BC votes to get rid of the HST

[Smallc]

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.

Not really. People shouldn't need to be pandered to if they actually understand the benefits of something. People make stupid decisions based on ignorance often. This is one of those occasions. I'm not trying to win any friends. I understand how to convince people. i sell things for a living. People just often don't know what they're talking about, and that's the reality of our world.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Smallc

[CitizenX]

Not really. People shouldn't need to be pandered to if they actually understand the benefits of something. People make stupid decisions based on ignorance often. This is one of those occasions. I'm not trying to win any friends. I understand how to convince people. i sell things for a living. People just often don't know what they're talking about, and that's the reality of our world.

I get the sense that you would be happier living under a dictatorship. That way these stupid people wouldn't even have a vote (for their own good). You and the corporate elite know whats best for them. Just go to work for them, buy their crap, and shut up right?

Edited August 29, 2011 by CitizenX

[Smallc]

I get the sense that you would be happier living under a dictatorship.

No, I'd be happier living under a more informed society...unfortunately, none really exist.

[Wild Bill]

I get the sense that you would be happier living under a dictatorship. That way these stupid people wouldn't even have a vote (for their own good). You and the corporate elite know whats best for them. Just go to work for them, buy their crap, and shut up right?

You seem to be implying that the "people" are always right! Nothing could be further from the truth!

As a group, society believes more of what they are taught by Oprah and Dr. Phil. Huge numbers of people believe in astrology. If they have decided they don't trust someone no amount of evidence will change their minds. Look at Mulroney, for example. There is a lot of iffiness about the accusations that he was crooked but millions of Canadians believe it, no matter what evidence you might drag up.

Don't misunderstand me, however. I'm the guy who became a Reformer mostly because of their populist philosophy!

I believe that the people should have a far more direct political influence, with referenda being routine. I liked the idea that an MP sound be continually trying to take the pulse of opinion with the majority of his riding constituents and vote according to their wishes, not his or that of the party's.

You see, how can people learn if they are never allowed to make a mistake? Sure sometimes people will make a dumb choice, especially in the beginning of a more populist system. I KNOW that initially some bonehead decisions will be made! However, constant reality checks will help to educate the people. Look at some of the European countries, like Greece or Ireland. They were all for running up their national debt by means of their politicians' promises. Now they are getting a reality check, perhaps a very, very painful one.

Good, I say! They will learn and be the better for it!

We should be doing the same here.

[CitizenX]

No, I'd be happier living under a more informed society...unfortunately, none really exist.

Well I'd like to argue with you but...you might be right :angry:

Plato on democracy - "A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers".

Edited August 30, 2011 by CitizenX

[dre]

Well I'd like to argue with you but...you might be right :angry:

Plato on democracy - "A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers".

Plato also wanted to keep the "knowledge" from "the numbers" as well. He believed only the philsopers were fit to know the truth and the public should just be told what they needed to hear to support what the ruling class wanted to do.

Our society IS very Platonian in that way.

What the political class in the west has achieved has been the holy grail for philosophers for thousands of years. The sheer master over the population, and the way they have been able to negate the power of populism by dividing people around fairly arbitrary and meaningless concepts like "Left VS Right" will have philosophy students in awe thousands of years from now.

[TimG]

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

A hippy commune is a stateless form of communism. All property is owned by the collective. You need to create a state for communism to work on a scale larger than a village.

You do not appear to know what the word communism means.

[CitizenX]

A hippy commune is a stateless form of communism. All property is owned by the collective. You need to create a state for communism to work on a scale larger than a village.

You do not appear to know what the word communism means.

Do communists believe in a Free market?

[Bonam]

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;

What kind of issues with "wage-work"? How else do you propose that most people get compensated for their work other than by being paid a wage? Not everyone can be an entrepreneur and be their own boss, it's just not within everyone's level of ability and motivation. I used to have some ambition of starting my own company but after seeing how my boss (the company owner/founder) works pretty much 16 hours a day 7 days a week, I thought better of it.

(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;

Ok, but people having wealth and power and using that to influence politics has nothing to do with the inherent morality of corporations. Rich people existed before corporations, as did groups of like-minded rich people. Wealth has always been correlated with influence, it is almost fundamentally impossible to separate the two. What kind of restrictions could one put in place that would prevent someone with a billion dollars from having any more influence than someone with little money? While you can reduce their direct influence through changes to campaign financing, advertising laws, etc, I don't see any law that could be passed to achieve complete influence parity that would not be overwhelmingly tyrannical.

