Rabble etc.

[August1991]

I know most people are discussing the election but I just discovered this.

rabble.ca is an independent project of Alternatives, a Montreal-based NGO. We are also supported by our founding partner, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

rabble.ca

So I go over to www.alternatives.ca and read this:

Approximativement 50% de nos fonds proviennent des gouvernements (principalement l’Agence canadienne de développement international) le reste est recueilli auprès de nos 50 000 supporters et de groupes partenaires qui décident de s’associer à Alternatives (principalement des Églises et des syndicats).

I have no objection to churches giving money away like this. But I object to CIDA paying for this. And is this what union dues are intended for?

[maplesyrup]

Why are you against an attempt to level the playing field?

[Michael Hardner]

CIDA ?!?

I question how supporting a partisan Canadian political web forum is part of their mandate.

As for the unions, they can give money to whomever they want and Rabble.ca is a good site for people to gather and share information on helping organized labour in Canada.

[Argus]

Why are you against an attempt to level the playing field?

If you want to "level the playing field" whatever that is, don't do it with my money. This is just another example of how the federal government wastes untold millions and billions on crap that benefits almost no one. I don't mind paying for health care. I object to paying for crap like this, to refurbishing private docks and expanding golf courses, to sponsoring festivals and renovating hotels.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't mind paying for health care. I object to paying for crap like this, to refurbishing private docks and expanding golf courses, to sponsoring festivals and renovating hotels.

Hear, hear.

Although, to be fair, I doubt that Rabble costs more than a few thousand dollars to run every year.

This is another one of the stories that the National Post would like to hear about, I'm sure.

[maplesyrup]

Does a president of a corporation get permission from the shareholders prior to making a political contribution?

[Michael Hardner]

Does a president of a corporation get permission from the shareholders prior to making a political contribution?

I don't think the analogy is apt.

A better question might be: would the shareholders of a corporation be upset if they found out that the president spent company money to finance a campaign to lobby the board of directors for his reinstatement ?

[August1991]

Does a president of a corporation get permission from the shareholders prior to making a political contribution?

If the CEO does and I disagree, I can sell my shares.

But if I don't pay my taxes, I go to jail. The only way I can avoid union dues is by quitting my job.

The critical question is whether it is voluntary or not.

would the shareholders of a corporation be upset if they found out that the president spent company money to finance a campaign to lobby the board of directors for his reinstatement ?

Good analogy. And apt.

The Liberals used taxpayers' money to give generous contracts to advertising firms who in turn gave generous donations to the Liberal Party. This was the so-called dirty money Duceppe kept asking about and is the reason for the BQ's slogan, un parti propre au Québec. (That means both "Quebec's clean party" and "Quebec's own party".)

[maplesyrup]

You talk about a union decision as if it was not democratic.

For a union to make a donation to any organization there is a process for it. It is placed on the business meeting's agenda and the general membership of the union votes on it. It is a much more democratic approach that the way business operates.

It is ridiculous to always try and paint everything as black and white. We live in a world of many colours and shades.

[idealisttotheend]

This idea that corporations are the supremely democratic institution and that unions and democratic governments are horribly autocratic is really tiresome August.

If the CEO does and I disagree, I can sell my shares.

But if I don't pay my taxes, I go to jail. The only way I can avoid union dues is by quitting my job.

We just had an election where we got to decide which party(ies) got power in Ottawa therefore determining your tax rates and how they are used. Don't like your union dues? Vote to change them, elect a new union or get the damn thing de-certified. Is it easy, no, but it can be done if it's important enough to you.

Yes you vote for politicians on other issues and funding to rabble.ca is not likely to be a major election issue. But neither are you all that likely to sell your shares of a highly profitable bank because it makes a donation to the Cons, even if you disagree with the donation. In fact I doubt you'd know either way. Find ten friends with shares and then ask them how much their top holding spent on political actions, watch the blank stares.

Democracy is where you find it and where you are willing to work for it.

[Michael Hardner]

We just had an election where we got to decide which party(ies) got power in Ottawa therefore determining your tax rates and how they are used. Don't like your union dues? Vote to change them, elect a new union or get the damn thing de-certified. Is it easy, no, but it can be done if it's important enough to you.

Yes you vote for politicians on other issues and funding to rabble.ca is not likely to be a major election issue. But neither are you all that likely to sell your shares of a highly profitable bank because it makes a donation to the Cons, even if you disagree with the donation. In fact I doubt you'd know either way. Find ten friends with shares and then ask them how much their top holding spent on political actions, watch the blank stares.

Democracy is where you find it and where you are willing to work for it.

I disagree. The CBC has a hard enough time being neutral, but Rabble ? I do like it, but it shouldn't be funded, simple as that.

If the CPC was elected and started funding the Alberta Report, then I'd get pretty bloody angry... well, probably not but I'd harbour quiet resentment anyway...

[idealisttotheend]

I shouldn't say this without access to the number bu... I highly suspect that Alberta Report got more money from postal subsidies than rabble ever will from the federal government, postal subsidies are much more expensive than running a simple internet forum.

Everyone gets funding to some extent or another, even the rabidly anti-federal Alberta Report.

[Michael Hardner]

shouldn't say this without access to the number bu... I highly suspect that Alberta Report got more money from postal subsidies than rabble ever will from the federal government, postal subsidies are much more expensive than running a simple internet forum.

Everyone gets funding to some extent or another, even the rabidly anti-federal Alberta Report.

Well, sure. And they all use the roads that are subsidized by the government, etc. etc. But really...

