it would be more beneficial for him to have my dollar than his pair of socks. Only then will the trade occur. In other words we BOTH must benefit. This is why all trade occurs. If there were not mutual benefit no one would bother trading. It is the millions of transactions like this that occur that create wealth and better living conditions for people.

Government is not doing anyone a favour by setting prices or wages or taking what it feels is it's share in the transaction plus what benefits and entitlements it can sell for votes to the populace.

I agree that people should be educated about governance before they vote. Unfortunately, civics classes are a disgrace. Then again, schools are a waste of money, right?

Beyond teaching essentials to learning, public schools are a waste of money.

Furthermore, the government's mandate is what it wants it to be so long as it doesn't interfere with a clear set of rights. Courts uphold those rights. They include the seizure of property, improper search and seizure, right to demonstrate, the right to free speech etc. The government is perfectly within it's own mandate to create yet another department. So what we have here is a case of stunning hypocrisy.

Sounds like it will eventually be above the law to me.

You're accusing other people of coming up with rights that people just can't create. Yet, you're doing the exact same thing. You've created this right that the people shouldn't be burdened by bigger government and if god forbid the government does expand, it becomes socialist and authoritarian.

That is the very reason for the existence of government. I am asking it to secure person and property from the initiation of force or violence by another, that I am not against an consider it a valid mandate of government. I am not asking it to seize property from another and provide me with something from that.

You are demanding it run society or most of it ensuring you have entitlements.

You still have the right to vote, you still have the right to go out and protest. Certainly no one is arresting you for posting your thoughts on this discussion forum. Unfortuantely, that sort of thing does happen in China. You really should take perspective.

I just don't want to to see it happen here. How do you think things like that happen? I believe, beyond a revolutionary insurgency, it is in the progressive growth of the government welfare/warfare state.

The further I get you to talk, the more inane the ramblings. So the politically motivated arrests, lack of civil liberties and lack of free and transparent votes don't matter as much as the income tax. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

How else can civil liberties be oppressed, politically motivated arrests occur or a lack of free and transparent voting exist unless government has the wherewithal to pay for it and itself?

Also, look at how horribly the economy has hit by the tax. It only expanded 12% this year instead of the usual 15%. What a shame.

It is indeed a shame.

[nicky10013]

Some are entirely dependent upon government. Some First nations are entirely dependent upon it. Welfare recipients are entriely dependent.

Dependence doesn't mean destitution either. Doctors, nurses, teachers are all dependent upon government collecting their paycheques for them. This is one of the reasons that a bad economy is looked upon as such a disaster by governments and they need to ensure the economy is always expanding.

A lot of people depend upon government.

Doctors, nurses and teachers provide a service. Are you saying they shouldn't be paid for providing said service? Furthermore, they pay taxes as well. We all pay taxes because we in turn want those services. That's not really being dependent.

As for people on welfare, I'm a big believer in second chances. I've gotten many and so have you. Sometimes people fall on hard times. I'm sure you would agree to that principle as well. Just so long as second chances aren't on your dime. Not very neighbourly in my opinion.

They didn't regulate themselves. Government is the one that determines the ease of credit expansion. Commercial Banks don't just make up money from nothing all on their own. The central bank was established for precisely that reason and to prevent bank runs on banks that overextended themselves using fractional reserve banking principles.

The New Deal prolonged the agony and extended the depression far beyond where it should have gone. In the end it wasn't the Gr-r-r-eat Roosevelt that ended the depression nor his New Deal.

His five year plans were not much different than Stalin's except for the brutality. Roosevelt had to respect private property rights, somewhat.

First of all, Hoover did nothing, which is pretty much what you're saying would've solved the problem, yet it got infinitely worse. Roosevelt at least got people working and started creating demand. Yes, you're right, the war got the US out of the depression, however, wasn't that an extension of the new deal? Instead of building dams and roads they were building tanks and airplanes. Whatever way you want to spin it, the recovery from the great depression was government driven.

As for Stalin's 5 year plans, if we're not going to account for the brutality as you suggest, they generally worked. The USSR became an industrial giant.

Don't know. Where have you been? Democracy without limits on government allows it to become a government of/for special interests, voting themselves entitlements...er.. rights, not the people.

Ahahahahahahahah only you would classify the people whom elect governments as "special interests." Apparently it's you against the world.

Yes and you can join the line up and take or leave the suggested treatment.

Oh, so you're a doctor now? You can go to the doctor and diagnose yourself now? Also, it's not unusual to get a second opinion in Canada. So no, there is indeed a third option.

That's where classical liberalism sits these days. I Suppose you will argue that classical liberalism is liberalism. Why does the Label "Classical liberal" exist? There is a departure from modern liberalism.

No it doesn't. It's not similar to modern Liberalism either, but that still doesn't mean that modern day conservatism is classical liberalism.

Well at least you see the economy is regulated.

And so it should be. Anyone who thinks otherwise is nuts. Doctors need to have licenses, accountants should be certified, stock markets shouldn't be allowed to become casinos. Kids shouldn't be used in factories. Those are regulations, too.

The socialist does see Capitalism as scary. As though it is a criminal activity and will exploit people and not provide any entitlements. government has to provide entitlements....er...rights.

That's not the way I meant it and you know it. Hardened free market capitalists scoff at people's belief in something like communism. Yet, at the same time, they believe in a form of capitalism that is just as theoretical and just as un-implementable. The level of hypocrisy is scary, not capitalism.

Well, slavery was abolished. I would think that since it was the industrial age pollution would be bad. Child labour? You mean like in third world countries today? Appalling living conditions? My grandparents came to Canada and lived in earthen huts in minus thirty degree weather. Seems appalling by today's standards.

What's the point?

For economic conditions to improve production must occur. Initially, the conditions may be extreme but without production and hard work living standards don't improve.

Yup.

Most people believe that their living standards are the result of government regulation but government cannot provide something that doesn't exist. Of course, it is thought that the bourgouisie will greedily keep all the wealth for themselves as if people will work for nothing without rebelling.

