Political Correctness

[Pliny]

Yes.

Thank you.

Again, you are looking at corrections of discrimination as discrimination.

Corrections would be fine. Ignoring the aspect of "reverse discrimination", is my issue here.

What are the reasons that there are few male elementary school teachers ? Is this a situation that should continue ? What can be done about it ?

Putting up a poster encouraging men to apply amounts to "discrimination" - if you follow the definition to its logical end. So why should government try to do anything like that ? In your view, they shouldn't.

Correct. They should do nothing.

Why is it a concern if there are more women or more men teaching in elementary schools? Unless laws restricted one over the other or had created barriers to one gender or preferences were expressed in law for one gender over the other. Then I would say those laws should be repealed.

That's what I mean by doing nothing, but government legislation stopped those practices from happening, including private forms of discrimination such as disallowing certain races from entering private establishments.

Government legislation kept those practices in place by giving legitimacy and the full force of the law to discriminate. The result was civil unrest. They needed only to remove those laws and make no more laws.

I will agree that discrimination would have continued for a longer period but the evolutionary process of discrimination becoming socially unacceptable had already started along with social injustices

aimed at women that made them, in the eyes of government, second class citizens. The evolutionary process would have been smoother.

Would desegregation have happened on the same timeline if the federal government didn't get involved ? Of course not.

I agree. The timeline would have been different. Right now I don't see any loving relationship between Blacks and Whites in America with politically correct policies in place. I see the line being drawn deeper between the races despite peoples (society's) efforts to the contrary. It seems some Blacks and some of their organizations don't want anything to do with the white race and that is a result of reverse discrimination policies. The full force of the law is now behind the legitimization of Blacks discriminating against Whites. Government justifies and pretends to be understanding of the fact that Blacks were treated so badly in the past and it was all the ignorance of some people, especially those in the deep south.

Government totally takes no responsibility for their part in creating discrimination. The laws were made by the people, after all. Actually they were made and kept in place by ignorant politicians.

Essentially, without government intervention in engineering the situation, there would be less of a divide now than what I see. I think there would be more of a co-operative effort to get along and create a common society not a separate Black culture, segregating themselves in essence, divisive and openly disdainful of white society - no matter it is not the society of yesterday.

[Pliny]

Maybe it's just me but tilting the field, concentrating the wealth, and working towards social injustice sounds politically retarded.

Precisely.

Such as policies of Affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment, employment equity quotas all contributing to tilting the field and working towards social injustice. Corporate subsidies and bailouts for concentrating the wealth, increasing income taxes and marginalizing more and more people thus further separating rich from poor and eliminating the middle class, among a myriad of other things.

[Michael Hardner]

Why is it a concern if there are more women or more men teaching in elementary schools? Unless laws restricted one over the other or had created barriers to one gender or preferences were expressed in law for one gender over the other. Then I would say those laws should be repealed.

Because there are things other than laws that cause imbalances, or create unfair situations.

But, that's not true if you're a Libertarian, so maybe we should just leave this.

Government legislation kept those practices in place by giving legitimacy and the full force of the law to discriminate. The result was civil unrest. They needed only to remove those laws and make no more laws.

I will agree that discrimination would have continued for a longer period but the evolutionary process of discrimination becoming socially unacceptable had already started along with social injustices

aimed at women that made them, in the eyes of government, second class citizens. The evolutionary process would have been smoother.

The evolutionary process would have been smoother and taken how much longer ?

I agree. The timeline would have been different. Right now I don't see any loving relationship between Blacks and Whites in America with politically correct policies in place. I see the line being drawn deeper between the races despite peoples (society's) efforts to the contrary. It seems some Blacks and some of their organizations don't want anything to do with the white race and that is a result of reverse discrimination policies. The full force of the law is now behind the legitimization of Blacks discriminating against Whites. Government justifies and pretends to be understanding of the fact that Blacks were treated so badly in the past and it was all the ignorance of some people, especially those in the deep south.

Government totally takes no responsibility for their part in creating discrimination. The laws were made by the people, after all. Actually they were made and kept in place by ignorant politicians.

Essentially, without government intervention in engineering the situation, there would be less of a divide now than what I see. I think there would be more of a co-operative effort to get along and create a common society not a separate Black culture, segregating themselves in essence, divisive and openly disdainful of white society - no matter it is not the society of yesterday.

Your values have been expressed - you essentially would be find with the repression continuing a little longer, and see this disdain you mention as a greater evil.

[eyeball]

Precisely.

Such as policies of Affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment, employment equity quotas all contributing to tilting the field and working towards social injustice. Corporate subsidies and bailouts for concentrating the wealth, increasing income taxes and marginalizing more and more people thus further separating rich from poor and eliminating the middle class, among a myriad of other things.

Concentrating wealth is a symptom of the worst things tilting the field, the concentration of power and the incestuous relationship between wealth and power.

As Michael said there are things other than laws that cause imbalances, or create unfair situations. Corruption is a toxin that can poison a society to its's very core.

[Pliny]

Because there are things other than laws that cause imbalances, or create unfair situations.

But, that's not true if you're a Libertarian, so maybe we should just leave this.

Nature tends towards equalibrium, Michael. Laws are not entirely about correction but maintaining a social order. Slavery existed and laws were made to maintain that social order. I did not mean to convey the idea that laws were the sole cause of imbalances or the sole reason unfair situations were created. More often they maintain imbalances and unfair situations much longer than they would have continued had they been left to naturally rebalance.

We can't put the cart before the horse. Before slavery can be abolished by law it must be already considered an injustice. What has to be overcome then is people's concepts of slavery or their idea of privilege over others. That's the easy part because people do have a sense of right and wrong and injustice. The hard part is getting rid of laws that justify the privilege or benefit granted to some over others. The laws are used as an excuse to maintain the privilege and changing the law can only be achieved by civil unrest. Laws are usually considered right or they wouldn't be made into laws and are thus difficult or impossible to repeal.

I think you believe that no one would have had the idea that slavery were an abomination and was patently wrong and that a law would have to be made first before anyone would consider there might be something wrong.

Your position is that people have to be forced to ensure they will be fair and just in their dealings with each other. They just won't do it naturally.

While admittedly, we all want the best for ourselves and our families most of us will not harm others for our own benefit. It is important we are made aware of any benefit we receive that might be detrimental to another. Did slave owners see the harm done to slaves or were they more aware of the benefits of slavery? I would say, they were more aware of the benefits and even justifying slavery by saying that slaves would just die if they were left to their own devices so it is of benefit to them as well since they are housed and fed.

As I mull this over I believe that you are more aware of the benefit of wealth redistribution and "rebalancing" social injustices than any harm it may cause or unintended consequences. I myself perceive the benefits for the most part as unappreciated and unearned and the remuneration for the administration of those benefits socially parasitic, and by parasitic; a hackneyed term that has lost any punch, I mean drawing life from others.

The poeple involved are of course only aware of the benefit and view it from that perspective. They are doing society a vast favour in helping the less advantaged who would die without them. Not once is there the thought that some of the people they are helping is because of what they have extracted from society and that the wealth transferred to them could be applied to their welfare plus what is given.

One must consider people totally uncharitable to foist this system upon society.

Another point I might make is that it is not the people who are evil or bad or ill-intentioned. It is the system. The position of "social worker" has become parasitic and a justification for further redistribution of wealth. It isn't the poeple that are social workers that are bad. Most will tell you the amount of work they do and I would say they have a herculean task before them. They will also tell you of the frustrations of the job rarely seeing the true value of their work. Teachers too work hard but the fruits of their labour are not realized - and I believe that is the source of their frustration - not accomplishing value for their output. It isn't, as the teachers associations would tell you, that class sizes are too big, or professional development days are necessary, or the hours are too long and the work too demanding. It is demanding, it is hard but to be happy in one's job he must see value in what he has produced and he isn't seeing it. Nor is the frustrated social worker.

Only someone who would be happy with the institution of slavery would be the one who promoted it.

Only the ones that are happy with seeing people poor would promote the current welfare system. And only those whose interests in seeing people remain slaves would promote the current public education system. This is not an indictment of the people working within the system. It is an indictment of the system itself and the suffering of unhappy people being made to think they are unhappy because they are unappreciated and overworked when, in fact, it is the lack of value they see at the end of the production line.

If social workers restored their clientele to being contributing members of society as should be their goal they would not be as frustrated in their work. They are instead told they are working too hard and there are not enough resources.

If the teacher could see the results of education in their students more often they would be more content. Incredibly enough, they too suffer from the same problems, they work too hard and there are not enough resources.

The evolutionary process would have been smoother and taken how much longer?

As I mentioned above, it is easieer to convince a person of what is right than to change a law.

Your values have been expressed - you essentially would be find with the repression continuing a little longer, and see this disdain you mention as a greater evil.

Sometimes force is necessary to bring about change. Evolution is not a smooth, painless, flowing phenomenon. Sometimes we are wrong. Slavery was not considered wrong at one time. It took social pressures to bring about the change but it took civil unrest and bloodshed to repeal the laws.

Quite frankly, I think you are arguing people should be looked after in exchange for other people's labour. While tragedy and unfortunate circumstance are the lot of some of us we should be a productive enough society that we can charitably afford to help those in need. We are becoming less able to afford it and it isn't because our production has fallen. It is because we have created a society that has lost a sense of value or worth and being a victim is the best way to survive.

[Michael Hardner]

Nature tends towards equalibrium, Michael. Laws are not entirely about correction but maintaining a social order. Slavery existed and laws were made to maintain that social order. I did not mean to convey the idea that laws were the sole cause of imbalances or the sole reason unfair situations were created. More often they maintain imbalances and unfair situations much longer than they would have continued had they been left to naturally rebalance.

