Canadians Ready to Open Consitution

Battletoads · May 30, 2011

Ah, the "popular equals right" position.

So you're saying the population doesn't deserve to be consulted about sweeping changes to the constitution?

g_bambino · May 30, 2011

So you're saying the population doesn't deserve to be consulted about sweeping changes to the constitution?

Show me where I said that and I'll answer your question.

g_bambino · May 30, 2011

But we do have an opportunity for change here, and to say "it's not possible, don't bother trying" is just letting "them" win. I prefer to win but if I have to lose I at least like to go down with a good fight, maybe I can only weaken "them" a little bit but then maybe someone else can come along after me and do more damage, and eventually someone else can finish the job.

We always have the opportunity to change; because we collectively don't opt to change things much doesn't mean we can't. I imagine most just don't sense this "them" that we're supposed to rise up against; I certainly don't. We live - like every other inhabitant of a democratic state on this planet - in a representative democracy. We have leaders that we must keep our eyes on, but that is because those people are accountable to the citizenry, they hold their posts at our behest. If there's any change needed at a large scale, it's only that Canadians should be more educated on their system of government, so that they know who can do what and why and therefore judge their performance and approve or disapprove. Some unwieldly, messy, and practically impossible direct democracy is not an improvement, especially when entirely unnecessary.

CPCFTW · May 30, 2011

My own Mutualist philosophy is very much nationalistic while still being very much socialistic - there are no free rides, you work and therefore you succeed.

There are even different classes, though laws would ensure a maximum "salary gap" between the highest and lowest classes to prevent monopolization of wealth.

The end result would satisfy most "welfare state" advocates while still providing more or less the same capitalist corporatocracy we are so used too now, only with the current power-balance reversed and with it being profitable for the entire society instead of a small minority within it.

Oh sweet, where do I sign up? But wait, my own philosophy is a society where there are different classes, and you work, therefore you succeed, but the end result is a society where everyone is billionaires!! Class differences will only be measured by the amount of Ferraris you own. But people these days just don't care to understand my system!

But people these days don't care to understand the systems that they don't already know and support, they just dismiss them with the common buzzwords of "communist", "fascist", etc. which gives them all the excuses they need to not take the time to intelligently review them.

Or maybe because that "system" is just a vague 50 word description of a dream utopian society.

Edited May 30, 2011 by CPCFTW

Battletoads · May 30, 2011

Show me where I said that and I'll answer your question.

You quite clearly implied that the opinion of the majority has little meaning.

g_bambino · May 30, 2011

You quite clearly implied that the opinion of the majority has little meaning.

I don't see where I did any such thing. My point was that what's popularly thought to be true isn't always true and what's popularly thought to be best isn't always best.

CPCFTW · May 30, 2011

You quite clearly implied that the opinion of the majority has little meaning.

He implied that the majority is not always right. How does that equate to saying that "the population doesn't deserve to be consulted". :rolleyes:

Edited May 30, 2011 by CPCFTW

ConservativelyRadical · May 30, 2011

We always have the opportunity to change; because we collectively don't opt to change things much doesn't mean we can't. I imagine most just don't sense this "them" that we're supposed to rise up against; I certainly don't. We live - like every other inhabitant of a democratic state on this planet - in a representative democracy. We have leaders that we must keep our eyes on, but that is because those people are accountable to the citizenry, they hold their posts at our behest. If there's any change needed at a large scale, it's only that Canadians should be more educated on their system of government, so that they know who can do what and why and therefore judge their performance and approve or disapprove. Some unwieldly, messy, and practically impossible direct democracy is not an improvement, especially when entirely unnecessary.

That's your opinion and that is fine, but I think people like you are quite blind to what is obvious to anyone who has interest in actually researching political history over the past 100 years or so in any kind of depth(beyond just what the official history text books say).

I would suggest reading a book entitled "Tehran, Our Path in War and Peace" written by Earl Browder, then one of the leaders of the Communist Party of America.

Then read the transcripts from President Truman's first inauguration speech a few years later, specifically his "Point 4 Plan" to "save the world from Communism". A plan that was followed in some form or other by every President that followed him, Conservative or Liberal.

As Douglas Reed eloquently put it:

There must be in America under President Truman, as under President Roosevelt, some group or force strong or persuasive enough to sell Communist aims to political leaders and simultaneously to convince them that these will stop Communism.

The plan to save the world from communism is the exact same plan the communists wanted to use to build a socialist global empire?