Throughout history standards of work haven't improved because companies have been willing to do these things on their own. The UK banned child labour and companies fought it tooth and nail. The south fought a war over slavery. These companies are out to make money, and really that's a great thing. However, there are examples throughout history of companies abusing their employees. The government has had to step in to protect workers. Low and behold, their living conditions improved because suddnely no kids were allowed to work and the government created a minimum wage.

It's an interesting fact that there are three countries in the world without a central bank. Somalia is one. Iran and North Korea are the other two.

Somalia does have an historical social structure. Establishing a central government in Somalia would override the existing division of power. There is no shortage of individuals who wish to centralize power in Somalia. This is destabilizing. But then that's the idea, to destabilize and then centralize power. Somalia keeps resisting changes and heavy interventions in it's social order. It looks like anarchy, doesn't it? Really it's forces breaking down a centuries old social structure to establish a central authority.

Has anyone been successful in creating a central authority? No. Hence, isn't it anarchy?

Perhaps price controls are the solution. Make it four chickens?

I don't know what you expect in a place where the sanctity of the person and property are not respected. I would call for justice but when the government itself is corrupt and steals from it's own citizens then I would be glad to buy a kalishnikov for just two chickens.

The government can't steal from it's own citizens because it doesn't exist.

Here's a simple lesson in capitalism. I have a dollar and someone has a pair of socks. I decide I would prefer to have the pair of socks over having my dollar. That doesn't guarantee I will get a pair of socks for my dollar. The person who has the socks must think it would be more beneficial for him to have my dollar than his pair of socks. Only then will the trade occur. In other words we BOTH must benefit. This is why all trade occurs. If there were not mutual benefit no one would bother trading. It is the millions of transactions like this that occur that create wealth and better living conditions for people.

Government is not doing anyone a favour by setting prices or wages or taking what it feels is it's share in the transaction plus what benefits and entitlements it can sell for votes to the populace.

Doesn't that currently exist in our trade agreements? Seems like both sides want to trade with each other. If that wasn't the case the agreements wouldn't be signed.

Furthermore, who is setting prices and why would you not agree to a minimum wage? Would you like to be making 5 cents a day?

That is the very reason for the existence of government. I am asking it to secure person and property from the initiation of force or violence by another, that I am not against an consider it a valid mandate of government. I am not asking it to seize property from another and provide me with something from that.

You are demanding it run society or most of it ensuring you have entitlements.

The mandate of government in a democratic polity is set by the voters. Just because you don't agree with a majority of the voters in no way makes the government any less democratic.

Beyond teaching essentials to learning, public schools are a waste of money.

If most cases are like you, you could have a point.

Sounds like it will eventually be above the law to me.

Nope. Doesn't work that way.

It is indeed a shame.

That the Chinese are getting richer?

Edited May 27, 2010 by nicky10013

[Pliny]

Doctors, nurses and teachers provide a service. Are you saying they shouldn't be paid for providing said service?

No.

Furthermore, they pay taxes as well. We all pay taxes because we in turn want those services. That's not really being dependent.

Yes. Those services are exactly what we want - Until we want to access them. Then they are aren't as they seemed. Initially, we may be enthralled. As time goes by, the service becomes increasingly expensive and and less about service. Eventually, with all the other entitlements, it is no longer viable and once again, only the rich can afford the attached user fees or lifestyle penalties; if they decide to get in the line up and not go elsewhere. Generally they do go elsewhere.

As for people on welfare, I'm a big believer in second chances. I've gotten many and so have you. Sometimes people fall on hard times. I'm sure you would agree to that principle as well. Just so long as second chances aren't on your dime. Not very neighbourly in my opinion.

The government's dime is better? It certainly relinquishes those who can marginally help their neighbour of any responsibility.

The higher the welfare rolls the less people feel responsible for their neighbour. Now that's what I call not being very neighbourly.

First of all, Hoover did nothing, which is pretty much what you're saying would've solved the problem, yet it got infinitely worse.

Hoover did quite a bit. It was Hoover who actually enacted the Glass-Steagall act, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, reduced immigration by 90%, established the Federal Employment Stabilization Board, initiated the Reconstruction Finance corporation out of the NCC, A Home Loan Bank System, an Expansion of the Federal Farm Loan Bank System the creation of public works programs, such as the Hoover Dam, which Roosevelt gladly carried on and finished.

It might be interesting to note that Hoover was also, in the twenties, the secretary of the treasury, and embarked upon a policy of inflation during that time.

And of course the policy of government spending itself out of the depression was part of the Hoover Plan. Just as Obama is going to spend the US out if it's current dilemma.

The one thing that Hoover wanted to do really badly was keep wages from falling. He did accomplish this but by doing so it meant higher unemployment because businesses coulnd't afford to pay the high wages. So it was a rather protectionist act for workers who kept their jobs but the rest of the population couldn't find work.

Those workers whose wages were protected from falling by law were a "special interest". Unions praised his actions and also wanted women to return to their homes with the idea of creating more work for men. Something they would not advertise as a policy today.

Roosevelt at least got people working and started creating demand. Yes, you're right, the war got the US out of the depression, however, wasn't that an extension of the new deal? Instead of building dams and roads they were building tanks and airplanes. Whatever way you want to spin it, the recovery from the great depression was government driven.

The unemployment rate never fell below 15% under Roosevelt during the depression and started to worsen in the late thirties despite the New Deal and the five year plans. It was better than 25% but no prosperity was evident.

So the war ended the depression. What year during the war did the depression end?

It continued with many unemployed just going off to war. It sounds like the war has your economic approval? After the war, people were buoyed by their defeat of the Axis powers, Roosevelt died and both big government fascist and socialist paradigms found disapproval in western democracy. The economy rebounded due to lack of will and caution about big government intervention.

As for Stalin's 5 year plans, if we're not going to account for the brutality as you suggest, they generally worked. The USSR became an industrial giant.

Not on rubles. Forced labour is one way to increase industrial activity. What else was so positive about those five year plans?

It was a house of cards and the USSR only lasted a generation and a half in total.

You say, "they generally worked"?

That current buzzword "Sustainability" doesn't figure in at all?

