BC votes to get rid of the HST

[TimG]

"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.

And your alternative is what? It is simple not possible to have a system where no one has disproportionate influence. All we can do is make sure this influence is in the open. If was actually possible to eliminate money you would end up with a completely closed system where the only people with disproportionate influence are people with personal connections to politicians in power. That would be worse than what we have now.

[Wilber]

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.

The lesson here should be that winning an election does not give a political party or one party leader absolute power between elections. The public should not have to throw the whole lot out in order to get government to respond to a grievance between elections. Like it or lump it didn't cut it in this case. It is good that politicians should have that in the back of their minds before they act. I think that is the point being missed. The idea that this will result in come kind of California fiscal gridlock is idiotic. That this petition and referendum could have even succeeded was a long shot. Most pundits said it was an impossibility. A good lesson to our politicians that the publics patience does have limits.

There will be changes to the tax structure, there just won't be an HST. Will it be worse than an HST? Maybe, but the province was hardly a hell hole before the HST. The doom and gloom merchants will just have to move on.

[bloodyminded]

And your alternative is what? It is simple not possible to have a system where no one has disproportionate influence. All we can do is make sure this influence is in the open. If was actually possible to eliminate money you would end up with a completely closed system where the only people with disproportionate influence are people with personal connections to politicians in power. That would be worse than what we have now.

OK, but I'm not advocating an end to money. Like everyone aside from hardcore communists and outright anarcho-capitalists, I believe in a mixed economy: a capitalist engine with socialist amelioratives to protect the have-nots from capitalism's harsher tendencies.

And no, I imagine you're correct that a total evaporation of undue/disproportionate political influence is not possible. But it can certainly be improved from the current situation. In many ways, under democratic auspices, the rich have less influence than they used to do, back in the days of feudalism, of mixed wealth/blood aristocracies, and so forth. Even more recently, mafia's direct political/legal infleunce was greater than it is today, and I'm not sorry to see it waning.

I'm only positing that we haven't reached some mythical end-stage, some apogee of democratic balance comprising the end of democratic struggle. There are always improvements to be made in this direction.

Edited August 30, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bonam]

I'm only positing that we haven't reached some mythical end-stage, some apogee of democratic balance comprising the end of democratic struggle. There are always improvements to be made in this direction.

I agree that continual improvements to democracy have been made over time and can continue to be made. I also agree with Tim that having money as a tool for influence is a whole lot better than the alternative of personal connections. People can get money through many different ways, allowing all kinds of groups to be represented, while personal connections can often be acquired only by the cunning, manipulative, politically/socially astute, or those born into families with such connections.

I think at this point it would be useful to discuss more specific notions. What kind of reforms do you think should be carried out to increase the equality of democratic representation in Canada? You mention gradual but radical changes. What are some of these radical changes?

[bloodyminded]

I agree that continual improvements to democracy have been made over time and can continue to be made. I also agree with Tim that having money as a tool for influence is a whole lot better than the alternative of personal connections.

Again, I don't understand why it is an alternative. It would still exist, yes...as it exists now.

I think at this point it would be useful to discuss more specific notions. What kind of reforms do you think should be carried out to increase the equality of democratic representation in Canada? You mention gradual but radical changes. What are some of these radical changes?

???

That tremendously wealthy people do not have more say over public policy than do people without money. That matters of policy--notably (but not restricted to) war--are not influenced and lobbied for by monied interests who seek profiteering gains through violence. That "investment opportunities" are not reasonable pretexts, even in part, for war.

[TimG]

That tremendously wealthy people do not have more say over public policy than do people without money.

First, I think you exaggerate the influence that individuals have simply because of their money. If individuals have that kind of influence it is because of the personal connections which cannot be eliminated. Second, money is the great equalizer since people can pool their wealth to gain influence. For example, one of the biggest lobbies in Washington now are environmental NGOs funded by individual donations. If you are OK with environmental NGOs buying access then why not corporations? They are just a different group of people lobbying to protect the interests of their members.

[bloodyminded]

First, I think you exaggerate the influence that individuals have simply because of their money. If individuals have that kind of influence it is because of the personal connections which cannot be eliminated. Second, money is the great equalizer since people can pool their wealth to gain influence. For example, one of the biggest lobbies in Washington now are environmental NGOs funded by individual donations. If you are OK with environmental NGOs buying access then why not corporations? They are just a different group of people lobbying to protect the interests of their members.

Oh good lord, this is semantics that declares virtual opposites to be the same thing.

I'm not against lobbying; I'm not against the will to try to influence policy. Obviously not.

I'm against a fractional number of elites using influence to affect public policy so that they can personally make more cash.

And when it comes to things like war, we have a name for it: profiteering.

Edited August 30, 2011 by bloodyminded

[CitizenX]

This has gotten off topic, that is why I started another topic.

Are Corporations Evil ?

Edited August 30, 2011 by CitizenX

[dre]

I agree that continual improvements to democracy have been made over time and can continue to be made. I also agree with Tim that having money as a tool for influence is a whole lot better than the alternative of personal connections. People can get money through many different ways, allowing all kinds of groups to be represented, while personal connections can often be acquired only by the cunning, manipulative, politically/socially astute, or those born into families with such connections.

