BC votes to get rid of the HST

[msj]

You better hope the BC voter's have a short memory, and the BC Neo-Liberals don't call a fall election.

It depends on the arrogance of the Liberals.

They have many options:

1) Call an early election and fight it on the grounds of keeping the HST. I would likely vote for them but they would likely lose.

2) Call an early election and claim it is about other issues but be under suspicion that they are doing it to keep the HST in place. I would emphatically vote for anyone else besides the Liberals and NDP (I refuse to vote for the BC NDP under any circumstances).

3) Work to implement the PST/GST system again, as painful as that will be, and get it done before the next scheduled election (May 2013). By then the HST is a non-issue brought in by a former leader who isn't even in Canada anymore.

The Liberals listened to the people of BC will be the way they will be re-elected.

4) Accuse "stupid/ignorant" people of going against the HST, hold onto power feeling bitter until May, 2013 and then hold an election and likely lose.

The advantage of doing #3 is that is eliminates the BC Conservative party preventing any split of the right-wing vote.

I hope that's the way the go.

If it is then not only will I vote for them but I will re-join the party and help them fight in the election.

If they choose one of the other options, or a different option which looks just as bad, then they can burn just like the Socreds.

[CitizenX]

3) Work to implement the PST/GST system again, as painful as that will be, and get it done before the next scheduled election (May 2013). By then the HST is a non-issue brought in by a former leader who isn't even in Canada anymore.

The advantage of doing #3 is that is eliminates the BC Conservative party preventing any split of the right-wing vote.

I don't like the way they have handled the situation so far. A sincere apology for the handling of this whole fiasco on behalf of the whole party would go along way. I for one am not stupid enough to blame this HST clusterflux on one person, and then forgive the party when he is gone. Clark mishandled the problem just about as badly after taking office.

Note: I'm not an NDPer myself, and wish there were a real Liberal Party to vote for in BC. I don't care what name they use, the BC liberals are more Neo-Liberal/Conservative than Liberal. As usual I will vote for the lesser of two evils....the Canadian way

Edited August 29, 2011 by CitizenX

[msj]

I don't like the way they have handled the situation so far. A sincere apology for the handling of this whole fiasco on behalf of the whole party would go along way. I for one am not stupid enough to blame this HST clusterflux on one person, and then forgive the party when he is gone. Clark mishandled the problem just about as badly after taking office.

Note: I'm not an NDPer myself, and wish there were a real Liberal Party to vote for in BC. I don't care what name they use, the BC liberals are more Neo-Liberal/Conservative than Liberal. As usual I will vote for the lesser of two evils....the Canadian way

Well, if Gordon Campbell were still leader I would be one of only a few hundred still happy to vote for him.

By the time May, 2013 comes around the BC Liberals can make the HST a non-issue simply by "listening to the people."

As for you, I doubt very much you would vote for anyone but the NDP.

[CitizenX]

By the time May, 2013 comes around the BC Liberals can make the HST a non-issue simply by "listening to the people."

As for you, I doubt very much you would vote for anyone but the NDP.

Well you might just be right about the HST being a non-issue simply by "listening to the people", time will tell. People still haven't forgiven the Federal Liberals for their scandal.

As for me voting for the NDP, I might have to vote for them but believe me I am not an NDPer. Living in Kelowna, a major conservative/Neo-Liberal strong hold, my vote doesn't count for anything. I am a Libertarian (Not the American version ) and have no party that represents my views. I mean what party runs on reducing their necessity. I will forever be stuck picking the lesser of two evils.

Edited August 29, 2011 by CitizenX

[Bonam]

Well you might just be right about the HST being a non-issue simply by "listening to the people", time will tell. People still haven't forgiven the Federal Liberals for their scandal.

As for me voting for the NDP, I might have to vote for them but believe me I am not an NDPer. I am a Libertarian (Not the American version ) and have no party that represents my views. I mean what party runs on reducing their necessity. I will forever be stuck picking the lesser of two evils.