Equilibrium means a stable state, and that includes dictatorship, or generally - heirarchy. Human equality, as defined in our laws, is not equilibrium because it requires (or required) force to back it up from time to time. If you remove the constant threat of force, then equilibrium will result but it is a different kind of social order.

Social order will happen whether or not you have laws, it's just the kind of social order that results is what we're talking about.

We can't put the cart before the horse. Before slavery can be abolished by law it must be already considered an injustice. What has to be overcome then is people's concepts of slavery or their idea of privilege over others. That's the easy part because people do have a sense of right and wrong and injustice. The hard part is getting rid of laws that justify the privilege or benefit granted to some over others. The laws are used as an excuse to maintain the privilege and changing the law can only be achieved by civil unrest. Laws are usually considered right or they wouldn't be made into laws and are thus difficult or impossible to repeal.

I think you believe that no one would have had the idea that slavery were an abomination and was patently wrong and that a law would have to be made first before anyone would consider there might be something wrong.

Quite the contrary - abolitionists existed for quite a time before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Slavery was abolished in some quarters before the civil war. The issue is whether government action helped to advance social change. It did, because governments have power and that power can be used to make change happen.

Your position is that people have to be forced to ensure they will be fair and just in their dealings with each other. They just won't do it naturally.

While admittedly, we all want the best for ourselves and our families most of us will not harm others for our own benefit. It is important we are made aware of any benefit we receive that might be detrimental to another. Did slave owners see the harm done to slaves or were they more aware of the benefits of slavery? I would say, they were more aware of the benefits and even justifying slavery by saying that slaves would just die if they were left to their own devices so it is of benefit to them as well since they are housed and fed.

As I mull this over I believe that you are more aware of the benefit of wealth redistribution and "rebalancing" social injustices than any harm it may cause or unintended consequences. I myself perceive the benefits for the most part as unappreciated and unearned and the remuneration for the administration of those benefits socially parasitic, and by parasitic; a hackneyed term that has lost any punch, I mean drawing life from others.

I'm trying to understand what that harm is. It seems to be mostly a philosophical harm so far.

The poeple involved are of course only aware of the benefit and view it from that perspective. They are doing society a vast favour in helping the less advantaged who would die without them. Not once is there the thought that some of the people they are helping is because of what they have extracted from society and that the wealth transferred to them could be applied to their welfare plus what is given.

One must consider people totally uncharitable to foist this system upon society.

The comparison to slavery isn't apt. Welfare isn't slavery. Dependence on welfare is a problem, but people are free to leave at any time. And dependence, if it is a problem, shouldn't be solved by dismantling the system that helps many people.

Another point I might make is that it is not the people who are evil or bad or ill-intentioned. It is the system. The position of "social worker" has become parasitic and a justification for further redistribution of wealth. It isn't the poeple that are social workers that are bad. Most will tell you the amount of work they do and I would say they have a herculean task before them. They will also tell you of the frustrations of the job rarely seeing the true value of their work. Teachers too work hard but the fruits of their labour are not realized - and I believe that is the source of their frustration - not accomplishing value for their output. It isn't, as the teachers associations would tell you, that class sizes are too big, or professional development days are necessary, or the hours are too long and the work too demanding. It is demanding, it is hard but to be happy in one's job he must see value in what he has produced and he isn't seeing it. Nor is the frustrated social worker.

Only someone who would be happy with the institution of slavery would be the one who promoted it.

Only the ones that are happy with seeing people poor would promote the current welfare system. And only those whose interests in seeing people remain slaves would promote the current public education system. This is not an indictment of the people working within the system. It is an indictment of the system itself and the suffering of unhappy people being made to think they are unhappy because they are unappreciated and overworked when, in fact, it is the lack of value they see at the end of the production line.

Only people who are happy seeing people poor promote the current system ? If you believe that, then you're really not objective on this topic. You are being incredibly myopic and self-righteous if you think I'm happy seeing people poor, or that anybody is.

I'm sure you would agree that it would be easy for people who oppose you to say "He wants to cut welfare, therefore he hates the poor !". Do you think that's fair ? I don't. I debate with you in good faith, believing that you want what you say you want - a system that is better for everyone.

If social workers restored their clientele to being contributing members of society as should be their goal they would not be as frustrated in their work. They are instead told they are working too hard and there are not enough resources.

If the teacher could see the results of education in their students more often they would be more content. Incredibly enough, they too suffer from the same problems, they work too hard and there are not enough resources.

As I mentioned above, it is easieer to convince a person of what is right than to change a law.

And your opinions appear to be based on preconceived ideas of welfare recipients, social workers and so on. I don't base my views on individual people, and what I think of teachers, civil servants, or what have you. I look at the system as a whole. What percentage of welfare recipients are able-bodied ? If you really are objective about the topic, then you should almost be able to answer this without looking it up, since you are stating that social workers need to work towards taking their clientele off welfare. There must be a lot of them, then ?

Sometimes force is necessary to bring about change. Evolution is not a smooth, painless, flowing phenomenon. Sometimes we are wrong. Slavery was not considered wrong at one time. It took social pressures to bring about the change but it took civil unrest and bloodshed to repeal the laws.

Quite frankly, I think you are arguing people should be looked after in exchange for other people's labour. While tragedy and unfortunate circumstance are the lot of some of us we should be a productive enough society that we can charitably afford to help those in need. We are becoming less able to afford it and it isn't because our production has fallen. It is because we have created a society that has lost a sense of value or worth and being a victim is the best way to survive.

Yes, people should be looked after in some situations, such as when they have worked their entire lives in poverty and the society which has employed them benefited from their labour. I think that people naturally accept an equilibrium that isn't fair to them, or good for society as a whole and there are many examples of this.

I know that you would resent a busybody who intervenes to tell poor people that they're getting a raw deal, but sometimes that's a good idea.

The idea that we can afford less is poppycock. We are richer than ever, and we consume and spend more than ever. We don't want to pay taxes, and that's fair - but sometimes it's prudent to pay at least a little bit for social peace and security.

[Pliny]

Equilibrium means a stable state, and that includes dictatorship, or generally - heirarchy. Human equality, as defined in our laws, is not equilibrium because it requires (or required) force to back it up from time to time. If you remove the constant threat of force, then equilibrium will result but it is a different kind of social order.

Social order will happen whether or not you have laws, it's just the kind of social order that results is what we're talking about.

I agree we are talking about the kind of social order.

Human equality is not possible. Every individual is different. I believe you are talking about social equality.

Now I said that nature tends towards an equilibrium. Energy is discharged and there is no energy left. That kind of equilibrium. A dictatorship takes a certain amount of energy to keep it in place it is not in a state of equilibrium. A hierarchy is not in a state of equilibrium it takes forces to keep it in place. An equilibrium would have no opposing forces or energies they are discharged and without any forces and stable. Holding anything in place by force is not an equilibrium. An equilibrium is a stable, balanced, unchanging system. A force involved to keep things stable is not an equilibrium.

Thank you for correcting my spelling of the word.

Quite the contrary - abolitionists existed for quite a time before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Slavery was abolished in some quarters before the civil war. The issue is whether government action helped to advance social change. It did, because governments have power and that power can be used to make change happen.

Yes, slavery was abolished in 1833 in England by law. The status didn't change much. Slaves were now charged for their keep and that was about it. They did have the freedom to leave and some did so I suppose for them it may be considered social advance but now they were on their own uneducated and poor. Is that social advance? It would have been better to not make any laws, repeal the old ones and make it socially unacceptable for slavery to exist. I hear it is still a problem in some sectors of the world because some have not got the message it is socially unacceptable. They believe it is ok - the laws don't seem to be making a difference.

So social advance is questionable when laws are used for that purpose. The unintended consequences are never envisioned only the "benefit" is perceived because it is the right thing to do. It usually is the right thing and that is why it receives support in law but we should be a little more careful in what laws we make.

I'm trying to understand what that harm is. It seems to be mostly a philosophical harm so far.

Look at the riots in Greece. Look at the divisiveness of the people in any social democracy that has matured. If it is not the rich and the poor, it is the left and the right or the corporations and the unions, or racism or men against women, or cultural warfare. Is all well? Do we need more laws and regulation when we cannot digest or comprehend the laws we already have. Someone once said that too many laws is the equivalent of no laws.

The comparison to slavery isn't apt. Welfare isn't slavery. Dependence on welfare is a problem, but people are free to leave at any time. And dependence, if it is a problem, shouldn't be solved by dismantling the system that helps many people.

The beneficiaries of welfare are not the slaves. The taxpayers are.

Only people who are happy seeing people poor promote the current system ? If you believe that, then you're really not objective on this topic. You are being incredibly myopic and self-righteous if you think I'm happy seeing people poor, or that anybody is.

As I said, for the most part, it isn't the people, it is the system.

People working in the system aren't happy. They are overworked and get little reward or value for their input. Ask teachers and they will tell you the system isn't working for them. they need more resources and more benefits to make it worth their while or to feel they are getting value for their work. What they really need is better quantity and quality in their results. The system doens't allow it.

I'm sure you would agree that it would be easy for people who oppose you to say "He wants to cut welfare, therefore he hates the poor !". Do you think that's fair ? I don't. I debate with you in good faith, believing that you want what you say you want - a system that is better for everyone.

Yes. I get that criticism. But I don't get it from people not employed by government or who don't get their paycheques from government or are not receiving benefits from government.

It comes from teachers, the public sector, health care workers, Public sector unions, all dependent upon government themselves. The poor are nothing but pawns in the game utilized to demand "resources" from the bureaucrats making decisions about spending.

And your opinions appear to be based on preconceived ideas of welfare recipients, social workers and so on. I don't base my views on individual people, and what I think of teachers, civil servants, or what have you. I look at the system as a whole. What percentage of welfare recipients are able-bodied ? If you really are objective about the topic, then you should almost be able to answer this without looking it up, since you are stating that social workers need to work towards taking their clientele off welfare. There must be a lot of them, then ?