[dre]

What kind of issues with "wage-work"? How else do you propose that most people get compensated for their work other than by being paid a wage? Not everyone can be an entrepreneur and be their own boss, it's just not within everyone's level of ability and motivation. I used to have some ambition of starting my own company but after seeing how my boss (the company owner/founder) works pretty much 16 hours a day 7 days a week, I thought better of it.

Ok, but people having wealth and power and using that to influence politics has nothing to do with the inherent morality of corporations. Rich people existed before corporations, as did groups of like-minded rich people. Wealth has always been correlated with influence, it is almost fundamentally impossible to separate the two. What kind of restrictions could one put in place that would prevent someone with a billion dollars from having any more influence than someone with little money? While you can reduce their direct influence through changes to campaign financing, advertising laws, etc, I don't see any law that could be passed to achieve complete influence parity that would not be overwhelmingly tyrannical.

Wealth has always been correlated with influence, it is almost fundamentally impossible to separate the two. What kind of restrictions could one put in place that would prevent someone with a billion dollars from having any more influence than someone with little money? While you can reduce their direct influence through changes to campaign financing, advertising laws, etc, I don't see any law that could be passed to achieve complete influence parity that would not be overwhelmingly tyrannical.

You dont need to have complete parity but you do need to maintain a balance. You could keep them out of politics for the most part with a few pretty basic measures. Dont let them put their money in the game... put tighter rules around communication between lobbiests and politicians. Make sure the cameras are running when politicians and lobbiests are wheelin and dealin.

[Bonam]

You dont need to have complete parity but you do need to maintain a balance. You could keep them out of politics for the most part with a few pretty basic measures. Dont let them put their money in the game...

What does this mean? Does this mean a billionaire can't run an ad in a paper or on TV? That he can't make a website on a certain topic? That he can't run a public event on his boat or at his mansion? That he must utterly refrain from speaking on the topic of politics at all lest it be perceived that he has used his wealth to gain undue attention for his views?

put tighter rules around communication between lobbiests and politicians. Make sure the cameras are running when politicians and lobbiests are wheelin and dealin.

So if they happen to meet and chat at a dinner or get-together of some sorts, if a politician happens to be personal friends with a lobbyist, what then? Should their privacy be invaded 24/7?

[dre]

What does this mean? Does this mean a billionaire can't run an ad in a paper or on TV? That he can't make a website on a certain topic? That he can't run a public event on his boat or at his mansion? That he must utterly refrain from speaking on the topic of politics at all lest it be perceived that he has used his wealth to gain undue attention for his views?

So if they happen to meet and chat at a dinner or get-together of some sorts, if a politician happens to be personal friends with a lobbyist, what then? Should their privacy be invaded 24/7?

What does this mean? Does this mean a billionaire can't run an ad in a paper or on TV? That he can't make a website on a certain topic? That he can't run a public event on his boat or at his mansion? That he must utterly refrain from speaking on the topic of politics at all lest it be perceived that he has used his wealth to gain undue attention for his views?

That depends on what kind of campaign finance laws you have. But it can mean any of all of those things, or it could just mean direct political contrabutions etc.

So if they happen to meet and chat at a dinner or get-together of some sorts, if a politician happens to be personal friends with a lobbyist, what then? Should their privacy be invaded 24/7?

No. I think youd get rid of most of the problem if you created special legislative sessions where lobbiests could make their case to legislators in front of the public, and create penalties for being caught operating outside of this framework. Most of them would probably follow most of the rules most of the time.

[Bonam]

I'm all for de-emphasizing the financial aspects of campaigning and for increasing the transparency of the lobbying process. Those are both reasonable suggestions, certainly. But this doesn't have much to do with corporations being "evil".

[dre]

I'm all for de-emphasizing the financial aspects of campaigning and for increasing the transparency of the lobbying process. Those are both reasonable suggestions, certainly. But this doesn't have much to do with corporations being "evil".

No it doesnt. Corporations have no intrinsic moral status at all. Theres lots of good corporate citizens and lots of bad ones.

Edited August 30, 2011 by dre

[Bonam]

No it doesnt. Corporations have no intrinsic moral status at all. Theres lots of good corporate citizens and lots of bad ones.

Agreed...

[TimG]

Do communists believe in a Free market?