If you want to establish a socialistic globalized "New World Order" that everyone would naturally be opposed to what better way than to claim you are doing it to combat socialism and have everyone embrace it instead of fighting it.

Our government can create a series of giant industrial development corporations, each in partnership with some other government or group of governments, and set them to work upon large-scale plans of railroad and highway building, agricultural and industrial development, and all-round modernization in all the devastated and undeveloped areas of the world."

Although referring mainly to Africa...

"Closely related socially, economically and politically with Africa are the Near Eastern countries of Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Trans-Jordan. Here also a broad program of economic development is called for."

Welcome to the age of the "New Imperialism", the "Old World Order" of the British Empire is long dead and the monarchists and national banking cabals have been replaced by an international banking cabal that achieved more than the old monarchists ever could have dreamed of in a very short period of time(Boer War - 1899 till now).

Today the United Nations is funneling money from the developed world into Africa and other underdeveloped places, supported by virtually every government and every party within those governments around the world.

The U.N force behind all of it's social and economic policies is the U.N Economic and Social Council(ECOSOC), which is made up of smaller commissions from around the world - the most powerful of those being the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia(ESCWA).

http://www.escwa.un.org/

http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/index.shtml

In depth research will reveal that the ESCWA, like all ECOSOC commissions is a privately registered corporation, in the financial services(banking) industry, controlled by the 'same old' international bankers so familiar to "conspiracy theorists".

When you understand how the bankers use huge loans to enslave 3rd world countries and how the U.N is funneling money into Africa and other 3rd countries that were already enslaved to pay off the huge debts owed to the very people running the U.N, then you will see why I am opposed to "them".

Our government, regardless of party affiliations fully and totally supports this policy.

So they are now using other people's taxpayer money to pay off those 3rd world country's debts to them, but in actuality in most cases that money barely covers the interest on the debts owed so the countries remain enslaved but a small minority gets very rich assisting the bankers and corporations in exploiting that country as much as possible for profit.

It's the interest that always gets you.

"Them" may not be evil, but their plans are not in the interests of the majority of people, either here in Canada or in the entire world.

In 1917 the Russians were tricked by turning one single group into 2 separate public identities - the Bolsheviks and the Mishneviks, which literally meant majority(bigger or larger) and minority.

Neither the Bolsheviks nor the Mishneviks represented the Russian majority's interests, they represented the interests of only about 5% of the population - but using the press/media that they controlled they "focused" the people's attention in a way that led to the belief that only 2 groups represented the common Russian man against the imperialist Romanov royal family - the Bolsheviks and the Mishneviks, the former being in favor of radical, violent change the later more slow and "moderate" change - but both with the same end goals.

The Bolshevik's won out after annihilating the Romanov's using foreign assassins and they the media spun their tales and the Russian people thought they had a "majority revolution", but it only was a revolution for a majority of members of a small minority section of the Russian society. A majority of 5% of the population is not a majority of the people, just a majority of the plutocrats.

Sound familiar?

Today we have a corporate media which represents the interests of a small minority above all else, but everyone thinks we're all represented equally even if we don't completely trust the corporate media.

Nothing has changed, the PR has just gotten better over the years.

Conspiracy theories aside, "they" are "international money" which does not have the Canadian people's national interests in mind, and "they" are bankrolling almost all of the political parties, think tanks and NGO's here just like everywhere else.

You may not have a problem with that, but some of us do.

ConservativelyRadical · May 30, 2011

Or maybe because that "system" is just a vague 50 word description of a dream utopian society.

I could post an approximately 4,000 word far from complete rough draft I only recently began working on, but would you really read it?

Honestly?

I didn't think so...

Besides, it is far from done and is fractured right now as I am more concerned with getting the ideas laid out rather than ordering or organizing them in a "flowing" format that is easily readable.

If I posted it in that condition 99% of the arguments would be nitpicking over that irrelevant crap and ignoring the actual important stuff, and I would prefer to at least have it more than half-way completed in rough draft form before publicizing it in any way.

But it gives a general idea anyways, with some of the details worked out generally speaking - but the involvement of direct democracy means it is subject to a lot of "as the people decide".

I could post it in the philosophy section if you really are honestly going to read it all the way through and try to understand and provide constructive criticism on it.

CPCFTW · May 30, 2011

What is your educational background? If it is something more than a 21 yr old in your 2nd year of a social sciences program, then I might consider reading it.