And you are telling me the system as a whole is serving those people that feel overworked, lacking resources, and see their jobs as exercises in futility?

What percentage of welfare recipients are able bodied? Able-bodied isn't the entire factor in living. Steven Hawkings is not able-bodied. Many people have to find something they can do to contribute to other people's welfare which is what we are all doing or should be doing in a co-operative volluntary effort. Government feels it can do a better job and relieve us of our responsibility to our neighbours. We are so busy now having to work and provide a decent standard of living for our families while giving half our earnings to government we have no time for our neighbours. I think there are many shortcomings of the system. People are generally not happy with their lives.

There are alot of people on welfare. They come and go some stay on, particularly single Moms? Who do you balme for their situation. I know of one mother with four kids. Are you going to beat on the fathers doors who would just as soon not work as pay child support. Is it the education system? Poor parenting? Or is there something altogether wrong with the system?

Yes, people should be looked after in some situations, such as when they have worked their entire lives in poverty and the society which has employed them benefited from their labour. I think that people naturally accept an equilibrium that isn't fair to them, or good for society as a whole and there are many examples of this.

Perhaps we should bring back the family. You see we as individuals do not feel responsible for people who worked in poverty not because people never did. The system is supposed to look after them. If it isn't.. well.. hey...what am I paying my taxes for? Look there's roads there's parks, there's barn owls and field mice that get more consideration than people who have worked all their lives in poverty giving half their income away to the government because they said they would look after them.

Sheesh!

I know that you would resent a busybody who intervenes to tell poor people that they're getting a raw deal, but sometimes that's a good idea.

Most raw deals are from busybodies. Sending in another busybody won't be much of an improvement. Somehow you have to get them beyond the next handout.

The idea that we can afford less is poppycock. We are richer than ever, and we consume and spend more than ever. We don't want to pay taxes, and that's fair - but sometimes it's prudent to pay at least a little bit for social peace and security.

WE are richer than ever and that's why the government takes more and more. It means we have to work that much harder to maintain a standard of living. I am one of those poor people that worked all my life in poverty. I should just have laid back and been a victim. I would have been better off - at leas that's what you would have seen. I would have felt worthless. And do you think I would thank anyone for my welfare. Not a chance - I would have been whining I never got enough.

Life is still rough but I won't be made a victim. I'll fight for anyone's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness - the three things that one only finds in himself and cannot be given him.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

I will respond to this later. Long post...

The second half of my post, I would like you to read my points and respond again. I pointed out that you were basing your responses on personal opinions that didn't have a basis, and moreover were making gross generalizations about those who disagreed with you.

It's rather long, but I didn't see either a retraction, nor any links provided for evidence. Would you care to try again ?

Edited September 22, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Oleg Bach]

That's quite a pretzel, Pliny.

Correcting inequalities means fostering inequality. This concept proves that rightist academics have the same delusions and addition to blather that leftist ones do.

If I punch you in the face, then offer you a band-aid, am I doing you a favour by offering the band aid ?

It is like the liberal "harm reduction" drug strategy...instead of ridding the streets of dope they assist in the taking of dope...and assume that they are doing a little bit of good..which is better than none..YET the out come is eventual death...the liberal way is slow and incrimental..and when death occures it is less noticable and no one takes responsiblity because the persons who implimented the policy are long gone and forgotten and only their corporate drones who are mindeless are in charge and they NEVER question institutional thinking and actions.

As for political correctness..I heard that the UN...actually has a plan and a long term agenda in the forming of a new global society..where there is no RIGHT or WRONG...that all is good...polical correctness is forced tolerance of evil..and the wages of sinisterism is eventural death...It all gets back to the point of leadership..that MOST leaders are afraid of losing their position if they do what is right and good...so off we all go tolerating poison....For instance my younger brother was a victim of polical correctness that altered his life for ever.

He had two small children in his house and a teenage step son..The step son brought in some unsavory characters..young Goth types dressed in black who imagined that evil and the corruption of young children were a cool thing...So he insisted they leave...He raised his voice...and the teenager called police..then the kid filed a false report...well within a year..my brother lost his house...reputation...and had to re-establish his family at a lower social level.

The worse part was one particular judge who said this of the mother and nasty teenage son..."If they are lying (in court under oath) - they must have a GOOD reason"....This was the height of polical correctness where a court of law was up holding evil based on a policy that is evil....Strange that a man protecting his sons from evil..was persecuted and almost destroyed....also as we plowed through the family law system - the crimminal system and the litigative system...A sentence uttered by a crimminal crown attorney in private rings in my memory.............. "I am sent down a policy that insists that I convict even if the person charged is innocent"

Right out of the mouth of a rat..enforcing policy THAT IS POLITICALLY CORRECT BUT MORALLY BANKRUPT!

[Michael Hardner]

Something happened on this thread - I put together a long reply around 1230 pm to the first 1/2 of this post but it seems to be gone now ?

[Michael Hardner]

I agree we are talking about the kind of social order. Human equality is not possible. Every individual is different. I believe you are talking about social equality.

Now I said that nature tends towards an equilibrium. Energy is discharged and there is no energy left. That kind of equilibrium. A dictatorship takes a certain amount of energy to keep it in place it is not in a state of equilibrium. A hierarchy is not in a state of equilibrium it takes forces to keep it in place. An equilibrium would have no opposing forces or energies they are discharged and without any forces and stable. Holding anything in place by force is not an equilibrium. An equilibrium is a stable, balanced, unchanging system. A force involved to keep things stable is not an equilibrium.

There are hierarchies in the jungle - the king of the beasts, and so on down the food change. Humans have an equal capacity for compassion and cruelty in my opinion, but there is no reason to think that hierarchy doesn't happen naturally.

Yes, slavery was abolished in 1833 in England by law. The status didn't change much. Slaves were now charged for their keep and that was about it. They did have the freedom to leave and some did so I suppose for them it may be considered social advance but now they were on their own uneducated and poor. Is that social advance? It would have been better to not make any laws, repeal the old ones and make it socially unacceptable for slavery to exist. I hear it is still a problem in some sectors of the world because some have not got the message it is socially unacceptable. They believe it is ok - the laws don't seem to be making a difference.

So social advance is questionable when laws are used for that purpose. The unintended consequences are never envisioned only the "benefit" is perceived because it is the right thing to do. It usually is the right thing and that is why it receives support in law but we should be a little more careful in what laws we make.

Social advance is questionable when laws are used for that purpose ?

Some sectors in the world still have slavery, yes. Do those places have solid legal infrastructures in place or are they back to the "law of the jungle" ?

Look at the riots in Greece. Look at the divisiveness of the people in any social democracy that has matured. If it is not the rich and the poor, it is the left and the right or the corporations and the unions, or racism or men against women, or cultural warfare. Is all well? Do we need more laws and regulation when we cannot digest or comprehend the laws we already have. Someone once said that too many laws is the equivalent of no laws.

Do we need more laws and regulation ? I don't think so. We do need some.

The beneficiaries of welfare are not the slaves. The taxpayers are.

The taxpayer benefits from welfare ?

As I said, for the most part, it isn't the people, it is the system.

People working in the system aren't happy. They are overworked and get little reward or value for their input. Ask teachers and they will tell you the system isn't working for them. they need more resources and more benefits to make it worth their while or to feel they are getting value for their work. What they really need is better quantity and quality in their results. The system doens't allow it.

You need to source this. I don't buy it. You also didn't source your generalizations about the poor above, nor did you retract your statement that people who support the current system like poverty, or whatever it was you said.

If the system isn't working for teachers, or civil servants, then is it working for bank employees or people who work for large corporations ? I think they have many of the same complaints.

Yes. I get that criticism. But I don't get it from people not employed by government or who don't get their paycheques from government or are not receiving benefits from government.

It comes from teachers, the public sector, health care workers, Public sector unions, all dependent upon government themselves. The poor are nothing but pawns in the game utilized to demand "resources" from the bureaucrats making decisions about spending.

The same teachers who hate the system ?

And I brought up that point to show you that your blanket statements are no more fair when you use them, then when used against you.

And you are telling me the system as a whole is serving those people that feel overworked, lacking resources, and see their jobs as exercises in futility?

Please source me something that says that people who work for government (or whatever you're saying) are different than workers in other sectors who do the same work.

What percentage of welfare recipients are able bodied? Able-bodied isn't the entire factor in living. Steven Hawkings is not able-bodied. Many people have to find something they can do to contribute to other people's welfare which is what we are all doing or should be doing in a co-operative volluntary effort. Government feels it can do a better job and relieve us of our responsibility to our neighbours. We are so busy now having to work and provide a decent standard of living for our families while giving half our earnings to government we have no time for our neighbours. I think there are many shortcomings of the system. People are generally not happy with their lives.

Ok. You are correct - how many are able to work ?

There are alot of people on welfare. They come and go some stay on, particularly single Moms? Who do you balme for their situation. I know of one mother with four kids. Are you going to beat on the fathers doors who would just as soon not work as pay child support. Is it the education system? Poor parenting? Or is there something altogether wrong with the system?

Who do I blame ? I don't need to blame anybody, as you seem to. People have problems and they can't pull their weight. I have problems too, don't you ?

Perhaps we should bring back the family. You see we as individuals do not feel responsible for people who worked in poverty not because people never did. The system is supposed to look after them. If it isn't.. well.. hey...what am I paying my taxes for? Look there's roads there's parks, there's barn owls and field mice that get more consideration than people who have worked all their lives in poverty giving half their income away to the government because they said they would look after them.

Sheesh!

People who pay half their income aren't living in poverty.

The more you go on with this, the more subjective and self-focused your argument appears to me. Do you expect the system to reward you for your good living ? If so, you are mistaken. Good living is its own reward.