Ahahahahahahahah only you would classify the people whom elect governments as "special interests." Apparently it's you against the world.

The people who elect our government are Canadians. Around half of them vote. Our Prime Minister is usually supported by about 33% of that vote. so that's less than 25% of the total population. I would say if they are interested in voting at all they are usually moved by some policy they feel might benefit them. You know business interests or labour interests or social justice interests. Most people don't give a hoot.

You never did really think about it did you?

It is me against special interests voting themselves favours and against people, not unlike yourself, who think they live in a democracy of and for the people. Special interests enlarge the size and scope of government and endanger the economy by extracting more and more entitlements...er..."rights"...out of it.

I would say I am in the majority.

Oh, so you're a doctor now? You can go to the doctor and diagnose yourself now? Also, it's not unusual to get a second opinion in Canada. So no, there is indeed a third option.

No. I am not a doctor. I have had some success with resolving my own health problems. Kind of like Suzanne Sommers. And with Iatrogenic problems being the fourth leading cause of death I hesitate to even get on medical lines unless absolutely necessary.

It is increasingly unusual to get a second opinion in Canada. Mainly because the resources and the time is not there to do so. If you want to wait another six months to see a different specialist you can. Most people won't bother or if they can afford it will see a doctor privately in the States. Another option.

No it doesn't. It's not similar to modern Liberalism either, but that still doesn't mean that modern day conservatism is classical liberalism.

I know modern day conservatism is not classical liberalism. It is too statist. I cannot tolerate modern progressive liberalism and modern conservatism is the available alternative. Not being on the left I am by default on the right. You are a modern progressive liberal, definitely to the left of me so if you think you are a centrist that puts me pretty far right. I think of myself as a centrist on the current political spectrum.

Doctors need to have licenses, accountants should be certified, stock markets shouldn't be allowed to become casinos. Kids shouldn't be used in factories. Those are regulations, too.

Wait...doctors need licenses... why don't you say "government approved licenses". Accountants need to be "government" certified.

Why do governments need to do these things?

Stock markets need to divest themselves of risk. Kids need to be stopped from contributing to society and their families at all costs.

Yes..this is the way things are. Safe and Sound in the hands of our benevolent government. Those things are not about to change, even under Harper.

Hardened free market capitalists scoff at people's belief in something like communism. Yet, at the same time, they believe in a form of capitalism that is just as theoretical and just as un-implementable. The level of hypocrisy is scary, not capitalism.

Actually, you are in favour of the synthesis then? The third way.

Capitalism, in it's true sense does not need implementation. It is how people improve their lives in harmony and co-operation. The squelching of the economy by the State will result in an evolution of an underground economy where people will co-operate to improve their living standards without the knowledge or consent of the State.

You place capitalism at odds with government, and that is how government perceives capitalism. In actuality, capitalism is the activity of each person acting to improve their lives and living standards. Stealing, fraud, violence, and exploitation are not what capitalism is about. The curtailing of those kinds of things is perhaps what I consider legitimately the province of government and essential to a stable economy. That means government is not a banker, economist, behavioral specialist, engineer, planner, nanny, doctor, educator or granter of extended entitlements and rights, and things too numerous to mention.

Well, slavery was abolished. I would think that since it was the industrial age pollution would be bad. Child labour? You mean like in third world countries today? Appalling living conditions? My grandparents came to Canada and lived in earthen huts in minus thirty degree weather. Seems appalling by today's standards.

What's the point?

Point is that living standards are relative. you can't compare a third world country to a first world country and say the third world country's living standards are appalling and go in and think you are going to rectify the situation and demand they be brought up to your standards. It takes them producing and keeping their own wealth to improve their standards. Besides do-gooding is genrally frowned upon as interfering or imperialism.

You have to compare each country's living standards to itself in time. China's living standards are improving. We can't just compare them to our living standards. The USSR's living standards were poorer than Russia's are now. Comparing them to America's you might still find them appalling.

Throughout history standards of work haven't improved because companies have been willing to do these things on their own. The UK banned child labour and companies fought it tooth and nail. The south fought a war over slavery. These companies are out to make money, and really that's a great thing. However, there are examples throughout history of companies abusing their employees. The government has had to step in to protect workers. Low and behold, their living conditions improved because suddnely no kids were allowed to work and the government created a minimum wage.

Well, I suppose kids should just hang out at malls and text each other. Oh.. but kids in the third world dont' have malls and phones to text with. I think that's appalling.

I don't think it happened quite as you describe.

Abuse of employees is a concern. Generally these things are addressed by the employees themselves. If there are genuine grievances bipartisan third parties should be able to be arbiters in such situations. Government is really not necessary. The term abuse has changed and it is rather namby-pamby now. People used to work 12 hours a day six days a week. That was standard and not considered abuse until some companies started cutting hours due to economies of scale that created increased production with fewer hours. All of a sudden 12 hours a day/six days a week is abuse because someone else is only working 10 hours a day.

A minimum wage only serves to protect people with work and marginalizes those without jobs. Teen unemployment in Canada is quite high. Somewhere near the 20% mark I believe. It is easy to see that fewer jobs will exist at $8/hr than at $7/hr. Although the worker making $8 is making a dollar more an hour than before, the person looking for work now finds it harder to find work. Welfare is the best option in his case. He will probably do just as well as the person working for minimum wage in our socialist society.

Has anyone been successful in creating a central authority? No. Hence, isn't it anarchy?

Not quite. There is a system of government based upon families or clans. Probably not unsimilar to Ireland when England attempted to conquer it. It is difficult to establish a central authority because power is not concentrated enough. There are no reins to grab and run with. so what has been happening is several of the clans are supported by outside interests, making it there interest to create a central authority to try and gain some influence over other families.

It's very unstable at present.

The government can't steal from it's own citizens because it doesn't exist.

It exists in it's laws.

Doesn't that currently exist in our trade agreements? Seems like both sides want to trade with each other. If that wasn't the case the agreements wouldn't be signed.

Government trade agreements? They usually involve some sort of tariff unless they are a free trade agreement. But laissez faire without government input doesn't exist.

