Laws, wars, protests and ANGRY OLD UNCLES

[Michael Hardner]

Its true, unchecked power is pretty efficient. A hereditary monarch could get stuff done REALLY easy.

And yet, at a certain point there is no competition and no market of ideas so everything falls apart. The Liberals knew that they had a tough decision to make, and that the public would buy into it over time.

[dre]

And yet, at a certain point there is no competition and no market of ideas so everything falls apart. The Liberals knew that they had a tough decision to make, and that the public would buy into it over time.

Theres another big factor in play.

Short term thinking VS Long Term thinking. The liberals had a sense of entitlement, and they truly believed they were the "natural governing party" and would in power for many decades to come. So we had a very rare stretch of long term thinking. If they had known that they were going to be replaced soon by a majority conservative government, we would probably seen a lot of ideologically motivated spending and a lot more salvos fired in the culture war.

[wyly]

I didn't say that... I'm just wondering... if you have anything to add on this, I'm interested to hear it.

that seemed to be what was implied by smallc and yourself...

Because everybody knows one party states run the most efficient governments...

it may not have the correct policy but without doubt dictatorial rule can be very fast...so if it's quick decisions on tough issues you want that's what you need...but neither of us wants restricted democracy so why accept another system (fptp) that offers similar democratic constraints even if on 4 year terms?...for the next 4 years we essentially have a one party state representing a minority of the population, the party itself run by an even smaller clique of hardliners...

if we had a majority government representing the majority of the population by way of a pr system I'd no cause for complaint...

[Michael Hardner]

...but neither of us wants restricted democracy so why accept another system (fptp) that offers similar democratic constraints even if on 4 year terms?...for the next 4 years we essentially have a one party state representing a minority of the population, the party itself run by an even smaller clique of hardliners...

'restricted democracy' is a relative term. If you don't have 100% open and 100% direct democracy, then you're restricting it by definition. So, yes, I'm in favour of restricted democracy.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm also contributing to thread drift... lots of threads already on PR vs FPTP ... sorry.

[wyly]

Its true, unchecked power is pretty efficient. A hereditary monarch could get stuff done REALLY easy.

But like I said... the real reason why we are better off financially than those European countries is because we live on top of a massive pile of money. LIke I said... even backward islamic theocracies can make a pile of dough living on top of a huge cache of valuable natural resources. Take those out of the mix and we would be in big trouble pretty fast.

hmmm alberta...twelve drunken monkeys spinning a bottle could run the province as well, huge resource wealth can make any idiot government look competent...

[cybercoma]

If uncle believes in fundamental justice I'm all for him.

It's unfortunate Brian Topp has no such interest, but then, one can't expect morality from a politician on the far left.

Many of the prisons are already overpopulated and they're ramming through a bill that will increase the prison population by eliminating judicial discretion, provide no money for building more prisons, and eliminate the law requiring prison guards to use the "least restrictive measures" when controlling inmates. Do you really believe this will promote justice? Crime is already at a 40 year minimum. Whenever someone tries to fix something that's not broken, I always wonder to myself what their purpose might be.

[wyly]

Theres another big factor in play.

Short term thinking VS Long Term thinking. The liberals had a sense of entitlement, and they truly believed they were the "natural governing party" and would in power for many decades to come. So we had a very rare stretch of long term thinking. If they had known that they were going to be replaced soon by a majority conservative government, we would probably seen a lot of ideologically motivated spending and a lot more salvos fired in the culture war.

which is true...if we look at china with a one party rule they're freed up to make long term planning without worrying about an election to derail long term plans...things get done quickly because they don't care if the population agrees or not, similar to what we are going through now....

[grogy]

It's interesting isn't it, that this country is envied by much of the world and yet our political system is in some peoples eyes so terribly broken, but then for some of those people communism would be their choice, so maybe they are best ignored. Of course we could always do better, but we are doing pretty well here, some of these other countries with prop rep can't seem to get anything done.

[Michael Hardner]

which is true...if we look at china with a one party rule they're freed up to make long term planning without worrying about an election to derail long term plans...things get done quickly because they don't care if the population agrees or not, similar to what we are going through now....

And believe it or not, there are advantages to that too. Democracy isn't a magic spell that fixes all problems. Without a gasoline lobby paying off congress, they were able to ban leaded gasoline and remove it in a short timeframe.

That doesn't condemn democracy by any means, but it does show the advantage of non-consulting in some cases.

[grogy]

which is true...if we look at china with a one party rule they're freed up to make long term planning without worrying about an election to derail long term plans...things get done quickly because they don't care if the population agrees or not, similar to what we are going through now....

The current government has as legitimate a majority as most of the other governments for the last few decades, you don't agree with it, well boohoo, who cares what you think anyway. Btw, do you have proof that most people don't agree with the current gov't policies? I take issue with a number of them, but I get the feeling that Harper could cure cancer and you would somehow be against it.