Most raw deals are from busybodies. Sending in another busybody won't be much of an improvement. Somehow you have to get them beyond the next handout.

WE are richer than ever and that's why the government takes more and more. It means we have to work that much harder to maintain a standard of living. I am one of those poor people that worked all my life in poverty. I should just have laid back and been a victim. I would have been better off - at leas that's what you would have seen. I would have felt worthless. And do you think I would thank anyone for my welfare. Not a chance - I would have been whining I never got enough.

Life is still rough but I won't be made a victim. I'll fight for anyone's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness - the three things that one only finds in himself and cannot be given him.

We don't have to work harder to maintain a standard of living - that's a choice.

You would not have been better off on welfare - again that reveals a subjective view of poverty. All of this comes off as angry, which makes me think that your views aren't based on facts, they are based on emotion.

[Pliny]

There are hierarchies in the jungle - the king of the beasts, and so on down the food change. Humans have an equal capacity for compassion and cruelty in my opinion, but there is no reason to think that hierarchy doesn't happen naturally.

Yes. It does happen naturally.

If you get too many Kings of Beasts in the Jungle some of them starve and some are killed off. If you get too many gazelles they starve. An equilibrium is naturally maintained.

Mankind is the only species that can adapt his environment to his needs but the hierarchy within the species is just as natural as it is in the jungle. Our system of government greatly disturbs that hierarchy especially the method in which we choose our leaders.

But don't worry. The natural order tends towards equilibrium so our system of government will change but how many must die to bring about that change. Many will, because a system of government resists change in itself. How men rise to power is important. Leadership is today merely a grab for an already centralized power and men are elected because they support the demands of the electorate and not because they can lead. The demands of the electorate have, unfortunately, become not about good governance and leadership but about what government can provide for people's demands. If one does have his demands fulfilled by government then what does he care of others and their demands, and why are his demands more important than all other demands. Government cannot supply everyone their needs. It's been tried and it has failed miserably.

Whatever demand government fulfills creates an increasing populace who will define themselves under that demand. And those whose demands are not provided for have justification for government to demand fairness and equal treatment so their demands are fulfilled. Soon government arrives where we are today. Too many lions (demanders) and not enough gazelles (suppliers, taxpayers) to feed them.

If you can't see that happening today, Europe serves as an example, or in our most recent history, the USSR, China, hasn't proven it to you then I weep for our future.

The poor and disadvantaged you champion are pawns to point to and say we will provide and be your protector and those serving the demands of the poor and disadvantaged are, with self-righteous indignation, pointing to the productive as being greedy and selfish using them as tools to extract their very sustenance.

You point to me in my comfort and tell me I have no right to complain while people are starving but when I am gone and now in the numbers of the poor and disadvantaged who will be left to point to as being greedy and selfish?

It is not the point that I sit here in comfort, if I do and that is relative. The point is the progressive disappearance of those who can sit and can enjoy the fruits of their labour in comfort and the emergence of a culture of entitlement.

But as I said, nature tends towards an equilibrium, and those who feel entitled will eventually kill their hosts and die themselves in the created scarcity and chaos. A new order will rise up and life will continue.

There is some concern about our species and the future of life on Earth in our nuclear age since one madman could end it all. We have to learn fast and by thinking the status quo is fine is not good enough, in my view, because the status quo is a progressive march to nowhere.

Social advance is questionable when laws are used for that purpose ?

Precisely. In the past it was considered great to own slaves and laws were made for that great social advance. It was well understood at the time that Blacks were not human and it was in their interests to attempt to civilize them.

Today it is in their interests that they have an advantage over others granted them so those poor people can achieve equality. Is that social advancement? It will end in disaster because it is divisive and discriminatory in it's favour and privilege. It is simply a reversal of privilege where none should have existed in law if equality under the law is the concern.

If equality itself is the goal it is easier to tear down than build up and that is the tendency in making all equal.

Some sectors in the world still have slavery, yes. Do those places have solid legal infrastructures in place or are they back to the "law of the jungle" ?

Is there a place that lives by the law of the jungle? Where is it Michael?

Do we need more laws and regulation ? I don't think so. We do need some.

We need some and we need for the majority to understand them, not just the few who make them.

I believe most can understand laws that are decent and respect the sanctity and and security of others.

Pliny: The beneficiaries of welfare are not the slaves. The taxpayers are.

The taxpayer benefits from welfare ?

The taxpayers are the slaves.

You need to source this. I don't buy it. You also didn't source your generalizations about the poor above, nor did you retract your statement that people who support the current system like poverty, or whatever it was you said.

If the system isn't working for teachers, or civil servants, then is it working for bank employees or people who work for large corporations ? I think they have many of the same complaints.

The whole problem, Michael is the system of governance and how it is used. You yourself stated you are looking at the system in general. Well, in general we do not hear about the great achievements that teachers feel they are accomplishing in the education of the public in general and the gratitude they feel for the benefits they enjoy in their employment. We do not read of the advancements in vanquishing poverty and ridding society of it's social ills. Oh...certainly claims are made for success but every success broadly applied seems to ultimately lead to failure. The war on poverty is lost, the war on illiteracy, the war on drugs - all those investments have not diminished the social ills they were designed to eradicate but instead have exacerbated the problems.

Do you hear of the vast improvements and the disappearing social problems we have, Michael? I don't. Just look, Michael. Where's your sources contradicting what I say?

Statistics are not proof of anything really. If you want proof of success we must look at the dwindling public expenses we see in all these wars.

Is it working for bank employees or people who work for large corporations?

While that may be a relative comparison and indicative of similar problems in the corporate sector it has no bearing on the argument of the public continuing to support a failing system.

The same teachers who hate the system ?

They do not like the system but if they are rewarded enough they will support it.

And I brought up that point to show you that your blanket statements are no more fair when you use them, then when used against you.

It is you who like to look at the system in general and not individuals.

I crave to hear of the successes in eliminating poverty, illiteracy and all the social ills we at war with. Are we winning, Michael? Am I deluded. Do we no longer have problems with those social ills or are they at least diminishing? Or is there a great cry for more resources to shore up our flagging front lines. This is progressivism in action.

Ok. You are correct - how many are able to work ?

Everyone should be able to contribute in some respect. The human potential in all must be encouraged not used to stifle potential and keep people from preferring to live on the potential of others.

Who do I blame ? I don't need to blame anybody, as you seem to. People have problems and they can't pull their weight. I have problems too, don't you ?

Where would we be without problems? Dead probably. But that doesn't mean we have to make problems for each other. We can find better problems to have.

People who pay half their income aren't living in poverty.

The more you go on with this, the more subjective and self-focused your argument appears to me. Do you expect the system to reward you for your good living ? If so, you are mistaken. Good living is its own reward.

You sound like me now. Good living is it's own reward.

I don't expect the system to reward me for my good living. I also don't expect it should punish me for it either - which is the argument.

We don't have to work harder to maintain a standard of living - that's a choice.

Yes we can choose not maintain a standard of living and languish in poverty while we only need implore our social workers to provide more.

You would not have been better off on welfare - again that reveals a subjective view of poverty. All of this comes off as angry, which makes me think that your views aren't based on facts, they are based on emotion.

Well, excuse me my demagogic emotional excesses. Are you not feeling the frustration I am at making a point?

[Michael Hardner]

Yes. It does happen naturally.

If you get too many Kings of Beasts in the Jungle some of them starve and some are killed off. If you get too many gazelles they starve. An equilibrium is naturally maintained.

Mankind is the only species that can adapt his environment to his needs but the hierarchy within the species is just as natural as it is in the jungle. Our system of government greatly disturbs that hierarchy especially the method in which we choose our leaders.

Ok. As long as we're acknowledging that there's a hierarchy, I agree.

But don't worry. The natural order tends towards equilibrium so our system of government will change but how many must die to bring about that change. Many will, because a system of government resists change in itself. How men rise to power is important. Leadership is today merely a grab for an already centralized power and men are elected because they support the demands of the electorate and not because they can lead. The demands of the electorate have, unfortunately, become not about good governance and leadership but about what government can provide for people's demands. If one does have his demands fulfilled by government then what does he care of others and their demands, and why are his demands more important than all other demands. Government cannot supply everyone their needs. It's been tried and it has failed miserably.

I agree, but democracy ensures that power has a smoother transition. There will always be violence, I fear. I think there has been less violence recently, and more stability in democratic governments.

Whatever demand government fulfills creates an increasing populace who will define themselves under that demand. And those whose demands are not provided for have justification for government to demand fairness and equal treatment so their demands are fulfilled. Soon government arrives where we are today. Too many lions (demanders) and not enough gazelles (suppliers, taxpayers) to feed them.

If you can't see that happening today, Europe serves as an example, or in our most recent history, the USSR, China, hasn't proven it to you then I weep for our future.

You seem to have put dictatorships in the same boat as democracies, which is incorrect in my view. Europe is largely democratic.

The poor and disadvantaged you champion are pawns to point to and say we will provide and be your protector and those serving the demands of the poor and disadvantaged are, with self-righteous indignation, pointing to the productive as being greedy and selfish using them as tools to extract their very sustenance.

You point to me in my comfort and tell me I have no right to complain while people are starving but when I am gone and now in the numbers of the poor and disadvantaged who will be left to point to as being greedy and selfish?

You always have a right to complain, but I ask you to put your complaints in context and not overreach in your statements. I also point out to you that our system doesn't necessarily reward people for virtuous living. It's generally fair, however it is a system - which means it doesn't always work, and also it can be abused.

It is not the point that I sit here in comfort, if I do and that is relative. The point is the progressive disappearance of those who can sit and can enjoy the fruits of their labour in comfort and the emergence of a culture of entitlement.

But as I said, nature tends towards an equilibrium, and those who feel entitled will eventually kill their hosts and die themselves in the created scarcity and chaos. A new order will rise up and life will continue.