Furthermore, who is setting prices and why would you not agree to a minimum wage? Would you like to be making 5 cents a day?

The whole reason for government regulating the economy is about stabilizing wages and prices. They need to guarantee their revenues basically, and the way to do that is to keep the economy stable and growing at a sustainable rate. They do not like deflation or falling wages and prices. They like to keep the economy slightly inflationary. Unfortunately, crises come along and they often have to over-inflate requiring a later adjustment or the economy gets away on them and overheats in a boom with the resulting bust.

If I could buy three squares and a roof over my head 5 cents a day wouldn't be a problem. It might be better than making nothing a day.

No one here will work for 5 cents a day. No company would consider even offering it, not because of the minimum wage law but because the value of labour is higher here, at least in terms of "dollars".

The mandate of government in a democratic polity is set by the voters. Just because you don't agree with a majority of the voters in no way makes the government any less democratic.

Canada is not like the US. We don't even own land. We own a set of rights to the land but the Crown retains the rights of ownership. Recently, the Nisga'a became the first "Canadians" to own their own land outright in their settled treaty.

Government in Canada is actually the representative of the Crown not the people. As in, "The Crown vs...(whoever)".

The US is the only country in the world with recognized individual property rights. Their government represents the people. As in "The People vs. ....(whoever)".

Sounds like it will eventually be above the law to me.

Nope. Doesn't work that way.

Usually government will overstep it's bounds in times of crises and emergencies. Like in WWI when they brought in the temporary income tax which became permanent. It was above the law and is authoritarian to keep it. Other forms of taxation are better but income taxes are insidious.

If it doesn't work that way, how does it work? The people's vote?

Edited May 28, 2010 by Pliny

[bush_cheney2004]

...Canada is not like the US. We don't even own land. We own a set of rights to the land but the Crown retains the rights of ownership. Recently, the Nisga'a became the first "Canadians" to own their own land outright in their settled treaty.

Government in Canada is actually the representative of the Crown not the people. As in, "The Crown vs...(whoever)".

The US is the only country in the world with recognized individual property rights. Their government represents the people. As in "The People vs. ....(whoever)".

Yep...you one smart cookie!

[Pliny]

Good point. I'm equating the cutbacks in taxes with reduced budgets but that may not be the case. Have you a link that will help us ?

Not presently.

You missed my point about Ontario - they voted OUT Rae and voted IN fiscal responsibility. That fact seems to becrap your theory, doesn't it ? That's right - I said "becrap". New word.

I understood that was your point.

They voted in someone that would leave the economy alone and let people work.

The day the NDP lost in BC it seemed like the doors opened and business started - we were allowed to go to work. The change in atmosphere in the province was palpable.

Do you have a concise definition of "becrap"?

[Michael Hardner]

Not presently.

I understood that was your point.

They voted in someone that would leave the economy alone and let people work.

The day the NDP lost in BC it seemed like the doors opened and business started - we were allowed to go to work. The change in atmosphere in the province was palpable.

Do you have a concise definition of "becrap"?

'Becrap' means 'have crapped upon'.

And so, the special interests lost in the case of Ontario ?

[Pliny]

'Becrap' means 'have crapped upon'.

And so, the special interests lost in the case of Ontario ?

Well, I'll be be-crapped! Not quite!

Ok. I see what you are getting at.

Did the union vote turn against their leadership? Were they just as disgusted with Rae as the business sector?

What percentage of voters turned out in that election? The union vote was probably down a few notches. They couldn't defend Rae and his fiscal policies. So the hard core "special interests" that are traditionally for big government in that case did lose. People abandoned the hard line "special interests" and voted Rae out.

Special interests, Mr. Hardner, are comprised of small numbers. They gain support from the public depending upon the prevailing political and economic winds, variables in politics such as charismatic leadership, current tax levels, promises of pork to improve failing political programs will determine if the public aligns with the special interest or not.

The problem is that once the special interest has gained his entitlement...er ...right...it is almost impossible to curb political support or public funding. It is not just or fair and is a privilege to them only. Obviously, this encourages the public to create special interests or align with them for impact.

When you think that you only need about 25% of the eligible voting public to win public office, a special interest can have great impact on the outcome. Which is why they are catered to by government. Special interests seek public support and politicians watch the special interests. Rarely are those special interests a majority. Women's issues are very important and one of those exceptions as they can get the support of 60-80% of voters on a hot topic. Unfortunately, a vote for women's issues isn't necessarily a vote for the benefit of the nation. It may be just a vote for funding and not really about the national interest.

The number of lobbyists in Ottawa is an indication of how special interests gain political support. They have to convince the politician of how their activity will improve society. If it is not really a very public issue it is less important but it is still a special interest.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

I'm confused, Pliny.

Aren't you the one that argued that special interests vote in their own favour and increase government payouts to themselves ? So what happened in Ontario ?

[Pliny]

I'm confused, Pliny.

Aren't you the one that argued that special interests vote in their own favour and increase government payouts to themselves ? So what happened in Ontario ?

And so they do....obviously Bob didn't deliver.

What did he promise? Jobs and economic prosperity? People get suckered by that all the time. It aligns the big special interests of labour and business. Bob thought he had the plan and proceeded to give them what they wanted. Unfortunately, he followed the wrong economic advice and jobs and prosperity went in the toilet. People have to learn government does not and cannot create jobs or prosperity. They do, when they get big, influence the ability of the market to create jobs and prosperity, but they are jot the source of them.

Tell me what it is you think they vote for, Michael?

Edited May 29, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

And so they do....obviously Bob didn't deliver.

...

Tell me what it is you think they vote for, Michael?

They vote for what makes sense to them at the time. That to me is a more accurate assessment than the one that seems to prop up the libertarian argument that government scope always increases over time.

[dre]

Some are entirely dependent upon government. Some First nations are entirely dependent upon it. Welfare recipients are entriely dependent.

Dependence doesn't mean destitution either. Doctors, nurses, teachers are all dependent upon government collecting their paycheques for them. This is one of the reasons that a bad economy is looked upon as such a disaster by governments and they need to ensure the economy is always expanding.

A lot of people depend upon government.