I mean, is FreeDominion.ca subsidized by the government ? They're always crying poor, and saying they're going to shut down, etc.

Aren't the two sites just mirror images of one another ?

If any site should be funded, it's MapleLeafWeb...

Hey... Wait a second...

[Argus]

I shouldn't say this without access to the number bu... I highly suspect that Alberta Report got more money from postal subsidies than rabble ever will from the federal government, postal subsidies are much more expensive than running a simple internet forum.

Everyone gets funding to some extent or another, even the rabidly anti-federal Alberta Report.

You are not exactly making a good case here. That "everyone gets funding" is exactly what we're complaining about. NO ONE should get funding. The money the government takes from me - by force - should only be used on important projects in the national interest. It should not be frittered away on crap like this. Yes, maybe rabble.ca only gets a few thousands, but there are thousands and thousands and thousands of little grant and funding items like this in the budget every year, and they take up a huge chunk of cash which could either be used by me, or spent on neccessary projects.

[Argus]

You talk about a union decision as if it was not democratic.

For a union to make a donation to any organization there is a process for it. It is placed on the business meeting's agenda and the general membership of the union votes on it. It is a much more democratic approach that the way business operates.

It is ridiculous to always try and paint everything as black and white. We live in a world of many colours and shades.

Unions are democratic in theory. In reality, only a small fraction of the employees who are merely incidentally union members because of their employment every have anything to do with voting for the union leadership. And the fact is the unions like it that way. When my union wants to get people out to vote on something, like a strike vote, you can be sure we hear about it. They have no difficulty letting us know where and when the vote will be held.

But they never bother to let us know when local elections are being held, or what issues are being discussed. And they certainly never let us know when the local union reps are voting on higher level positions.

[Remus]

Does a president of a corporation get permission from the shareholders prior to making a political contribution?

If enough shareholders do not like what the CEO is doing they can fire him.

[August1991]

This idea that corporations are the supremely democratic institution and that unions and democratic governments are horribly autocratic is really tiresome August.

But that's exactly correct Idealist.

I just voted in an election and I just bought a cup of coffee. There is a supreme difference bewteen these two acts.

Imagine if all our decisions were taken by democratic vote; that is, imagine if we always decided as the majority desires.

The reason that is bad is because the minority will be forced to do as the majority chooses. (If I am not in a country of coffee drinkers, I lose.)

It gets worse. One person, one vote does not reflect the strength of one's opinion. Some people feel very strongly about environmental protection and others could care less. An election offers no way of indicating those feelings. (I absolutely love coffee and the others don't like it but could live with coffee if they had to.)

Last but not least, consider how much time and energy most people devote to deciding what car to buy compared with what party to vote for. They get a direct benefit from their car research. They get no benefit from their political research because their one vote will change nothing. (I'll let you go to all the trouble of forming the pro-coffee party, doing the costing estimates and so on. Then when you succeed, I get the benefit of coffee.)

Democratic elections are an extremely poor way to make collective decisions.

[idealisttotheend]

I just voted in an election and I just bought a cup of coffee. There is a supreme difference bewteen these two acts

Not entirely, the fact that you did both slightly disproves your point. You live in a democracy and you bought a cup of coffee. The democracy did not interfere with your free choice. I hate coffee but I don't have to drink it and like but you can drink it, we both live in a democracy under majority rule. If one party chose to regulate coffee drinking neither of us would vote for it.

In a democracy not all of our decisions are ever taken by democratic vote. Only certain key decisions governing general rules about how we make decisions are subject to majority rule.

It gets worse. One person, one vote does not reflect the strength of one's opinion.

I agree and I liked your idea of voting out of 100 pts or on a graded system. It would only work on a computerized system though. But then many many people would just vote 100 for the option they liked so maybe the ranked system is better. Either way one of the systems may be an improvement.

Democratic elections are an extremely poor way to make collective decisions

But better than all those other ones even still.

[August1991]

The democracy did not interfere with your free choice. I hate coffee but I don't have to drink it and like but you can drink it, we both live in a democracy under majority rule. If one party chose to regulate coffee drinking neither of us would vote for it.

Exactly, we don't decide coffee drinking by democratic vote. But the Liberals and NDP want to decide child care services, for example, that way. And going back to the purpose of this thread, the Liberals have decided that financing web sites like rabble.ca should be done this way.

My point is that we should make as few collective decisions this way as possible.

But better than all those other ones even still.

Free markets, as the coffee example illustrates, are an extremely good way of making collective decisions. But of course, markets don't always work.

[Reverend Blair]

NO ONE should get funding.

I agree. Why not cut off the oil companies first and any corporation with a foreign head office second? After that we can go after Canadian companies who use tax shelters in Bermuda. Then we can cut off the profitable Canadian corporations. Finally, we can just go about committing thuggery on men in suits.

I belonged to a union a long time ago. It wasn't democratic. It was a bad union. It wasn't the union that made it bad though, it was the members. Because I bothered to show up at the meetings they made me their unofficial rep. The shop steward was an idiot so they said, "Bring this up," and "Mention that." I did, but I was a nineteen year old kid that hated (and still hates) public speaking and I had exactly one vote to work with because nobody else ever bothered showing up.

I hear people slamming unions all the time and I keep thinking, "Yeah, you're the guy who got a teenager to voice your opinion and then didn't even show up to vote when the crunch was on."

[August1991]

Why not cut off the oil companies first and any corporation with a foreign head office second?

I suggest we start with the car companies and Bombardier. But the NDP would strongly object.

BTW, shareholders pay tax on any dividend earnings and capital gains. Corporate tax is double taxation.