Scarcity and chaos happen in relative and absolute terms. Real scarcity causes instability and chaos but I don't see this happening soon. You're projecting your anger onto the rest of society.

Is there a place that lives by the law of the jungle? Where is it Michael?

It seems to me that there are countries where there is virtual anarchy, such as Haiti. Where is slavery prevalent as you have pointed out ? Let's follow up on that one. Is it a country with fair and healthy democracy, and a legal infrastructure ?

The whole problem, Michael is the system of governance and how it is used. You yourself stated you are looking at the system in general. Well, in general we do not hear about the great achievements that teachers feel they are accomplishing in the education of the public in general and the gratitude they feel for the benefits they enjoy in their employment. We do not read of the advancements in vanquishing poverty and ridding society of it's social ills. Oh...certainly claims are made for success but every success broadly applied seems to ultimately lead to failure. The war on poverty is lost, the war on illiteracy, the war on drugs - all those investments have not diminished the social ills they were designed to eradicate but instead have exacerbated the problems.

Again - you're making these statements from opinion with no backup.

Do you hear of the vast improvements and the disappearing social problems we have, Michael? I don't. Just look, Michael. Where's your sources contradicting what I say?

Proof lies with the positive claimant.

Here are some stats on crime rates. Not really much change, but certainly no big increases.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050721/dq050721a-eng.htm

Statistics are not proof of anything really. If you want proof of success we must look at the dwindling public expenses we see in all these wars.

Ok - then provide some empirical evidence on social expenditure and at least we can talk about something based on facts.

As it is, this seems to be a malaise inside of you that you're extending to other people.

Is it working for bank employees or people who work for large corporations?

While that may be a relative comparison and indicative of similar problems in the corporate sector it has no bearing on the argument of the public continuing to support a failing system.

Except that you used the dissatisfaction of public employees at their jobs as evidence that the system is, for lack of a better word, bad.

They do not like the system but if they are rewarded enough they will support it.

It is you who like to look at the system in general and not individuals.

I crave to hear of the successes in eliminating poverty, illiteracy and all the social ills we at war with. Are we winning, Michael? Am I deluded. Do we no longer have problems with those social ills or are they at least diminishing? Or is there a great cry for more resources to shore up our flagging front lines. This is progressivism in action.

Let's talk about some facts, then ok ? Don't use television news as a barometer of how things are going, for example.

Everyone should be able to contribute in some respect. The human potential in all must be encouraged not used to stifle potential and keep people from preferring to live on the potential of others.

Where would we be without problems? Dead probably. But that doesn't mean we have to make problems for each other. We can find better problems to have.

Yes we can choose not maintain a standard of living and languish in poverty while we only need implore our social workers to provide more.

Well, excuse me my demagogic emotional excesses. Are you not feeling the frustration I am at making a point?

I feel your frustration, but the problem is that your frustration is your own and not anybody elses. Yet, you're attributing the causes of your misery to a generally declining society.

I have experienced such things from idealogues (albeit leftist idealogues) in the past, as well as religious zealots who want earth to become the kingdom of heaven.

The fact is that our world - Canada, let's say - is getting better all the time, at least from an optimist's point of view. We are freer than ever to pursue our dreams, and our future is bright.

[wyly]

My understanding of this term is that it was coined by progressives as a bit of a poke at themselves, particularly on issues of identity politics...notably race and gender issues. (To be more accurate, they didn't coin it, but re-invigorated a largely unknown term to poke fun at themselves).

Poking fun aside, it is a really-existing phenomenon.

But the term has changed meaning...and become so promiscuously used and unstable in denotation that it has to be looked at in a different way.

No longer is it restricted to issues of identity politics, of leftish 1980's convention of "correct" thought. It is now a weapon waged against the Left...but containing the seeds of its own application to the entire political spectrum, notably the political Right. Let me explain:

"Politically correct" now refers to any number of expressed ideas, of virtually any left-leaning analysis of both domestic and foreign events and policies.

To even argue with somebody about issues of race and gender is often dubbed "political correctness"....an astonishingly lazy "argument" designed to shut down debate, to chill the atmosphere and rhetorically intimidate those making charges of racism or sexism.

That is, anti-political correctness has itself begun to take on the attributes of political correctness.

Further, it has been wildly expanded. So if one opposes the war in Afghanistan, one can be accused of "political correctness," a label here used so unfairly that it beggars belief.

Those who accuse others of "political correctness" tend too often to view themselves as courageous defenders of speech, as opposing the ugly notion of "thoughtcrimes," and following good old-fashioned "common sense." (Beware those who continually claim "common sense" as an ideological defense. Hopefully I don't have to explain why.)

But in fact, there is nothing courageous about lazily invoking "PC" as an attribute of everything one's political opponents stands for. When I was completely supportive of the war in Afghanistan, it took no courage. Zero. Supporting and defending a war fought by the most powerful agents on Earth is not an act of courage...whether one is correct or not is irrelevant to notions of "bravery." This seems obvious enough. Further, I too have railed against "political correctness" in its traditional sense, and I can state unequivocally that it takes no guts, none at all. Again, this is aside from the question of whether one is correct in one's assessment.

At any rate, "political correctness" no longer is an attribute solely, or even mostly, of the political Left. If the complaints against it are valid (and I think they are, if the pejorative is used correctly, which it so often is not) then the "left" premise doesn't work.

Consider: the premise cannot be "political correctness is bad; it's a leftist phenomenon; so the Left is politically correct."

And that does seem to be the premise...by lazy thinkers frightened of examining the sacred cows that have served them so well in debate.

No, if political correctness is bad, it must be that something is bad about it...not that it's "Left-wing."

What's bad about it? Well, it's any argument, implicit as well as explicit, in which certain conventions of thought are held to be so inarguable, so lacking in complexities and nuance, that those who disagree feel chilled out of the discussion. They are cowed, or else frustrated that the attempt is to cow them.

For example--sticking to its older usage: if someone says "opposing affirmative action makes you a racist"....that is political correctness, and is patently unfair and bullying.

However, if you oppose it, and I disagree with you--that is, if I were to express support for affirmative action---that is not "political correctness." That's my political opinion. Political opinion, however orthodox to part of the political spectrum, is not political correctness. PC is not about opinion, but about method of debate, about the atmosphere created to try to shut up those who dissent.

At any rate, PC as pejorative has moved well beyonhd such issues of identity politics. Believe that the prevailing orthodoxies on capitalism to be woefully mistaken? Political correctness. Consider the wealthy, democratic powers to have violently imperial motives? Political correctness. Oppose a war? Political correctness. Defend the Palestinians? Political correctness. Think Palin is stupid? Political correctness.

It's absurd.

Further, if what is really the problem with PC is not "being a leftist," but rather focussed on what the intents and effects of PC are, we see it all the time, continually, daily, from the political Right, and from the political Centre, too.

Your criticism of Israel makes you an anti-semite?

That's political correctness.

Don't you support the troops? Or, "The troops have more honour in their little finger than you have in...blah blah blah..."

That's political correctness.

Pointing out the clear defense of and support for terrorism by the Western powers?

That's "moral equivalency" (virtually a nonsense term, by the way)...and is a type of leftist "political correctness"?

But in fact, that argument is political correctness...that is, the angry attribution of political correctness is here actually itself a type of political correctness. It's meant to cow the debater and shut down the discussion.

At bottom, we can say that PC is the black and white, austere notion that "some things shouldn't be said," allowing one a fallacious high ground in debate; an insistence that to dissent agaisnt conventional pieties is a sin, and proof of iniquity.

Believe me, that is not in any way the province of the political Left.

But as Hemingway wrote, "Isn't it pretty to think so"?

most excellent post...

[Oleg Bach]

This is very important to discover what polical correctness really is..and why it exists....most don't have a clue about this mystery. HOW does it work and why? I am coming to the realization that is is not about right and wrong - it is about the control of a population through the removal of law and order....The word POLICY - is key to understanding this insidious phenomena - that in part is based in lazyness and or the lack of polical talent and true leadership...someone has figured out that to stay in power you must create a society where offending and defending are not permitted..to condition us not to offend what needs to be offended -

Once you have that POLICY in place you can police the public and slowly brain wash them in to being docile and submissive animals that dare not offend or bite the hand of an abusive master.

[Pliny]

Ok. As long as we're acknowledging that there's a hierarchy, I agree.

And you would argue in society that the heirarchy; the natural order, should be forcibly nullified, n'est ce pas?

I agree, but democracy ensures that power has a smoother transition. There will always be violence, I fear. I think there has been less violence recently, and more stability in democratic governments.

Well, I understand the nature of government to be towards expansion and greater security for itself. As it is a human agency not any different than any other human agency, it tends towards keeping itself relative and important to the citizenry by the use of force, in some forms of government and in a mature democracy, primarily by the use of bribery. As the sole monopolist of the use of force and the delegation of the use of force, it makes laws protecting that mandate. No one else may use force without permission under penalty of being labeled a criminal and incarcerated, which is fine to begin with, but since it is an organization like other organizations it tends towards shoring up it's importance and relativity and expanding it's mandate in the name of public safety and security.

Since the use of public power is temporally limited in a democracy those using that power tend to be somewhat myopic in their planning, promising benefits in order to be perceived as the best choice to the electorate and to continue governing. Opposition parties vie for power by offering other benefits and complaining of the poor performance of the incumbent party.

And this is the progressive nature of government growth. Now I think you believe that what exists today is a static state and that we will always, as a democracy, be the same democracy tomorrow. And I believe that it becomes progressively larger and more intrusive in society and would lead eventually to the totalitarian socialist state.

You say Democracy has a smoother transition...a transition to what end? Equality for all?

You seem to have put dictatorships in the same boat as democracies, which is incorrect in my view. Europe is largely democratic.