Everyone in any nation depends on its government. The government does as much for private sector companies, and their owners and workers as they do for doctors, nurses, and teachers.

[Pliny]

They vote for what makes sense to them at the time. That to me is a more accurate assessment than the one that seems to prop up the libertarian argument that government scope always increases over time.

So 25-30% of the people decide the government. All who do vote have some interest in what they want government to do, it genrally means the creation of more bureaucracy another department and if important enough, a whole new Ministry. The approximate 50% that don't vote are not aligned with any special interest to make demands on government.

Look over the last 100 years Michael, Government has not shrunk it's mandate. It has taken over the production of money, instituted universal health care insurance, Created the Ministry of Women's affair's, brought in an income tax, developed provincial wealth transfer schemes, created CSIS, started a billion dollar gun registry, made Canada a compulsory bilingual country(except in Quebec), Funds countless community interest groups and the list goes on. It regulates the flow of water in our toilets. The ones you have to flush 3 times defeating the very purpose of saving water.

It has become a little authoritarian as well making up rules for itself and a different set of rules for the rest of the country. Look at the $635,000 expense account of one of our MP's. A specific example of their making their own rules is in their traveling employees who can claim an expense of $35 for dinners, lunch $13, Breakfast $15 with no receipt. A businessman must produce receipts and can only claim 50% of a receipt. Fair?

I know Libertarianism doesn't make sense to you but we are so used to government being in our lives we can't envision it not being. As a minarchist there are still issues I have concerns about but government makes itself appear more important than it is if you think about it. Society would do just fine if alot of the services of government were private or - didn't exist at all.

[Pliny]

Everyone in any nation depends on its government. The government does as much for private sector companies, and their owners and workers as they do for doctors, nurses, and teachers.

Well, that's the other extreme. Nicky doens't htink anyone is dependent on government and you think everyone is. Well, they rely on it for security and safety from anyone initiating force against them and I think that's a legitimate mandate of government.

Beyond that there isn't much that we should become dependent upon government for.

What does government do for small business? For doctors, nurses and teachers it collects and pays their wages so they don't have to and get a regular paycheck with employee benefits. It would be tough on today's doctors, nurses and teachers if they had to bill directly for their services.

[Michael Hardner]

So 25-30% of the people decide the government. All who do vote have some interest in what they want government to do, it genrally means the creation of more bureaucracy another department and if important enough, a whole new Ministry. The approximate 50% that don't vote are not aligned with any special interest to make demands on government.

Did you just say that all voters are aligned with some special interest ?

And you have blinders on with respect to my Mike Harris example. Again you're giving a case where voters (and you said 'all who do vote') generally want creation of bureaucracy.

Depending on your definition of 'generally', it isn't so. People also vote for tax cuts and that is proven.

Look over the last 100 years Michael, Government has not shrunk it's mandate. It has taken over the production of money, instituted universal health care insurance, Created the Ministry of Women's affair's, brought in an income tax, developed provincial wealth transfer schemes, created CSIS, started a billion dollar gun registry, made Canada a compulsory bilingual country(except in Quebec), Funds countless community interest groups and the list goes on. It regulates the flow of water in our toilets. The ones you have to flush 3 times defeating the very purpose of saving water.

You appear to be doing a comparison between today and 1910 ? Did government expand in that time period ? Yes, also universal suffrage arrived, we fought two world wars and a cold war, invented everything... anyway you get the point.

It has become a little authoritarian as well making up rules for itself and a different set of rules for the rest of the country. Look at the $635,000 expense account of one of our MP's. A specific example of their making their own rules is in their traveling employees who can claim an expense of $35 for dinners, lunch $13, Breakfast $15 with no receipt. A businessman must produce receipts and can only claim 50% of a receipt. Fair?

MP expenses are a drop in the bucket. It's stupid to nit-pick over such things. Why don't you focus on the real perks these people get - their ridiculous pensions ?

Yes, there is waste and excess. But we're discussing whether democracy is doomed to voting in expanding government forever. If you look at cutbacks that have happened, it's clear that government doesn't unilaterally grow and expand programs.

I know Libertarianism doesn't make sense to you but we are so used to government being in our lives we can't envision it not being. As a minarchist there are still issues I have concerns about but government makes itself appear more important than it is if you think about it. Society would do just fine if alot of the services of government were private or - didn't exist at all.

I can envision it. I just have to go back to 1910 in my mind. Except that today we have giant corporations using public resources for the enrichment (mostly) of a few, though it does enrich us all to a degree.

I do agree that private services work in a lot of example, so let's talk about that instead of arguing this overarching nonsense that government is a borg that will kill us all or whatever...

[Pliny]

Did you just say that all voters are aligned with some special interest ?

Almost all are. The rest don't vote.

And you have blinders on with respect to my Mike Harris example. Again you're giving a case where voters (and you said 'all who do vote') generally want creation of bureaucracy.

Well tell me what I am not seeing. Mike Harris, in my view, offerred to get the Rae government off their backs.

Depending on your definition of 'generally', it isn't so. People also vote for tax cuts and that is proven.

Of course, they vote for tax cuts. Government will take two steps forward and one step back. It isn't a linear growth from election to election.

Trudeau was an admitted socialist. He brought a lot of government to us. The only reason he was voted out is that he was trying to do too much at once, perhaps like Bob Rae. People have to make the adjustment and then they just complain. If they get skittish they will vote against the special interests and the growth of government.

You appear to be doing a comparison between today and 1910 ? Did government expand in that time period ? Yes, also universal suffrage arrived, we fought two world wars and a cold war, invented everything... anyway you get the point.

Yep. How did we ever arrive here without big government.

MP expenses are a drop in the bucket. It's stupid to nit-pick over such things. Why don't you focus on the real perks these people get - their ridiculous pensions ?

Not being vigilant and not nitpicking gives government an inch - you can be assured they will take a mile.

Yes, there is waste and excess. But we're discussing whether democracy is doomed to voting in expanding government forever. If you look at cutbacks that have happened, it's clear that government doesn't unilaterally grow and expand programs.