ConservativelyRadical · May 30, 2011

What is your educational background? If it is something more than a 21 yr old in your 2nd year of a social sciences program, then I might consider reading it.

No offense, but if that is your viewpoint I don't really care for your opinions on it too much.

I'm not providing a lecture or an academic paper for a peer-reviewed service on socioeconomic's, macro/microeconomics or human resource management based on existing geopolitical frameworks or anything like that, this a philosophy issue more than anything else.

The Mutualist system is basically a political paradigm, an amalgamation of numerous other systems combining what I personally consider to be some of the best aspects of those systems, while ignoring the worse aspects.

There is little that a standard education could assist with on this matter beyond basic understanding of economics and sociology and such, interpreting a completely new paradigm based on parameters set by one or more existing paradigms when those systems themselves would be subject to a "paradigm shift" is a heavily flawed way of doing things that does not give the new paradigm a "fair shake".

I could be a 70 year old professor of Political Sciences at a prestigious college or university, I could be a 30 year old high-school drop out who decided he didn't like his education interfering with his learning(to steal a line from Einstein), or I could be 18 and live in a box down the street after flunking out of elementary school and failing at everything my whole life.

My status and/or credentials are irrelevant to this matter as also are yours, every person living in Canada and who is affected by the politics here has a valid opinion that should be heard in full no matter how you or I personally feel about it.

Maybe they have one really good idea that could really help society and that everyone of all political creeds would greatly support mixed in with a bunch of really stupid ideas, but in dismissing them all as stupid and not giving them any intelligent review at all nobody will ever know about that great idea that could help us so much.

Unless the general public are complete imbeciles they should be able to recognize really bad ideas using nothing but commonsense, but if that fails those with the intelligence to understand the problems can use the media and internet and what have you to reach out and educate the general public on the matter. Generally you don't need to protect people from stupidity, as long as you aren't encouraging it.

If that fails, we find a smarter country to move to... I hear the Norwegians offer a fairly intelligent and open society. :lol:

Anyways, I have no doubt you will disagree with about 90% or more of what my "Mutualist Manifesto" suggests, but I do have some "alternate" more moderate ideas to go along with it for corporate reform, monetary reform and legal reform that have invoked a positive reaction(to varying degrees, with many offering their own suggestions as well - which I fully welcome) from almost everyone I have discussed it with regardless of their political orientation, credentials or social status.

Often in politics an expert opinion is worth less than an amateurish one, because the "expert" has been "taught" to think in a certain way that excludes many legitimate possibilities from the get-go.

One of the ways the "existing social and political order"(to quote the U.S D.H.S) maintains it's "order" is through the use of the Delphi Technique, which is essentially a system whereby "expert opinions" are used to establish "accepted facts" of the "consensus community" in order to manipulate group dynamics to create supposed "one-mindedness" in a manner similar to the old Hegelian 3 body system of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

Some info on Delphi -

http://www.rand.org/international_programs/pardee/pubs/futures_method/delphi.html

For the U.S.A political system for example the thesis would be "right wing Americanism", the antithesis would be "left wing Americanism", and the synthesis is "Americanism".

Americanism is determined by "expert opinions" and the media representation of it and those experts, as long as your views fall within the accepted boundaries of "Americanism" you can be left wing or right wing and your opinion matters.

But if your views fall outside those accepted boundaries of "Americanism" you are a traitor, un-American, your opinion is worthless and there is no reason to listen to you.

It creates "false one-mindedness" only as in reality anyone that doesn't accept that "one mind" just gets ejected from the society completely and "doesn't count".

Regardless of any credentials or social status or "wisdom gleaned through age" that I may or may not be in physical or intellectual possession of I personally and my political views absolutely 100% fall outside of the accepted Canadian "one-mindedness", and as such as I said before I have no delusions of any changes as such becoming reality in the near future.

My goal right now is to work with people of all political persuasions, social statuses, levels of educations and what have you to develop a theoretical system that can best meet everyone's needs and desires, without becoming a massive, tangled mess of bureaucracy.

Direct democracy is the only way to cut down on the bureaucratic horse shit while still maintaining a true democracy, but again there needs to be a combination of systems in order for it to work properly.

Regardless most people do agree some kind of reform is in order, and reviewing all the options from moderate to extreme is the smart thing to do. Maybe a compromise between aspects of an extreme reform and aspects of a more moderate one can be attained that will satisfy everyone, which again if we don't review all the options we may never know.