The formation of the European Union is the natural progression of government to centralize power. The sovereignty of national governments has been overridden in some areas of governance, essentially economic in nature, and will soon be the main governmental body with the nations becoming more like provinces of Europe, a union of States.

As national sovereignty is undermined in the United States, that is our future in North America as well. The US Constitution is a stumbling block in that progression but social democracy can and will make the US Constitution, on the advice of government itself, an irrelevant document with simply historical significance. Much like how the Monarchies of Europe are largely symbolic. The TEA party is a retrogressive movement to re-instate the Constitution. The Constitution however is not about full blown democracy. It was more designed as an aristocratic republic. The TEA party will fail because of democracy, in the end who will give up their vote?

You always have a right to complain, but I ask you to put your complaints in context and not overreach in your statements. I also point out to you that our system doesn't necessarily reward people for virtuous living. It's generally fair, however it is a system - which means it doesn't always work, and also it can be abused.

You are talking about today, as though government will remain the same, and the will of the majority and the law of the land will keep it that way. Already we are trading national sovereignty to international interests. Regardless of the fact that international interests may be our interests, once power is relegated to an international agency, it is only a matter of time before the international interests will override the national interests.

Is that an overreaching enough statement?

Scarcity and chaos happen in relative and absolute terms. Real scarcity causes instability and chaos but I don't see this happening soon. You're projecting your anger onto the rest of society.

I don't believe I am alone in projecting my anger against government excesses. Perhaps in Canada I am a lone voice. Most Canadians believe this to be the best country in the world to live in. It has the ideal mix of freedoms and entitlements in the eyes of it's citizens and the world. I think myself it is fairly good but I don't see it as being a static state or at an equilibrium because the votes for entitlement are progressively eroding the freedoms.

It seems to me that there are countries where there is virtual anarchy, such as Haiti. Where is slavery prevalent as you have pointed out ? Let's follow up on that one. Is it a country with fair and healthy democracy, and a legal infrastructure ?

Try a little closer to home with Canada and the sex trade. I beleive it has a healthy democracy and a legal infrastructure.

Again - you're making these statements from opinion with no backup.

Proof lies with the positive claimant.

Here are some stats on crime rates. Not really much change, but certainly no big increases.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050721/dq050721a-eng.htm

Ok - then provide some empirical evidence on social expenditure and at least we can talk about something based on facts.

I can't believe that you have any question about the increase in the cost of government over time.

Budgets increase for almost department every year. And, as a matter of fact, it has become common practice to refer to a reduction in the annual increase as an actual "cut" to funding. Only a government bureaucracy could come up with that twist to reality.

The point is not even debatable in my view.

As for statistics I found this in your post an statement interesting.

"About 78,000 youth aged 12 to 17 were charged with a Criminal Code offence last year, while a further 101,000 were cleared by means other than laying a formal charge."

The statistic seems to be manipulable by "offences being cleared by other means". In earlier years were offences cleared in this manner?

That is why statistics are not, in my view, convincing arguments. They have to be simple counting with definitive parameters and the further away from that you get the more has to be known about the methodology of the tabulation.

Except that you used the dissatisfaction of public employees at their jobs as evidence that the system is, for lack of a better word, bad.

No. I used it as evidence that change from their general dissatisfaction could only result in increased taxation and further funding and that satiating the dissatisfaction becomes a circuitous series of events. The general dissatisfaction of employees in private corporations and any solution does not result in an increased burden on society. As a matter of fact, in a private corporation it is realized that competition will limit the demands of labour where costs of production cannot outstrip income. Government has no measure of costs versus income. Increased costs are simply met with increased taxation.

Pliny: I crave to hear of the successes in eliminating poverty, illiteracy and all the social ills we at war with. Are we winning, Michael? Am I deluded. Do we no longer have problems with those social ills or are they at least diminishing? Or is there a great cry for more resources to shore up our flagging front lines. This is progressivism in action.

Let's talk about some facts, then ok ? Don't use television news as a barometer of how things are going, for example.

Once again I am flabbergasted that you would even consider questioning the increase of social ills.

Are politicians just making the issues seem bad so they feel important and relevant or can leave a legacy to their compassion. It's the only argument I could find valid and one I would believe because of the nature of government to expand itself and it's power. But surely, someone would recognize this and say where is the crime you speak of, where are the homeless, and the drug addicts, and the illiterate.

I don't believe it worth investing the time or effort to argue these points.

I feel your frustration, but the problem is that your frustration is your own and not anybody elses. Yet, you're attributing the causes of your misery to a generally declining society.

I am concerned about the future not my misery. As you point out I must be comfortable in our society and relative to other nations I am but the progressive march of big government will not maintain the status quo with our society eventually unable to sustain itself.

I have experienced such things from idealogues (albeit leftist idealogues) in the past, as well as religious zealots who want earth to become the kingdom of heaven.

If we could maintain the status quo there would be no problem but we can't. It is a progressive imbalance of the natural order requiring ever-increasing enforcement to sustain it. It will be eventually unviable and a new order will be necessitated.

The fact is that our world - Canada, let's say - is getting better all the time, at least from an optimist's point of view. We are freer than ever to pursue our dreams, and our future is bright.

Freer? I can't buy a doctor's services, today. It seems there are more and more regulations in my life not less - all for the common good, of course. And would you argue government size and expense is less today than say thirty years ago? I don't consider that point arguable either.

I must conclude Michael that you receive direct benefit from government in some form. Either that or you suffer the same affliction of idealogues and religious zealots and have a cemented ideology yourself.

You are certainly not arguing from a point of indifference to government but from a point of defence of government. It may be that you are willing to ignore it's deficiencies as a trade off to it's perceived benefits in some detached attitude which you have decided is morally superior to left and right ideology but it isn't likely you are entirely impartial or you would more easily see the imbalance of the negative impact on society of big government.

It is likely most people in Canada hold a similar view to yours of our government and society. If however they have any interest in government, history, economics, ideology whatsoever they will see the end to which we are headed and the unsustainability of a quite unnatural status quo. Without any historical or ideological background or any direct benefit from government they only see their own experiential knowledge and maybe compare it with other people's lives in different countries. They thank their lucky stars they are living in Canada. It's a very superficial look at society without delving into how we arrived here or where we could be possibly heading. Almost as though we will keep everything preserved and will continue on. The intricate dynamics of government, economy and society are left to either those with such interests, such as politicians and intellectuals to divine and the ordinary citizen is left to vote for what he feels is the best option on the buffet placed before him.

[Pliny]

This is very important to discover what polical correctness really is..and why it exists....most don't have a clue about this mystery. HOW does it work and why? I am coming to the realization that is is not about right and wrong - it is about the control of a population through the removal of law and order....The word POLICY - is key to understanding this insidious phenomena - that in part is based in lazyness and or the lack of polical talent and true leadership...someone has figured out that to stay in power you must create a society where offending and defending are not permitted..to condition us not to offend what needs to be offended -

Once you have that POLICY in place you can police the public and slowly brain wash them in to being docile and submissive animals that dare not offend or bite the hand of an abusive master.

Well, yes....no one must offend...only the "master" can determine what needs offending. Generally, it is necessary to neutralize power, such as contained in majorities, and government is there to ensure majorities are divested of any power or use of force or pressure as that is a direct threat to their monopoly of power. It is portrayed as a leveling of the playing field or the execution of social justice.

Of course some things need to be offended but that is not for anyone to decide but government andit's supporters.

[Michael Hardner]

And you would argue in society that the heirarchy; the natural order, should be forcibly nullified, n'est ce pas?

Yes, just as I would advocate using clothing, shelter, bourbon and other unnatural inventions.

Well, I understand the nature of government to be towards expansion and greater security for itself. As it is a human agency not any different than any other human agency, it tends towards keeping itself relative and important to the citizenry by the use of force, in some forms of government and in a mature democracy, primarily by the use of bribery. As the sole monopolist of the use of force and the delegation of the use of force, it makes laws protecting that mandate. No one else may use force without permission under penalty of being labeled a criminal and incarcerated, which is fine to begin with, but since it is an organization like other organizations it tends towards shoring up it's importance and relativity and expanding it's mandate in the name of public safety and security.

No one may initiate force but basically yes.

Since the use of public power is temporally limited in a democracy those using that power tend to be somewhat myopic in their planning, promising benefits in order to be perceived as the best choice to the electorate and to continue governing. Opposition parties vie for power by offering other benefits and complaining of the poor performance of the incumbent party.

And this is the progressive nature of government growth. Now I think you believe that what exists today is a static state and that we will always, as a democracy, be the same democracy tomorrow. And I believe that it becomes progressively larger and more intrusive in society and would lead eventually to the totalitarian socialist state.

I don't believe that today is a static state, nor do I believe that government necessarily gets larger or smaller, nor that we will be the same democracy tomorrow.

There is regulation, then deregulation, then re-regulation. The march to totalitarian socialist state seems to be a very long one for us, perhaps.

You say Democracy has a smoother transition...a transition to what end? Equality for all?

Transition of power from one leader, and that leader's vision to the next.

The formation of the European Union is the natural progression of government to centralize power. The sovereignty of national governments has been overridden in some areas of governance, essentially economic in nature, and will soon be the main governmental body with the nations becoming more like provinces of Europe, a union of States.

That's an example of states giving up sovereignty in order to reduce overhead and costs as well. Also, the deregulation of trade is a major component so it works against you as well as for you.

As national sovereignty is undermined in the United States, that is our future in North America as well. The US Constitution is a stumbling block in that progression but social democracy can and will make the US Constitution, on the advice of government itself, an irrelevant document with simply historical significance. Much like how the Monarchies of Europe are largely symbolic. The TEA party is a retrogressive movement to re-instate the Constitution. The Constitution however is not about full blown democracy. It was more designed as an aristocratic republic. The TEA party will fail because of democracy, in the end who will give up their vote?