Democracy as it exists today is doomed to arrive at the socialist state. Even criminals have a vote. Who do you think they will vote for? The party that understands they are not really criminals but vicitims of society or circumstance and just need a little government help to put them on the straight and narrow. Who will also vote for that but those who will be contracted to deliver those services! These liberal attitudes towards criminals and settling them in communities to be "rehabilitated", when most often they re-offend, because they are more interested in their pay cheques than in rehabilitating. If they looked they would see they have no technology to rehabilitate and doing nothing would be just as successful.

I don't particularly mind the level of government we have right now

it isn't too oppressive but it is at the point where it needs to be very vigilantly watched and should in a lot of areas be limited.

WE are not going to trust each other if we rely on the government to tell us who to trust. They pretend to know but it is best we are able to observe for ourselves because at least that way we are observing - and government's nature, having the monopoly on the use of force or the delegation of the use of force, requires we be observant. Close your eyes and be blind - government will definitely be your friend.

I can envision it. I just have to go back to 1910 in my mind. Except that today we have giant corporations using public resources for the enrichment (mostly) of a few, though it does enrich us all to a degree.

I do agree that private services work in a lot of example, so let's talk about that instead of arguing this overarching nonsense that government is a borg that will kill us all or whatever...

One need only see that intervention by govenrment in society usually creates a scenario requiring further intervention.

The government of Greece blames the underground economy for it's being bankrupt and it explains such a huge underground economy by just blaming people for being greedy. Yes, they want all the benefits government offers plus a private economy. Who wouldn't? It isn't greed it is just human nature to want to improve your standard of living and if government is going to give you these entitlements they will take them. Are they going to refuse? Not likely.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

Almost all are. The rest don't vote.

Well tell me what I am not seeing. Mike Harris, in my view, offerred to get the Rae government off their backs.

Right. So, once again: the people DIDN'T vote for expansion of government. They voted AGAINST it. Therefore government doesn't unilaterally expand.

Of course, they vote for tax cuts. Government will take two steps forward and one step back. It isn't a linear growth from election to election.

Thank you.

Yep. How did we ever arrive here without big government.

We had no government at all for hundreds of thousands of years. And arguably, government (well, central control by a cabal of priests and wise men) enabled the creation of cities.

Democracy as it exists today is doomed to arrive at the socialist state. Even criminals have a vote. Who do you think they will vote for? The party that understands they are not really criminals but vicitims of society or circumstance and just need a little government help to put them on the straight and narrow. Who will also vote for that but those who will be contracted to deliver those services! These liberal attitudes towards criminals and settling them in communities to be "rehabilitated", when most often they re-offend, because they are more interested in their pay cheques than in rehabilitating. If they looked they would see they have no technology to rehabilitate and doing nothing would be just as successful.

Ok. I'm giving up. I gave you a solid example of people pushing back against government growth and voting against tax hikes. It isn't proof that government *shrinks* but that's not what I tried to show. I don't think you have proof that we're doomed to arrive at the socialist state. The Trudeau mindset is dead and gone and we're all moving on.

I have to conclude that you have blinders on with regards to your theory, and you're not looking at reality.

I don't particularly mind the level of government we have right now

it isn't too oppressive but it is at the point where it needs to be very vigilantly watched and should in a lot of areas be limited.

Yes and it's LESS than we had in the past but anyway.

WE are not going to trust each other if we rely on the government to tell us who to trust. They pretend to know but it is best we are able to observe for ourselves because at least that way we are observing - and government's nature, having the monopoly on the use of force or the delegation of the use of force, requires we be observant. Close your eyes and be blind - government will definitely be your friend.

There isn't any Ministry of Trust that I know of. So, I'm not sure what you refer to here.

One need only see that intervention by govenrment in society usually creates a scenario requiring further intervention.

The government of Greece blames the underground economy for it's being bankrupt and it explains such a huge underground economy by just blaming people for being greedy. Yes, they want all the benefits government offers plus a private economy. Who wouldn't? It isn't greed it is just human nature to want to improve your standard of living and if government is going to give you these entitlements they will take them. Are they going to refuse? Not likely.

Yes, yes and the Soviet Union and etc. etc. etc.

For every extreme example of the failures of socialism, we can also produce an example of the failure of a laissez-faire system.

I think we're covered off the basics of this discussion, that some government is necessary (and we disagree on how much) but that it should be watched. It feels like we're circling back now.

[nicky10013]

Well, that's the other extreme. Nicky doens't htink anyone is dependent on government and you think everyone is. Well, they rely on it for security and safety from anyone initiating force against them and I think that's a legitimate mandate of government.

Beyond that there isn't much that we should become dependent upon government for.

What does government do for small business? For doctors, nurses and teachers it collects and pays their wages so they don't have to and get a regular paycheck with employee benefits. It would be tough on today's doctors, nurses and teachers if they had to bill directly for their services.

I never said that. Some people are on welfare and that is a temporary dependency. However, to make it sound like doctors are loafers who depend on a handout to survive is ludicrous.

[nicky10013]

The unemployment rate never fell below 15% under Roosevelt during the depression and started to worsen in the late thirties despite the New Deal and the five year plans. It was better than 25% but no prosperity was evident.

So the war ended the depression. What year during the war did the depression end?

It continued with many unemployed just going off to war. It sounds like the war has your economic approval? After the war, people were buoyed by their defeat of the Axis powers, Roosevelt died and both big government fascist and socialist paradigms found disapproval in western democracy. The economy rebounded due to lack of will and caution about big government intervention.

New deal politics and economics didn't end until Reagan, so no, sorry, the war didn't end with caution about big government intervention. After the war ended, GIs came home with lots of money that they didn't have to send home because wives, mothers, sisters, daughters worked in factories. THey used the money, and other government programmes such as the GI bill to go back to school, create new business which brought the economy back to life. No matter how you look at it, it was done with government dollars.

Not on rubles. Forced labour is one way to increase industrial activity. What else was so positive about those five year plans?

It was a house of cards and the USSR only lasted a generation and a half in total.

You say, "they generally worked"?

That current buzzword "Sustainability" doesn't figure in at all?