[dre]

And believe it or not, there are advantages to that too. Democracy isn't a magic spell that fixes all problems. Without a gasoline lobby paying off congress, they were able to ban leaded gasoline and remove it in a short timeframe.

That doesn't condemn democracy by any means, but it does show the advantage of non-consulting in some cases.

Yup. Democracy is clumbsy and awkward by nature. But modern philosophers have more or less figured out how to game the system and take power back away from the people. Promoting ideology over everything else makes the population unable to stick up for itself, attacking dissenters for their lack of patriotism and nationalism. It becomes two dueling sub-populations obsessed with fighting a culture war against the other most of whom vote ideology in every single election.

This should piss people off, but its also very impressive. Philosophers have been looking for a way achieve this for many hundreds of years. The goal of course is to maintain the illusion of democracy, while allowing the same people who would be in power in the absense of democracy (lords, elites, nobles) to still make all the real decisions.

It really is an astounding acheivement.

[Michael Hardner]

Yup. Democracy is clumbsy and awkward by nature. But modern philosophers have more or less figured out how to game the system and take power back away from the people.

My take on it is that the debate will fall into the form most favoured by the media in which the debates take place. In our society, it's still television so the debates are framed around the medium of television. ( Don't tell Shwa I said that... )

This should piss people off, but its also very impressive. Philosophers have been looking for a way achieve this for many hundreds of years. The goal of course is to maintain the illusion of democracy, while allowing the same people who would be in power in the absense of democracy (lords, elites, nobles) to still make all the real decisions.

Those who play the game eventually get good at it... then the rules change. When radio came in, there were politicians who could use it to their advantage, and they did well. The television game is a very old one now and we need a new game board.

[cybercoma]

The current government has as legitimate a majority as most of the other governments for the last few decades, you don't agree with it, well boohoo, who cares what you think anyway. Btw, do you have proof that most people don't agree with the current gov't policies? I take issue with a number of them, but I get the feeling that Harper could cure cancer and you would somehow be against it.

You seem to care enough to try and defend the government's legitimacy.

[jacee]

If uncle believes in fundamental justice I'm all for him.

Since the Canadian Bill of Rights was an ordinary statute, it was not until 1982 when the term fundamental justice was first constitutionalized. The phrase was included in section 7 of the new Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which asserted that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." To limit the rights to life, liberty and security of the person, the authors of the Charter specifically chose the term "fundamental justice" over "due process" because they believed the term "fundamental justice" would still be interpreted to mean conventional " natural justice".

...

...since the Court decision Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, the meaning of the words "fundamental justice" in section 7 has been greatly expanded and encompasses much more than mere procedural rights.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_justice

I agree with you on that, but I think the 'angry' people are more focused on severe, even brutal, punishment for minor transgressions that offend their sensibilities - marijuana being the prime example - than on 'procedural fairness' or any other aspects of what "fundamental justice" really is.

The most troublesome aspect of Harper's 'omnicrimebus', in my opinion, is ...

Prison officials will have more latitude to disregard prisoners’ human rights, bypassing the east restrictive means to discipline and control inmates.

The Canadian Bar Association ... 10 reasons why the passage of Bill C-10 will be a mistake and a setback for Canada

It's particularly troubling to me that it would put Correctional Officers in the role of policing, judging and punishing crimes occurring in prison, with NO PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, indeed no procedure at all:

Correctional Investigator Howard Sapers called the principle a “golden rule” of corrections and said his staff uses it regularly to determine whether restrictions imposed on prisoners, such as solitary confinement and use of physical restraints, are appropriate Instead, guards would be asked to use “necessary and proportionate” restrictions, adding a new layer of subjectivity to decisions on everything from use of force to prisoner access to rehabilitation programs. The union that represents prison guards says it supports the change because not all prisoners want to be rehabilitated, and guards should be allowed to use their discretion when determining how to deal with challenging inmates.

Pierre Mallette president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers ... said some inmates, particularly those who remain involved in organized crime while in prison, hinder the rehabilitation efforts of other nmates and guards need to be able to treat them differently.

crime bill hands guards more power

I know what's going to happen ... I'm sure everyone here knows what's going to happen if Correctional Officers can dole out whatever punishment they choose, in the 'heat of the moment' or in a premeditated manner: They'll pick and choose their victims, and dole out severe punishments to suit themselves!

This is a particularly barbaric element of the bill, and very disturbing.

In New Orleans during hurricane Katrina, a flooding prison was abandoned by CO's , leaving some prisoners locked in their cells to drown, and others desperately trying to pry bars open to free them, with limited success, before finally abandoning them to die in order to save themselves. The ones left behind had just been arrested and some did not even have charges laid against them yet, and some probably wouldn't - eg, drunks 'breaching the peace' and hauled in to get sober overnight. Most of them were black men, of course.

You won't hear a peep about this in the media unless you go looking for it.