PS - I apologize for any grammatical errors or if I made any blatantly stupid errors of any kind, I'm a bit tired and splitting my focus on a few things right now.

bush_cheney2004 · May 30, 2011

....My goal right now is to work with people of all political persuasions, social statuses, levels of educations and what have you to develop a theoretical system that can best meet everyone's needs and desires, without becoming a massive, tangled mess of bureaucracy.

Yet it would seem that you have already fallen into the usual trap and political framework (i.e. several references to the specific American experience and paradigm)...from Canada. This would seem to undermine your stated universal goal. How will your "mutualist manifesto" rise above that which we have seen and read many times before?

CPCFTW · May 30, 2011

No offense, but if that is your viewpoint I don't really care for your opinions on it too much.

The reason I ask is because I used to have delusions of knowing what's best for the world too. I used to think communism could have worked with the right implementation. That was probably when i was 19-20 in my 1st year of university. I think it's common for any moderately intelligent person in that age group to think they have the world figured out.

Shwa · May 30, 2011

I could post an approximately 4,000 word far from complete rough draft I only recently began working on, but would you really read it?
...

I could post it in the philosophy section if you really are honestly going to read it all the way through and try to understand and provide constructive criticism on it.

Why not post excerpts of the salient points of your philosophy? No need to post 20 pages when you can say asmuch in 4 or 5. For instance, there is no need to provide detailed reasons why a thing ought to be as you say, other than a simple citation.

Jerry J. Fortin · May 30, 2011

Why not post excerpts of the salient points of your philosophy? No need to post 20 pages when you can say asmuch in 4 or 5. For instance, there is no need to provide detailed reasons why a thing ought to be as you say, other than a simple citation.

That would serve to nitpick some individuals work given that it is only a draft, likely composed of salient points anyway. In my view there are many who would choose to oppose change out of spite alone. What we have now is bad enough those same folks may say. I would think that prior to any functional attempt to open that can of worms the government of the day would be seeking some specific measure or alteration to begin with. I am not aware that such an animal exists at the moment.

Michael Hardner · May 30, 2011

In any case, the thread isn't really about Mutualism. Perhaps CR can start a separate thread about his ideas ?

I'm just housekeeping here.

g_bambino · May 30, 2011

I think people like you are quite blind to what is obvious to anyone who has interest in actually researching political history over the past 100 years or so in any kind of depth(beyond just what the official history text books say).

Ah, so you're a conspiracy theorist with inside knowledge of the "truth" about "them". Got it.

Shwa · May 30, 2011

That would serve to nitpick some individuals work given that it is only a draft, likely composed of salient points anyway. In my view there are many who would choose to oppose change out of spite alone. What we have now is bad enough those same folks may say. I would think that prior to any functional attempt to open that can of worms the government of the day would be seeking some specific measure or alteration to begin with. I am not aware that such an animal exists at the moment.

Still I'd like to see if there is a measure of congruence to what we have now or something transcendent without having to wade through an entire manifesto.

Shwa · May 30, 2011

In any case, the thread isn't really about Mutualism. Perhaps CR can start a separate thread about his ideas ?

I'm just housekeeping here.

Sure, but if you open the Constitution, it can get quite 'drafty.' All ideas should be welcome yes? Or is there a limit as to how wide we open things up or that some ideas should be excluded at this opening?

Michael Hardner · May 30, 2011

Sure, but if you open the Constitution, it can get quite 'drafty.' All ideas should be welcome yes? Or is there a limit as to how wide we open things up or that some ideas should be excluded at this opening?

All ideas are included, but at a certain point the discussion warrants a new thread. Mutualism seems to be an overarching approach to direct democracy and as such it may need a new thread for CR to explain it an entertain questions.

ConservativelyRadical · May 30, 2011

All ideas are included, but at a certain point the discussion warrants a new thread. Mutualism seems to be an overarching approach to direct democracy and as such it may need a new thread for CR to explain it an entertain questions.

This is the truth, I must apologize for getting off topic here.

I just wanted to lay out some basic "Mutualist" principles that had some bearing on constitutional and governmental reform and see if there was interest to start a separate discussion on it in general, but obviously things got carried away. I will start a separate thread as originally intended within a few days to discuss that, I want to get what I have drafted on it organized a bit better first to make it easier to read and address.

But the other points I threw into the mix with all that off-topic stuff about how all the options from moderate to extreme should be considered and reviewed fully before any conclusions are drawn does absolutely have bearing on this discussion.