The factories worked, it was the way that the economy was planned that was unsustainable.

The people who elect our government are Canadians. Around half of them vote. Our Prime Minister is usually supported by about 33% of that vote. so that's less than 25% of the total population. I would say if they are interested in voting at all they are usually moved by some policy they feel might benefit them. You know business interests or labour interests or social justice interests. Most people don't give a hoot.

You never did really think about it did you?

It is me against special interests voting themselves favours and against people, not unlike yourself, who think they live in a democracy of and for the people. Special interests enlarge the size and scope of government and endanger the economy by extracting more and more entitlements...er..."rights"...out of it.

I would say I am in the majority.

Of course I thought about it, but then again, that's the political reality of the situation. Only you could take that reality and then turn it about yourself being in the majority. That view makes the assumption that people don't vote because they're disillusioned with the same special interest you claim to fight. That's not the case at all. Generally, people don't vote because the situation doesn't really require them to vote. Countries with really big problems tend to have a much higher proportion of people who vote because their intervention in the political system is deemed necessary. The fact that Canada is generally devoid of major problems and combined with a lack of decent education regarding the political situation speaks far more to why people don't vote here than special interests. Really, you're in the extreme minority.

I know modern day conservatism is not classical liberalism. It is too statist. I cannot tolerate modern progressive liberalism and modern conservatism is the available alternative. Not being on the left I am by default on the right. You are a modern progressive liberal, definitely to the left of me so if you think you are a centrist that puts me pretty far right. I think of myself as a centrist on the current political spectrum.

Given the state of the Canadian political landscape you simply cannot be in the centre.

No. I am not a doctor. I have had some success with resolving my own health problems. Kind of like Suzanne Sommers. And with Iatrogenic problems being the fourth leading cause of death I hesitate to even get on medical lines unless absolutely necessary.

It is increasingly unusual to get a second opinion in Canada. Mainly because the resources and the time is not there to do so. If you want to wait another six months to see a different specialist you can. Most people won't bother or if they can afford it will see a doctor privately in the States. Another option.

Stats?

Wait...doctors need licenses... why don't you say "government approved licenses". Accountants need to be "government" certified.

Why do governments need to do these things?

Because as we're seeing with pollution right now, businesses can't be depended on to regulate themselves. If you let private companies hand out certificates, they'll need to do it for money. Which means that the process will be far more easily corrupted. Meaning it's a lot more likely that a person could become a doctor with no training at all.

Stock markets need to divest themselves of risk. Kids need to be stopped from contributing to society and their families at all costs.

Yes..this is the way things are. Safe and Sound in the hands of our benevolent government. Those things are not about to change, even under Harper.

There needs to be risk in stock markets. However, the financial instruments these people were selling and others were buying weren't backed by anything tangible. It was a casino and it shouldn't work that way. No sane person would argue otherwise. Furthermore, good to know that you view child labour as children contributing to society.

Actually, you are in favour of the synthesis then? The third way.

Capitalism, in it's true sense does not need implementation. It is how people improve their lives in harmony and co-operation. The squelching of the economy by the State will result in an evolution of an underground economy where people will co-operate to improve their living standards without the knowledge or consent of the State.

You place capitalism at odds with government, and that is how government perceives capitalism. In actuality, capitalism is the activity of each person acting to improve their lives and living standards. Stealing, fraud, violence, and exploitation are not what capitalism is about. The curtailing of those kinds of things is perhaps what I consider legitimately the province of government and essential to a stable economy. That means government is not a banker, economist, behavioral specialist, engineer, planner, nanny, doctor, educator or granter of extended entitlements and rights, and things too numerous to mention.

Again, your view of capitalism doesn't exist in reality.

Well, I suppose kids should just hang out at malls and text each other. Oh.. but kids in the third world dont' have malls and phones to text with. I think that's appalling.

I don't think it happened quite as you describe.

ummm...it did, but hey, reality has never stopped you from making an argument before. Why stop now?

Abuse of employees is a concern. Generally these things are addressed by the employees themselves. If there are genuine grievances bipartisan third parties should be able to be arbiters in such situations. Government is really not necessary. The term abuse has changed and it is rather namby-pamby now. People used to work 12 hours a day six days a week. That was standard and not considered abuse until some companies started cutting hours due to economies of scale that created increased production with fewer hours. All of a sudden 12 hours a day/six days a week is abuse because someone else is only working 10 hours a day.

A minimum wage only serves to protect people with work and marginalizes those without jobs. Teen unemployment in Canada is quite high. Somewhere near the 20% mark I believe. It is easy to see that fewer jobs will exist at $8/hr than at $7/hr. Although the worker making $8 is making a dollar more an hour than before, the person looking for work now finds it harder to find work. Welfare is the best option in his case. He will probably do just as well as the person working for minimum wage in our socialist society.

Ok, so 12 hour work days are really ok, as well as the elimination of minimum wage so you can create more jobs. However, if you're working 12 hour days at a dollar an hour, sure you could employ more people, but is it advantageous/fair to the worker? Would that be a living wage? There's a big difference between the amount of jobs you can create as opposed to those jobs value to society. An underemployed person is just as bad as an unemployed person. Their options are either to take governmental supplements to bring him to the poverty line or let him live under the poverty line. Then there's the other side of the issue which is crime. People at or under the poverty line are, for reasons plainly obvious, far more likely to be involved in crime. The cost to society both in dollar terms and in other non-measurable forms could be far greater than the costs associated with a minimum wage.

Not quite. There is a system of government based upon families or clans. Probably not unsimilar to Ireland when England attempted to conquer it. It is difficult to establish a central authority because power is not concentrated enough. There are no reins to grab and run with. so what has been happening is several of the clans are supported by outside interests, making it there interest to create a central authority to try and gain some influence over other families.

It's very unstable at present.

I get that there are factions vying for power. I get that the situation is unstable. However, the lack of a central governing authority makes it anarchy. The fighting is merely a result of that anarchy. Like you said, there is a power vacuum and differen't people try to fill it. The hustled and often disorganized route to that outcome is why anarchy has become a commonplace term to define things that are out of control within our own society.