Based on the views you've expressed throughout various threads, you're no libertarian.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Bonam

[CitizenX]

Based on the views you've expressed throughout various threads, you're no libertarian.

Such as, and don't confuse me with the American Libertarian Right Version.

Edited August 29, 2011 by CitizenX

[TimG]

Such as

Libertarians don't demonize corporations. They see them as an essential part of a free market economy.

[CitizenX]

Libertarians don't demonize corporations. They see them as an essential part of a free market economy.

See there you go confusing me with the American Libertarian Right Version. There is such thing as The Libertarian Left. But this is off topic, and not about me.

Edited August 29, 2011 by CitizenX

[TimG]

There is such thing as The Libertarian Left. But this is off topic, and not about me.

It is not the "American Libertarian Right" philosophy is the original meaning of the word Liberal. According to wikipedia left-Libertarianism is basically warmed over Communism. You would be better off calling yourself a Communist since it would be more descriptive. Edited August 29, 2011 by TimG

[CitizenX]

It is not the "American Libertarian Right" philosophy is the original meaning of the word Liberal. According to wikipedia left-Libertarianism is basically warmed over Communism. You would be better off calling yourself a Communist since it would be more descriptive.

I think this show how little you understand the philosophy. Again Off topic, and I'm sorry for even bringing it up.

[TimG]

I think this show how little you understand the philosophy. Again Off topic, and I'm sorry for even bringing it up.

Here is the wiki definition:

Left-libertarianism is a group of libertarian political philosophies which have an egalitarian view concerning natural resources, holding that it is not legitimate for someone to claim private ownership of such resources to the detriment of others. Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. The two terms are often used interchangeably.

Libertarian socialism is opposed to all coercive forms of social organization, and promotes free association in place of government and opposes what it sees as the coercive social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor

Communism. The Hippy version.

[CitizenX]

Here is the wiki definition:

Communism. The Hippy version.

Look this is off topic. If you would like to have a debate or learn what the libertarian lefts real views are, or why Corporations are Evil, start another topic. I'll check back tomorrow.

Edited August 29, 2011 by CitizenX

[Bonam]

Look this is off topic. If you would like to have a debate or learn what the libertarian lefts real views are, or why Corporations are Evil, start another topic. I'll check back tomorrow.

A debate on why corporations are evil? Hardly a debate, when it starts with a premise like that. Corporations are just groups of people working together within a certain legal framework towards a given goal or set of goals, one of which is usually to make money. They do this by providing a product or service other people are willing to pay money for. Hardly evil.

[TimG]

Corporations are just groups of people working together within a certain legal framework towards a given goal or set of goals, one of which is usually to make money.

He is a "libertarian" that does not believe in freedom of association. I was rather surprised to find out this bizarro "left-libertarianism" even exists. Seems more like a "surfer dude" philosophy where they believe everyone should be free to smoke dope while someone else pays the bills...

[Bonam]

He is a "libertarian" that does not believe in freedom of association. I was rather surprised to find out this bizarro "left-libertarianism" even exists. Seems more like a "surfer dude" philosophy where they believe everyone should be free to smoke dope while someone else pays the bills...

Sounds like a way for hippies to try to sound smart by using long words like "libertarian" more than anything else. Apparently "left-libertarians" don't believe in the right to private property either. That's like a capitalist that doesn't believe in free markets or a Christian that doesn't believe in God.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Bonam

[Smallc]

No, because there is more to taxation then some economist promising people that this tax is good because of X,Y, and Z.

Why, though? If people know something is good, and they aren't stupid (and I think that a lot of people are stupid on many issues), why would they vote against it? Why should they need convincing? I don't think that if people know what they're talking about, they should need convincing.

I'm sorry, I just think that people in BC made a really bad decision that isn't good for the country economically at a time when we don't need bad economic news.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Smallc

[msj]

Why, though? If people know something is good, and they aren't stupid (and I think that a lot of people are stupid on many issues), why would they vote against it? Why should they need convincing? I don't think that if people know what they're talking about, they should need convincing.

I'm sorry, I just think that people in BC made a really bad decision that isn't good for the country economically at a time when we don't need bad economic news.