You cannot have a free market if you do not believe in private property. According to wikipedia:

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.

Which is why I think the comparisons to communism are accurate. It is communism without the state apparatus which means it is a philosophy that is only viable at the 'small hippy commune' scale. Edited August 30, 2011 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

What kind of issues with "wage-work"? How else do you propose that most people get compensated for their work other than by being paid a wage? Not everyone can be an entrepreneur and be their own boss, it's just not within everyone's level of ability and motivation. I used to have some ambition of starting my own company but after seeing how my boss (the company owner/founder) works pretty much 16 hours a day 7 days a week, I thought better of it.

Ok, but people having wealth and power and using that to influence politics has nothing to do with the inherent morality of corporations. Rich people existed before corporations, as did groups of like-minded rich people. Wealth has always been correlated with influence, it is almost fundamentally impossible to separate the two. What kind of restrictions could one put in place that would prevent someone with a billion dollars from having any more influence than someone with little money? While you can reduce their direct influence through changes to campaign financing, advertising laws, etc, I don't see any law that could be passed to achieve complete influence parity that would not be overwhelmingly tyrannical.

Yes, these are complex arguments, but this is totally beside the point. The point is that most people who dislike and distrust corporations (somewhere around 70%-80% of the population, according to polls...making the vast majority of Canadians and Americans "communists" evidently) have reasons behind this distrust, and aren't just "hippies trying to sound smart."

That is, I was correcting the interpretation of why people don't like corporations.

But ok, let's look at your points:

The issue of the existence of wages...actually, I tend to agree with you. No doubt we have differences peripherally, but the fact of wages does not bother me at all.

But your other point seems practically a non-argument:

Ok, but people having wealth and power and using that to influence politics has nothing to do with the inherent morality of corporations.

As I've said, I'm not too keen on discussing it in quite these terms. Moral issues are integral, obviously, but corporations are not moral entities; they're utterly amoral (that is, not immoral either), but are comprised of individuals, most of whom are as "moral" as anybody else. We're talking institutional factors here, in which matters of individual morality become intractably complex. Moral people can and do quite easily work within an overarching immoral framework. I would put it to you that the overwhelming majority of Syrian policemen are normally perfectly fine and decent fellows.

Rich people existed before corporations, as did groups of like-minded rich people. Wealth has always been correlated with influence, it is almost fundamentally impossible to separate the two.

It's a problem, but continual efforts should be made to combat it. Are you saying that an aspect of our system that is inherently anti-democratic is acceptable to you?

Why? There are plenty of ancient and systemic bad practices which we routinely dislike and combat, without declaring "there's nothing to be done." The fact is that in many respects, the richest among us now have less disproportionate and direct political and legal influence than they used to have.

I imagine you support this clear improvement, but I don't understand why you'd assert "thus far and no further," based on some spurious notion that the rich minority must have some superior influence over the majority because of fears of "tyranny."

Because even if that were so--and I don't see that it is--what makes you think we've magically acheived the pinnacle at this moment of history? Why can't there be more democratic improvements, since you agree largely with those we have achieved so far?

What kind of restrictions could one put in place that would prevent someone with a billion dollars from having any more influence than someone with little money? While you can reduce their direct influence through changes to campaign financing, advertising laws, etc, I don't see any law that could be passed to achieve complete influence parity that would not be overwhelmingly tyrannical.

All restrictions on tyranny are going to be restrictive against somebody....notably the tyrannical themselves. You could just as well say that the undue and disproportionate influence of the wealthy is itself a kind of tyranny...and it certainly is.

Your implied question about exactly how to diminish this existing tyranny is obviously a reasonable one, but it doesn't change the fact that it currently remains anti-democratic, unfair and irrational.

Like I said--and as you agree, given your remarks that it's always been this way in some form--we're talking about institutional factors. So I'm not in favour of fast radical reforms, in the manner of dismantling; I'm in favour of incremental radical forms, in the manner of eventually aligning the elite and class-conscious worldview with the more common and democratic worldview of the majority non-elites.

It's nothing more nor less than a call for a conservative approach towards a more democratic system.

Edited August 30, 2011 by bloodyminded

[TimG]

making the vast majority of Canadians and Americans "communists" evidently) have reasons behind this distrust, and aren't just "hippies trying to sound smart."