When do you predict that the US constitution will become irrelevant ? We're talking about centuries from now, right ?

You are talking about today, as though government will remain the same, and the will of the majority and the law of the land will keep it that way. Already we are trading national sovereignty to international interests. Regardless of the fact that international interests may be our interests, once power is relegated to an international agency, it is only a matter of time before the international interests will override the national interests.

Is that an overreaching enough statement?

By international agency, do you mean Microsoft ? Yes, government is changing below our very feet and I don't doubt that.

I don't believe I am alone in projecting my anger against government excesses. Perhaps in Canada I am a lone voice. Most Canadians believe this to be the best country in the world to live in. It has the ideal mix of freedoms and entitlements in the eyes of it's citizens and the world. I think myself it is fairly good but I don't see it as being a static state or at an equilibrium because the votes for entitlement are progressively eroding the freedoms.

I don't think you're alone either, but are you yourself moved to action by emotional arguments that others make ?

Arguments like "We have to save the whales !" "Think of the children !" "Think of the poor !".

It seems not. Our first reaction will always be emotional, because we're human. And our values have in them an emotional investment. We feel strongly about who we are, and what we're about - this is our identity. However, all of these things are also based on principles, which means intellect. And principles (which is to say thinking) should drive how we analyze and approach problems.

If you're not swayed by emotionality of others, then maybe you should think about how others are affected by your emotional arguments.

To show you that I'm not pointing fingers here - I had a visceral hatred of the Harris government and especially their social programs, but eventually I had to accept evidence that some of their approaches were good, and that my emotional reaction prevented me from considering those ideas on an even basis.

Try a little closer to home with Canada and the sex trade. I beleive it has a healthy democracy and a legal infrastructure.

I can't believe that you have any question about the increase in the cost of government over time.

Budgets increase for almost department every year. And, as a matter of fact, it has become common practice to refer to a reduction in the annual increase as an actual "cut" to funding. Only a government bureaucracy could come up with that twist to reality.

The point is not even debatable in my view.

Are they real dollar increases though ? And where is the money coming from if we have cut taxes as we have ? I'm asking these questions because I really don't know the answers.

No. I used it as evidence that change from their general dissatisfaction could only result in increased taxation and further funding and that satiating the dissatisfaction becomes a circuitous series of events.

What ? You were saying that the workers were miserable. I don't understand what you're saying here - that the fact that they're miserable means that taxes are going to go up ? Huh ?

Once again I am flabbergasted that you would even consider questioning the increase of social ills.

Are politicians just making the issues seem bad so they feel important and relevant or can leave a legacy to their compassion. It's the only argument I could find valid and one I would believe because of the nature of government to expand itself and it's power. But surely, someone would recognize this and say where is the crime you speak of, where are the homeless, and the drug addicts, and the illiterate.

I am questioning the increase of social ills. There are more cocaine addicts than there were 60 years ago, of course, because there is more cocaine. There is also more longevity, less drunk driving, and more freedom to choose one's life partners.

I don't believe it worth investing the time or effort to argue these points.

I am concerned about the future not my misery. As you point out I must be comfortable in our society and relative to other nations I am but the progressive march of big government will not maintain the status quo with our society eventually unable to sustain itself.

These are bogeyman that are spooking you, not facts. It's ok with me, but I won't be drawn into your nightmare.

If we could maintain the status quo there would be no problem but we can't. It is a progressive imbalance of the natural order requiring ever-increasing enforcement to sustain it. It will be eventually unviable and a new order will be necessitated.

Freer? I can't buy a doctor's services, today. It seems there are more and more regulations in my life not less - all for the common good, of course. And would you argue government size and expense is less today than say thirty years ago? I don't consider that point arguable either.

I must conclude Michael that you receive direct benefit from government in some form. Either that or you suffer the same affliction of idealogues and religious zealots and have a cemented ideology yourself.

You're unable to argue this without thinking that I'm from government ? Strange.

No, I'm not an idealogue. Let's look at the wider view - how many people are Libertarians and how many people aren't ? It's a fringe viewpoint. Are so many people stupid that we would support a system that makes us collectively more and more miserable ?

You are certainly not arguing from a point of indifference to government but from a point of defence of government. It may be that you are willing to ignore it's deficiencies as a trade off to it's perceived benefits in some detached attitude which you have decided is morally superior to left and right ideology but it isn't likely you are entirely impartial or you would more easily see the imbalance of the negative impact on society of big government.

The negative impact seems to be largely your perception, not real.

A few points:

*Top tax rates are lower than in the past

*There is less government presence in crown corporations, such as oil and transportation

*Union membership is on a long, slow decline

Generally, life goes on.

Your assessment of things being doom and gloom doesn't gibe with what I see outside.

It is likely most people in Canada hold a similar view to yours of our government and society. If however they have any interest in government, history, economics, ideology whatsoever they will see the end to which we are headed and the unsustainability of a quite unnatural status quo. Without any historical or ideological background or any direct benefit from government they only see their own experiential knowledge and maybe compare it with other people's lives in different countries. They thank their lucky stars they are living in Canada. It's a very superficial look at society without delving into how we arrived here or where we could be possibly heading. Almost as though we will keep everything preserved and will continue on. The intricate dynamics of government, economy and society are left to either those with such interests, such as politicians and intellectuals to divine and the ordinary citizen is left to vote for what he feels is the best option on the buffet placed before him.

Yes, Canada sits somewhere in between California and Europe in terms of the amount of government present in peoples' lives. It is likely most people in Canada hold similar views to me because (probably) 95% are not Libertarians. In terms of "where we are headed"... the answer might be that we're going to crash... in a few hundred years. As you have pointed out, government constantly changes anyway and we're constantly going through deregulation, reregulation, tax increases and cuts... arguing and fighting all the way down the road.

But nobody is really arguing to get rid of government to the extent you are. To me, that idea is about 100 years old and not coming back anytime soon.

The ordinary citizen is smart enough to figure it out. I trust them. And I don't blame intellectuals or welfare recipients either.

We'll figure it out.

[Oleg Bach]

Yes, just as I would advocate using clothing, shelter, bourbon and other unnatural inventions.

No one may initiate force but basically yes.

I don't believe that today is a static state, nor do I believe that government necessarily gets larger or smaller, nor that we will be the same democracy tomorrow.

There is regulation, then deregulation, then re-regulation. The march to totalitarian socialist state seems to be a very long one for us, perhaps.

Transition of power from one leader, and that leader's vision to the next.

That's an example of states giving up sovereignty in order to reduce overhead and costs as well. Also, the deregulation of trade is a major component so it works against you as well as for you.

When do you predict that the US constitution will become irrelevant ? We're talking about centuries from now, right ?

By international agency, do you mean Microsoft ? Yes, government is changing below our very feet and I don't doubt that.

I don't think you're alone either, but are you yourself moved to action by emotional arguments that others make ?

Arguments like "We have to save the whales !" "Think of the children !" "Think of the poor !".

It seems not. Our first reaction will always be emotional, because we're human. And our values have in them an emotional investment. We feel strongly about who we are, and what we're about - this is our identity. However, all of these things are also based on principles, which means intellect. And principles (which is to say thinking) should drive how we analyze and approach problems.

If you're not swayed by emotionality of others, then maybe you should think about how others are affected by your emotional arguments.

To show you that I'm not pointing fingers here - I had a visceral hatred of the Harris government and especially their social programs, but eventually I had to accept evidence that some of their approaches were good, and that my emotional reaction prevented me from considering those ideas on an even basis.

Are they real dollar increases though ? And where is the money coming from if we have cut taxes as we have ? I'm asking these questions because I really don't know the answers.

What ? You were saying that the workers were miserable. I don't understand what you're saying here - that the fact that they're miserable means that taxes are going to go up ? Huh ?

I am questioning the increase of social ills. There are more cocaine addicts than there were 60 years ago, of course, because there is more cocaine. There is also more longevity, less drunk driving, and more freedom to choose one's life partners.

These are bogeyman that are spooking you, not facts. It's ok with me, but I won't be drawn into your nightmare.

You're unable to argue this without thinking that I'm from government ? Strange.

No, I'm not an idealogue. Let's look at the wider view - how many people are Libertarians and how many people aren't ? It's a fringe viewpoint. Are so many people stupid that we would support a system that makes us collectively more and more miserable ?

The negative impact seems to be largely your perception, not real.

A few points:

*Top tax rates are lower than in the past

*There is less government presence in crown corporations, such as oil and transportation

*Union membership is on a long, slow decline

Generally, life goes on.

Your assessment of things being doom and gloom doesn't gibe with what I see outside.

Yes, Canada sits somewhere in between California and Europe in terms of the amount of government present in peoples' lives. It is likely most people in Canada hold similar views to me because (probably) 95% are not Libertarians. In terms of "where we are headed"... the answer might be that we're going to crash... in a few hundred years. As you have pointed out, government constantly changes anyway and we're constantly going through deregulation, reregulation, tax increases and cuts... arguing and fighting all the way down the road.

But nobody is really arguing to get rid of government to the extent you are. To me, that idea is about 100 years old and not coming back anytime soon.

The ordinary citizen is smart enough to figure it out. I trust them. And I don't blame intellectuals or welfare recipients either.

We'll figure it out.

'Intellectuals and wefare recipients' - are they not the same entity - except one has a better financer?

[Jack Weber]

'Intellectuals and wefare recipients' - are they not the same entity - except one has a better financer?

They can be one in the same...

Shithouse Poet Syndrome....

[bloodyminded]

most excellent post...

Thanks, Wyly!

[Pliny]

Yes, just as I would advocate using clothing, shelter, bourbon and other unnatural inventions.

Clothing, shelter, bourbon and other unnatural inventions. Government is an unnatural invention? Perhaps in form or ideology but managing, leading and order are natural.