I think at this point it would be useful to discuss more specific notions. What kind of reforms do you think should be carried out to increase the equality of democratic representation in Canada? You mention gradual but radical changes. What are some of these radical changes?

The easiest thing to do is just making sure the bar for entry is set very low. Make sure elections are super fast and super cheap, so at least politicians dont have peddle a whole pile of influence just to get elected in the first place. If an election takes 2 years and costs 100 million dollars for a candidate to compete then the politicians will spend their terms "settling up" with those benefactors.

I would end the revolving door lobby as well with one simple rule: If you register as a lobbiest after leaving public office, you lose your pension.

I would also bring lobbying out of the shadows so that the system reflects the fact that lobbying isnt necessarily bad, and there are a lot of good reasons for various interests to seek an audience with the government either to advise them or request certain legislation etc. I would create a forum where they can do this in the sunshine... special sessions of the legislature where special interests can stand up in front of the Cameras and make a logical case for what they want.

[dre]

If you are OK with environmental NGOs buying access then why not corporations?

Im ok with both... to a certain extent. Two concerns though...

1. Transparency. We should know about conversations between lobbiests and public officials that shape policy. Both of those parties will behave better if they feel the publics eyes burning a hole in the back of their necks while they are having these conversations.

2. Access. Access should be limited so that this activity isnt the dominant activity for public servants. The lobby is growing so fast that its not uncommon for legislators to have dozens of FULL TIME lobbiests assigned to them - following them around all day every trying to arrange meetings, provide perks, buy lunches etc. I can easily see this monopolizing their time.

[TimG]

I'm against a fractional number of elites using influence to affect public policy so that they can personally make more cash.

So you ok with unions trying influence policy so the can get more cash but not individuals? Frankly, I suspect you are railing against a problem that simply does not exist. If are really worried about profiteers trying to manipulate the political process you would be complaining about all of those "green" energy companies looking for subsidies and sweet heart contracts. Such activities are a much more costly form of profiteering.

[Bonam]

That tremendously wealthy people do not have more say over public policy than do people without money. That matters of policy--notably (but not restricted to) war--are not influenced and lobbied for by monied interests who seek profiteering gains through violence. That "investment opportunities" are not reasonable pretexts, even in part, for war.

There are general principles, not specific changes. Just how is it that you would implement these principles? I was looking for an answer more along the lines of dre's...

The easiest thing to do is just making sure the bar for entry is set very low. Make sure elections are super fast and super cheap, so at least politicians dont have peddle a whole pile of influence just to get elected in the first place. If an election takes 2 years and costs 100 million dollars for a candidate to compete then the politicians will spend their terms "settling up" with those benefactors.

I agree. I also think Canada is already pretty good at this. Our campaigns are restricted in length and campaign contributions are strictly capped. Of course, in the US campaigns go on for years and cost hundreds of millions and sometimes of billions of dollars per candidate, and it is certainly a problem there. But I don't think it's really much of an issue in Canada.

I also definitely agree that lobbying should be made more transparent.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Bonam

[wolfd]

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.

Therein lies the crux of the matter. The reason people were ignorant of the HST issue was that it was not presented properly, in fact they were lied to. Presumably you are saying the 55% who voted to kill HST were ignorant? People were told during the May 2009 election campaign there was no HST plan. Then in July - Less than 2 months later it was imposed. Where were the studies, consultations, public meetings? The BC Liberals only have themselves to blame for the entire debacle.

[CitizenX]

Therein lies the crux of the matter. The reason people were ignorant of the HST issue was that it was not presented properly, in fact they were lied to. Presumably you are saying the 55% who voted to kill HST were ignorant? People were told during the May 2009 election campaign there was no HST plan. Then in July - Less than 2 months later it was imposed. Where were the studies, consultations, public meetings? The BC Liberals only have themselves to blame for the entire debacle.

People are suspicious of people that that lie, are sneaky, and refuse to debate their side of the issue. And rightly so. If it's such a great tax what are they afraid of. Take the word of a politician...I don't think so. Take the word of the people (big business) that will profit from the new tax, I don't think so. Take the word of right wing think tanks, I don't think so.

Some people are calling BC voter's stupid, I don't think so.

Edited August 31, 2011 by CitizenX

[Black Dog]

Therein lies the crux of the matter. The reason people were ignorant of the HST issue was that it was not presented properly, in fact they were lied to.Presumably you are saying the 55% who voted to kill HST were ignorant? People were told during the May 2009 election campaign there was no HST plan. Then in July - Less than 2 months later it was imposed. Where were the studies, consultations, public meetings? The BC Liberals only have themselves to blame for the entire debacle.

They had two years to educate themselves, yet it looks like raw emotion and self-interest won the day.

[wolfd]

They had two years to educate themselves, yet it looks like raw emotion and self-interest won the day.

How is it they had two years to educate themselves? The Campbell libs imposed the HST less than two months after an election campaign in which they denied that they would do that. I ask you again - where were the consultations, public meetings open forums on the matter?