I think the bigger problem is calling anti-HST people stupid in the first place - which certainly was done in these forums and in real life.

I recommend Dale Carnegie 101: How to Win Friends and Influence People.

If you don't understand that it takes more than a good idea, even rational sense, to convince people of something then it is you who is the stupid one....

Hence, my comment above about this being as much political as economic.

The pro-HST side never did grasp the political side and lost the referendum as a result. So any claims to intelligence is dubious, at best.

We lost and there's no point going down looking like sore losers by calling the winners "stupid" or "ignorant."

Edited August 29, 2011 by msj

[wolfd]

I think the federal government should send a bill of $400 to each person in BC for reimbursement of the $1.6 billion subsidy. Why should other Canadians pay for the folly of BC voters?

----

Socialists/Leftists should draw a great lesson from this referendum: most people want others to pay for collective costs.

The feds surely will be asking for the return of the $1.6Billion.

[bloodyminded]

Here is the wiki definition:

Communism. The Hippy version.

A "stateless society" cannot be "Communism," hippy or otherwise.

Funny that you'd use the word "definition" in the same post you make this colossal error in definition.

Edited August 29, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Libertarians don't demonize corporations. They see them as an essential part of a free market economy.

No, this is thanks to ideological hijacking by contemporary right-wing self-styled "libertarians"...the type who oppose government tyranny, but usually (often unconsciously, to their credit) support privatized, business-oriented tyranny...that is, they support tyrannical entities that aren't even elected or accountable.

"Libertarianism" predates corporations, so corproations cannot be an integral part of the philosophy.

Edited August 29, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

A debate on why corporations are evil? Hardly a debate, when it starts with a premise like that. Corporations are just groups of people working together within a certain legal framework towards a given goal or set of goals, one of which is usually to make money. They do this by providing a product or service other people are willing to pay money for. Hardly evil.

I agree wholeheartedly that the word "evil" is completely inappropriate and obfuscating.

However, your definition is no good, as it presupposes a context-free vacuum.

The point of most anti-corporate theorizing is based entirely (almost 100%) on two main premises, and a lesser (but growing) one: (1) serious issues with wage-work in and of itself; (2) the fact that wealth and power give individuals (and small groups of like-minded individuals) vastly disproportionate political power and influence...which is an inherent democratic deficit for society; and, more recently, environmental issues, though to be fair corporations differ astronomically on their effects in this realm.

In my personal view, #2 is far and away the most important.

[bloodyminded]

Sounds like a way for hippies to try to sound smart by using long words like "libertarian" more than anything else. Apparently "left-libertarians" don't believe in the right to private property either. That's like a capitalist that doesn't believe in free markets or a Christian that doesn't believe in God.

since right-wing libertarians are often more or less religiously-predisposed to their astonishingly contradictory ideology (which in many ways is distinctly opposed to individual freedom)...your analogy is rather apt.

[Black Dog]

Back to the topic at hand, it's depressing to think that people don't understand the difference between voting out the tax and voting out the Liberal Party that implemented it. Dummies indeed.

[msj]

Back to the topic at hand, it's depressing to think that people don't understand the difference between voting out the tax and voting out the Liberal Party that implemented it. Dummies indeed.

I agree with the first sentiment to the extent that some people probably did not, and are not capable of, distinguishing the two.

I don't claim to know all the reasons why people voted against the HST.

The second sentiment is just plain being a sore loser.

If we want to keep the NDP out of power it's not a good idea to call nearly 55% of interested voters "stupid," "ignorant" or "dummies" otherwise we will be the "stupid" ones for underestimating the anger and not extinguishing it prior to the next election.

[CitizenX]

Back to the topic at hand, it's depressing to think that people don't understand the difference between voting out the tax and voting out the Liberal Party that implemented it. Dummies indeed.

I don't understand what you mean. They are connected, it was a tax that the majority didn't want, and it was implemented in a deceitful manner by the Liberal Party. A strike against the tax, and a strike against the Liberal Party. Who is the dummy?