You agree there is a hierarchy but don't believe there should be one and that a particular agency should govern the rest of us. All I can say is that I want to be apart of the class that enforces your classless society.

There always will be a hierarchy. Marx was incorrect.

Pliny: Well, I understand the nature of government to be towards expansion and greater security for itself. As it is a human agency not any different than any other human agency, it tends towards keeping itself relative and important to the citizenry by the use of force, in some forms of government and in a mature democracy, primarily by the use of bribery. As the sole monopolist of the use of force and the delegation of the use of force, it makes laws protecting that mandate. No one else may use force without permission under penalty of being labeled a criminal and incarcerated, which is fine to begin with, but since it is an organization like other organizations it tends towards shoring up it's importance and relativity and expanding it's mandate in the name of public safety and security.

No one may initiate force but basically yes.

My point here is that there is a progression towards greater intervention in the individuals life and in the direction of society. A general understanding develops in policy that consideration for individuals can be sacrificed in the interests of the greater good and at that very point the persons of government will not only consider the individual unimportant but conversely develop a self importance and self righteousness over the direction of society.

Nothing wrong in directing society, I suppose. But I beleive several things wrong with social democracy and one is how our leaders filter to the top. Another is that universal suffrage for adults should not be a given.

I don't believe that today is a static state, nor do I believe that government necessarily gets larger or smaller, nor that we will be the same democracy tomorrow.

There is regulation, then deregulation, then re-regulation. The march to totalitarian socialist state seems to be a very long one for us, perhaps.

I suppose time is the factor. Social democracies with universal suffrage at the national level have been around for less than a century. A very short time as regards the existence of forms of government and the leaks are starting to become overwhelming. A look at the the time from the beginning of your existence to present isn't significant enough to judge.

Transition of power from one leader, and that leader's vision to the next.

Once again, give it some time.

Pliny:The formation of the European Union is the natural progression of government to centralize power. The sovereignty of national governments has been overridden in some areas of governance, essentially economic in nature, and will soon be the main governmental body with the nations becoming more like provinces of Europe, a union of States.

That's an example of states giving up sovereignty in order to reduce overhead and costs as well. Also, the deregulation of trade is a major component so it works against you as well as for you.

I note Germans were reluctant to bail out the Greeks.

As for trade, much deregulation between countries did occur. It is the only way the EU could pay for itself plus the national govenrments but the national governments will become less relevant over time as the Union becomes increasingly more important than the nations and the good of all nations becomes the prime consideration, just as the common good becomes the prime consideration over the individual in any nation.

When do you predict that the US constitution will become irrelevant ? We're talking about centuries from now, right ?

A recent President referred to it as a "god-damned piece of paper". It's erosion has been occurring in earnest since the civil war and most of the early departures were out of governmental economic necessity.

Social democracy was not the intent of the Constitution and socialist ideology or concepts not a part of it.

I don't think you're alone either, but are you yourself moved to action by emotional arguments that others make?

Arguments like "We have to save the whales !" "Think of the children !" "Think of the poor !".

It seems not. Our first reaction will always be emotional, because we're human. And our values have in them an emotional investment. We feel strongly about who we are, and what we're about - this is our identity. However, all of these things are also based on principles, which means intellect. And principles (which is to say thinking) should drive how we analyze and approach problems.

If you're not swayed by emotionality of others, then maybe you should think about how others are affected by your emotional arguments.

To show you that I'm not pointing fingers here - I had a visceral hatred of the Harris government and especially their social programs, but eventually I had to accept evidence that some of their approaches were good, and that my emotional reaction prevented me from considering those ideas on an even basis.

You are implying that my arguments are based entirely in emotion. There is, undoubtedly emotion in my presentation, however my arguments, pro and con, you could hardly say appeal to emotion.

Are they real dollar increases though ? And where is the money coming from if we have cut taxes as we have ? I'm asking these questions because I really don't know the answers.

Are they real real dollar increases though? Admitting they are increases is enough. The real dollar increases is something that can be figured out.

Where is the money coming from if we have cut taxes? We haven't cut taxes overall, except for the Harper government has decreased the GST by 2%. Other than that I don't know of any general tax cuts. Some go up some go down but over the decades they tend to rise in general.

It is very difficult in Canada to get government to cut spending and cut taxes. The gun registry is an example of an area that could be cut - it's not much to cut but where would would you start without someone being outraged.

What ? You were saying that the workers were miserable. I don't understand what you're saying here - that the fact that they're miserable means that taxes are going to go up ? Huh ?

From what you hear from their union representatives you would think they were pretty hard done by but most of it is just to get a raise or another benefit or some privilege or more resources or smaller class sizes.

Are they happy? In order to be happy, Michael you have to be not just working you have to be achieving and producing what you want to produce. If educated students are the product I would say that they are not that happy. Some are really happy because they have a goal of indoctrinated students and some are happy because they can get the results of an educated child.

Generally, they cannot settle for being content or they won't get increases in their wages and/or benefits. Nothing wrong with that. You can't blame people for asking for more or trying to improve their lives in whatever way they can. The problem is that government has no measure for costs or value.

We could be getting very little value, as I believe we are, for the cost and there will not be any change for the better but there will be an increase in funding.

I am questioning the increase of social ills. There are more cocaine addicts than there were 60 years ago, of course, because there is more cocaine. There is also more longevity, less drunk driving, and more freedom to choose one's life partners.

Go ahead and question the increase. They are still with us despite government's promises to end them. Is government responsible for more longevity? Is there less drunk driving? That's questionable.

Freedom to choose one's life partner will also prove to be a greater social problem than if it had been left alone.

Pliny: I am concerned about the future not my misery. As you point out I must be comfortable in our society and relative to other nations I am but the progressive march of big government will not maintain the status quo with our society eventually unable to sustain itself.

These are bogeyman that are spooking you, not facts. It's ok with me, but I won't be drawn into your nightmare.

We have to have some vigilance against tyranny, Michael. Your wish to wear blinders is at odds with you being on this forum at all.

You're unable to argue this without thinking that I'm from government ? Strange.

What do you mean by being form government? You arereceviing some direct government benefit that doen's necessarily mean being form government.

No, I'm not an idealogue. Let's look at the wider view - how many people are Libertarians and how many people aren't ? It's a fringe viewpoint. Are so many people stupid that we would support a system that makes us collectively more and more miserable ?

No. We just want what we can get and if government will give us it why not. The only way to get is to whine and claim to be the biggest victim.

The negative impact seems to be largely your perception, not real.

A few points:

*Top tax rates are lower than in the past

*There is less government presence in crown corporations, such as oil and transportation

*Union membership is on a long, slow decline

Generally, life goes on.

One point. Government cannot provide anything without first extracting the wherewithal to do it from society.

By the way, Crown corporations are owned by governments I don't know how you get less governemnt presence in a crown coroporation.

The general voter recognizes Unions as being a special interest not concerned with their interests.

Since of them, the general voter, are not a part of the Union they more easily view them as being money grubbing protectors of high wages, benefits and sloth within it's ranks. There is no longer the love affair with Unions that made them popular in the first place.

Your assessment of things being doom and gloom doesn't gibe with what I see outside.

I don't see that outside either. I am more concerned with future generations and what they will see outside.

Yes, Canada sits somewhere in between California and Europe in terms of the amount of government present in peoples' lives. It is likely most people in Canada hold similar views to me because (probably) 95% are not Libertarians. In terms of "where we are headed"... the answer might be that we're going to crash... in a few hundred years. As you have pointed out, government constantly changes anyway and we're constantly going through deregulation, reregulation, tax increases and cuts... arguing and fighting all the way down the road.

But nobody is really arguing to get rid of government to the extent you are. To me, that idea is about 100 years old and not coming back anytime soon.

The ordinary citizen is smart enough to figure it out. I trust them. And I don't blame intellectuals or welfare recipients either.

We'll figure it out.

Your one redeeming value - The ordinary citizen is smart enough to figure it out. Most of the left wing looks upon the ordinary citizen as pretty dumb, fools and dullards.

I agree, we'll figure it out. But we can minimize the repercussions of our current enforced ignorance.

[Michael Hardner]

Pliny, we don't seem to be getting anywhere despite the long posts.

You accuse me of have blinders on, yet your arguments aren't based in accurate facts from what I can see.

I have pointed out many ways in which government has changed over time, and your responses discount them. By saying that real dollar increases aren't relevant, you're negating your own argument. You say that 100 years isn't very long in the course of history, but modern western democracy is only 240 years old or so. Is that just a flash in the pan ?

I would like to make progress on this, without having to spend 15 minutes on a post.

Why don't we start with me denying that I receive any government benefits ok ?

[Pliny]

Pliny, we don't seem to be getting anywhere despite the long posts.

You accuse me of have blinders on, yet your arguments aren't based in accurate facts from what I can see.

I have pointed out many ways in which government has changed over time, and your responses discount them. By saying that real dollar increases aren't relevant, you're negating your own argument. You say that 100 years isn't very long in the course of history, but modern western democracy is only 240 years old or so. Is that just a flash in the pan ?

I would like to make progress on this, without having to spend 15 minutes on a post.

Why don't we start with me denying that I receive any government benefits ok ?

You are right about the long posts there are quite a few points in them that, as I said, aren't even worth debating.

As for you receiving government benefits we will have to leave that one.

How about; where in the world modern western democracy is 240 years old?

[Michael Hardner]

You are right about the long posts there are quite a few points in them that, as I said, aren't even worth debating.

As for you receiving government benefits we will have to leave that one.

How about; where in the world modern western democracy is 240 years old?

We will have to "leave that one" ? What does that mean ? Your accusation is baseless, and if your argument depends on it then you've already lost.

Modern western democracy, I would say, starts with the 13 colonies declaration of independence, circa 1776 ?