Do we want a prison system that callously makes life and death decisions about prisoners with no procedural fairness, no oversight or accountability whatsoever?

Because that's the road we're going down with this bill written by/for 'angry old uncles'.

Edited November 15, 2011 by jacee

[olp1fan]

It's interesting isn't it, that this country is envied by much of the world and yet our political system is in some peoples eyes so terribly broken, but then for some of those people communism would be their choice, so maybe they are best ignored. Of course we could always do better, but we are doing pretty well here, some of these other countries with prop rep can't seem to get anything done.

your way of thinking is severely flawed

you seem to be comfortable with the status quo but just because things here aren't like they are in Africa or most Asian countries doesn't mean we can't improve on them

[Michael Hardner]

your way of thinking is severely flawed

you seem to be comfortable with the status quo but just because things here aren't like they are in Africa or most Asian countries doesn't mean we can't improve on them

If we're going to improve things by adding more democratic input, then we need to make the system more responsive and efficient at the same time. If you increase the input, you must increase the throughput or the machines breaks.

[jacee]

your way of thinking is severely flawed

you seem to be comfortable with the status quo but just because things here aren't like they are in Africa or most Asian countries doesn't mean we can't improve on them

Some people, like grogy and Wild Bill, seem to think that democracy is ... 'put your vote in the box and shut up'. Not so. We are responsible for everything our representatives decide on every issue, and we have an obligation to make our voices heard.

Down the road, when the number of prison deaths climbs to astronomical levels, become routine and even expected, grogy and Wild Bill will be shrugging and saying "Well what could WE do ... we didn't know what they were doing! They didn't ask us!"

We have a responsibility to KNOW what politicians are doing IN OUR NAME, and to make sure we voice our opinions when we think they are wrong.

And the 'angry old uncles' are very wrong about this crime bill.

[Michael Hardner]

We are responsible for everything our representatives decide on every issue, and we have an obligation to make our voices heard.

...

We have a responsibility to KNOW what politicians are doing IN OUR NAME, and to make sure we voice our opinions when we think they are wrong.

True - we have a responsibility, however in reality few take that seriously. And even if one did take it seriously, the amount of research a citizen would have to do to stay on top of issues is prohibitive.

[dre]

If we're going to improve things by adding more democratic input, then we need to make the system more responsive and efficient at the same time. If you increase the input, you must increase the throughput or the machines breaks.

I think the machine breaks over time no matter what you do and then it has to be replaced with a new machine.

If history is any indication we will allow things to get really bad, and allow the machine to get really broken, and then we will reboot it, and re-invent ourselves.

`

[Michael Hardner]

If history is any indication we will allow things to get really bad, and allow the machine to get really broken, and then we will reboot it, and re-invent ourselves.

`

That sounds like a good analogy. But what "bad" means also seems to change over time. "Bad" for the slave revolts of Rome, versus "bad" for the unrest and revolutions following the industrial revolution, versus "bad" for the depression etc. etc.

[grogy]

Some people, like grogy and Wild Bill, seem to think that democracy is ... 'put your vote in the box and shut up'. Not so. We are responsible for everything our representatives decide on every issue, and we have an obligation to make our voices heard.

Down the road, when the number of prison deaths climbs to astronomical levels, become routine and even expected, grogy and Wild Bill will be shrugging and saying "Well what could WE do ... we didn't know what they were doing! They didn't ask us!"

We have a responsibility to KNOW what politicians are doing IN OUR NAME, and to make sure we voice our opinions when we think they are wrong.

And the 'angry old uncles' are very wrong about this crime bill.

You really shouldn't speak for others, and i, like most people, think a lot of things, so do you disagree with every aspect of the crime bill?

[grogy]

your way of thinking is severely flawed

you seem to be comfortable with the status quo but just because things here aren't like they are in Africa or most Asian countries doesn't mean we can't improve on them

Yes, my thinking that the way we have done things has produced one of the best places in the world to live is terribly flawed..Why don't you tell us exactly what we need to do to make this an even better place to live.

[grogy]

You seem to care enough to try and defend the government's legitimacy.

Defending it is easy, you're argument seems to be with the reality of the situation, in relative terms, please show us why this government isn't legitimate, or don't waste your time.

[dre]

Yes, my thinking that the way we have done things has produced one of the best places in the world to live is terribly flawed..Why don't you tell us exactly what we need to do to make this an even better place to live.

Yes, my thinking that the way we have done things has produced one of the best places in the world to live is terribly flawed..

The problem is that in terms of criminal justice the way we have DONE things is to have rather light sentences for people who commit minor crimes that most of the population doesnt even think should be criminalized. And the way that we have done things is to allow judicial discretion so that the person making decisions on sentencing actually knows the details of the case, instead allowing a federal politician to decide on sentencing without having any knowledge of details at all.

Using these principles our criminal justice system has been one of the most successful in the world.