The question at hand is not whether people distrust corporations but whether a philosophy based on the premise that "corporations are evil" can be considered to be communistic. I do not think the majority of people think corporations ar evil. The distrust that exists because people distrust anything with a lot of power. That does not mean they question their right to exist.

I'm in favour of incremental radical forms, in the manner of eventually aligning the elite and class-conscious worldview with the more common and democratic worldview of the majority non-elites.

I do not believe the majority worldview is that all people should be equal. That is a minority view at best. Most people want the right to earn more power and influence than their neighbor and the conflict only comes up because not everyone can achieve that goal. Edited August 30, 2011 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

The question at hand is not whether people distrust corporations but whether a philosophy based on the premise that "corporations are evil" can be considered to be communistic. I do not think the majority of people think corporations ar evil. The distrust that exists because people distrust anything with a lot of power. That does not mean they question their right to exist.

As I've pointed out, I don't have any interest in the "corporations are evil" discussion, because that's not how I view these things.

And yes, I agree completely about why people distrust corporations. In fact, I said so...odd that you missed it, or that you think I'm on about "evil corporations," since you quote from my posts.

I do not believe the majority worldview is that all people should be equal.

I said nothing of the sort.

With whom are you arguing?

[TimG]

I said nothing of the sort.

You said this:

I'm in favour of incremental radical forms, in the manner of eventually aligning the elite and class-conscious worldview with the more common and democratic worldview of the majority non-elites.

What other meaning is someone supposed to take from a sentance where you state directly that majority of non-elites do not have "a class-conscious worldview". Edited August 30, 2011 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

You said this:

What other meaning is someone supposed to take from a sentance where you state directly that majority of non-elites do not have "a class-conscious worldview".

I asserted--plainly, unequivocally--that I believe we need more democratization, in the manner of improvement to which we've been, more or less, heading for quite some time. Hell, the conservatives' "state rights" and "more provincial power" notions bespeaks of exactly the same impulse, at bottom.

It's nothing to do with imposing, or even hoping for, "all people should be equal," since all people are clearly not.

It's about being equal in a legal and democratic sense. That's it.

It's about diluting the disproportionate amount of political power wielded based solely on wealth.

It's not even a controversial idea: except to class-conscious elitists.

Edited August 30, 2011 by bloodyminded

[TimG]

It's nothing to do with imposing, or even hoping for, "all people should be equal," since all people are clearly not.

You are contradicting yourself. "A class conscious" worldview in this context implies a worldview where differences between individuals exist and are accepted. You say you agree with that yet also said the majority of people do not agree. Make up yoru mind.

It's about diluting the disproportionate amount of political power wielded based solely on wealth.

And replacing it with disportitional political power yeilded by those having the right "connections". People will seek to influence the political process and some people will have more access than others. Using money is actually a fairer system because anyone can get money but not everyone can acquire the right political connections. It is also easier to keep track of people using money. Edited August 30, 2011 by TimG

[Black Dog]

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?

I thought it was clear: people who voted against the HST to punish the party that implemented it are the dummies. If folks wanted to show the Liberals what-for, they have the opportunity in the next general election. Instead, they chose to cut off their nose to spite their face. The lesson here is that complex public policy decisions should not be left to the whims of the emotional and ignorant electorate.

[mentalfloss]

[bloodyminded]

You are contradicting yourself. "A class conscious" worldview in this context implies a worldview where differences between individuals exist and are accepted. You say you agree with that yet also said the majority of people do not agree. Make up yoru mind.

No, you are refusing to concede an obvious point. I'm not talking about some objective measure of "equality" among human beings. I am talking about equality before the law, and minimizing a democratic deficit in which you can buy political power.

And replacing it with disportitional political power yeilded by those having the right "connections".

No, that's an existing issue, not one that will replace the oligarchic system about whose defense you are so passionate.

Besides, as it stands, money does get you the right "connections," obviously.

If you were opposed to such a thing, you would be...opposed to such a thing. Period.

People will seek to influence the political process and some people will have more access than others. Using money is actually a fairer system because anyone can get money but not everyone can acquire the right political connections.

"Anyone can get money" is theoretically true, but in the objective, actually-existing world, most people do not. Therefore, the minority that do so have undue and disproportionate political influence...meaning influence on policies that directly affect people's lives.

You wish to position theory above actual, lived reality.

It is also easier to keep track of people using money.

Yes, but political infuence exists with the fact of money's influence. Where you are devising this either/or notion is beyond me.

Edited August 30, 2011 by bloodyminded