No matter what happens I do personally consider the fact most Canadians are willing to at least consider changing things today in a serious manner to be a positive sign, even if it ends up falling flat in the end.

I am one of those people that likes to push for constant advancement or "evolution" of political ideology and philosophy, the people who say our system is "good enough" as it is so there is no need to change things are no different than people who say "black and white T.V was good enough, why advance things?", or "the Ford Model-T got people where they needed to go so it was good enough, why advance things?".

A hole in the ground was "good enough", why did we need to invent the modern toilet?

To strive for constant advancement in almost every realm and then turn around and look at a political system that clearly has big issues, that serves the interests of a minority first and foremost, that many if not most Canadians are not satisfied with and say "it's good enough, why would we want to change it?" is just plain stupid to me. I honestly don't understand it.

Even if that change ends up being minor this opportunity gives us a chance to at least slightly improve at least one aspect of the system that the majority are not satisfied with, we should embrace that and make sure we do it right.

Wild Bill · May 30, 2011

What is your educational background? If it is something more than a 21 yr old in your 2nd year of a social sciences program, then I might consider reading it.

It's been my life experience of 58 years that says when you've asked a question by posing a premise and Mr. Radical dodges you for an answer, your premise is most likely correct! :lol:

Michael Hardner · May 30, 2011

It's been my life experience of 58 years that says when you've asked a question by posing a premise and Mr. Radical dodges you for an answer, your premise is most likely correct!

Fine, but having an education or a background in the topic is not a prerequisite for discussion here. The ideas themselves should prove themselves in the arena of debate, or die a proper death.

I'm always highly suspicious of "arguments by authority". When a non-expert asks me a question about something I'm knowledgeable in, I don't shut them down but rather I try to educate them as to where my ideas come from.

ConservativelyRadical · May 30, 2011

It's been my life experience of 58 years that says when you've asked a question by posing a premise and Mr. Radical dodges you for an answer, your premise is most likely correct!

I didn't dodge his question, I provided 3 possibilities for what I may be and one of those was mostly true(the age is a bit off).

My response got convoluted and maybe the point was lost, but I simply meant to ask him why it matters to him personally what my educational background or credentials are?

I thought I was on a public discussion forum, not at an inquisition where only an "expert" may testify before the court... :unsure:

I live in Canada and am directly affected by political issues pertaining to Canada as such, thus I have the right to an opinion on political matters that affect me directly regardless of whether you or anyone else likes my "credentials" or agrees with my opinions.

If you don't agree with me that is fine, but at least find out enough about what my idea's are in full so you actually know what you are disagreeing with me over.

My education is "questionable" by professional standards no doubt, if that is reason enough to dismiss me entirely then that is each individual's choice, though I do think it is ironic that such dogmatic mannerisms are clearly anti-intellectual and typically the symbol of ignorance, not "education".

Anyways, that's enough on that here, I have to go for a few hours but when I get back I'll get a thread started to discuss some of this in a proper location.

Wild Bill · May 30, 2011

Fine, but having an education or a background in the topic is not a prerequisite for discussion here. The ideas themselves should prove themselves in the arena of debate, or die a proper death.

I'm always highly suspicious of "arguments by authority". When a non-expert asks me a question about something I'm knowledgeable in, I don't shut them down but rather I try to educate them as to where my ideas come from.

I agree with you about "arguments by authority". It always amazes me how the average citizen will believe any unscientific claptrap if it's delivered to him by someone in a white lab coat! Like how CFL's will save you money on your electricity bill.

I just bought my own home and got some appliances. I insisted on getting a gas stove and dryer. McGuinty can say whatever he likes but the very structure of his approach to electricity in Ontario means that the price to the consumer HAS to go up, by a LOT!

However, there is a commonality of thinking in certain age ranges that can't be denied. Younger people usually are more than smart enough to ingest a huge amount of data but they lack the life experience to qualify much of it. This can't help but make their input in many areas kind of "samey" to someone older. It's not because age brings any more innate intelligence. Sadly, usually it's the opposite. It's just that over the years we inevitably see many of our premises accepted in our youth actually tested in the real world and fail!

That's why often people of very little formal education can actually be very wise.

I'm not defending the "attack by authority", Michael. Just pointing out that there is some justification for it. When you've read a few "Watch Tower" magazines and seen the logic of their arguments, is it reasonable to demand that you give every and all new issues of that magazine the benefit of the doubt? You would be forced to waste your time forever!

Where do you draw the line? Is it not reasonable to discount constant arguments that are all so very similar?