It exists in it's laws.

Which don't exist.

Government trade agreements? They usually involve some sort of tariff unless they are a free trade agreement. But laissez faire without government input doesn't exist.

The whole reason for government regulating the economy is about stabilizing wages and prices. They need to guarantee their revenues basically, and the way to do that is to keep the economy stable and growing at a sustainable rate. They do not like deflation or falling wages and prices. They like to keep the economy slightly inflationary. Unfortunately, crises come along and they often have to over-inflate requiring a later adjustment or the economy gets away on them and overheats in a boom with the resulting bust.

If I could buy three squares and a roof over my head 5 cents a day wouldn't be a problem. It might be better than making nothing a day.

No one here will work for 5 cents a day. No company would consider even offering it, not because of the minimum wage law but because the value of labour is higher here, at least in terms of "dollars".

If you could, but you can't, so what's the point of the example?

Canada is not like the US. We don't even own land. We own a set of rights to the land but the Crown retains the rights of ownership. Recently, the Nisga'a became the first "Canadians" to own their own land outright in their settled treaty.

Government in Canada is actually the representative of the Crown not the people. As in, "The Crown vs...(whoever)".

The US is the only country in the world with recognized individual property rights. Their government represents the people. As in "The People vs. ....(whoever)".

The use of the term crown is merely symbolic, a relic of our traditions and history. There really isn't any conspiracy going on there. Furthermore, we do have property rights. It's implicit in the charter of rights and freedoms. We're protected against unreasonable search and seizure. Without the basis of property rights, that clause wouldn't need to exist. As for the US and property rights, the US government has made seizures along the same lines as any other democratic nation, so looking up to them just for the fact that in court cases they use "the people vs." might be a tad short sighted.

Usually government will overstep it's bounds in times of crises and emergencies. Like in WWI when they brought in the temporary income tax which became permanent. It was above the law and is authoritarian to keep it. Other forms of taxation are better but income taxes are insidious.

There are a litany of examples and you chose the income tax? Yikes. Even the founding fathers of the US admitted that taxes were necessary, they were upset about the lack of representation to debate those taxes. Canada, the US and other countries with income taxes had ample opportunity to raise parties, have them elected and repeal those taxes.

A far more authoritarian gesture would've been the internment of the Japanese and Germans during WWII.

If it doesn't work that way, how does it work? The people's vote?

Government's are held in check by an indepedent judiciary which can strike down laws if they're deemed undemocratic, the guidelines for which are laid down in our common law and charter of rights and freedoms. Why? Because they can exceed the rule of law. In democracies, there tends to be a cycle, generally between the need for security and the preservation of rights. 9/11 and the patriot act in the US and the anti-terrorism laws here are a good example. The need for security was seen as lower, therefore, the electorate allowed for a brief downtown in civil liberites. The tide has turned and the electorate are now demanding more accountability in terms of basic civil liberties and human rights, to which now we're seeing the process of the shutting down of guantanamo bay. The ultimate decider is deciding to kick whoever out of office. Despite what any leader has done, they've always ceded control of their office when they've lost an election. So to comment that we're no longer a democracy when there is that basic fact is laughable.

[Pliny]

Right. So, once again: the people DIDN'T vote for expansion of government. They voted AGAINST it. Therefore government doesn't unilaterally expand.

Ok. I'm giving up. I gave you a solid example of people pushing back against government growth and voting against tax hikes. It isn't proof that government *shrinks* but that's not what I tried to show. I don't think you have proof that we're doomed to arrive at the socialist state. The Trudeau mindset is dead and gone and we're all moving on.

I have to conclude that you have blinders on with regards to your theory, and you're not looking at reality.

The people that vote aren't the same 50-60% every time, Michael. Different issues will get different people voting.

If people's lives are humming along a great portion of them won't bother to vote.

We had no government at all for hundreds of thousands of years. And arguably, government (well, central control by a cabal of priests and wise men) enabled the creation of cities.

Enabled. Sorry if the wealth isn't there to build the cities they don't materialize. The people have to work and produce. That is what "enables" the creation of cities.

Yes and it's LESS than we had in the past but anyway.

I would love to agree with you onthis point but I donT see it. I see that power is concentrated over time. Both Obama and Bush concentrated more power to the Office of the Presidency. Canada.. . well, the Office of Prime Minister is just waiting to be taken over by some Dictator like Chavez. Luckily there are centrists like Nicky and yourself who will be outraged by any such take over. But it is most likely the takeover will come in the form of abrogating national sovereignty to international interests.

There isn't any Ministry of Trust that I know of. So, I'm not sure what you refer to here.

Just a comment on how we all become accustomed to rely on government to look after us and that dependency dulls our own ability to be observant in our lives.

For every extreme example of the failures of socialism, we can also produce an example of the failure of a laissez-faire system.

How many laissez faire systems have there been? Usually things are going fine and then someone decides they want to be rulemaker or they devise some clever scheme to get something for nothing.

Reminds me of the clever politiician, I forget his name, but anyway, his neighbour borrowed a horse from him and the horse died. The rancher/politician said well I guess I'll have to have a raffle. His neighbour said you can't raffle off a dead horse!

But the politician said he would. He went inot won and sold about $600 in raffle tickets. Then he had the draw.

The winner came to the ranch to pick up the horse and the politician had to tell him that the horse had died but he was worth about $200 and he was willing to give him the cash instead. The man was happy with that and left with his $200.

I think we're covered off the basics of this discussion, that some government is necessary (and we disagree on how much) but that it should be watched. It feels like we're circling back now.

We've been circling for some time.

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry if the wealth isn't there to build the cities they don't materialize. The people have to work and produce. That is what "enables" the creation of cities.

Yes, except that that wasn't enough. The leaders of Sumeria reorganized their society, added overhead and created an economy. The commodities didn't increase, just the organization. And the taxes.

And people were wealthier for it.

Just a comment on how we all become accustomed to rely on government to look after us and that dependency dulls our own ability to be observant in our lives.

That's more a function of specialization. Yes, we rely on government but also agribusiness, petro business, and Mary's Fashion Nails in the strip mall.