sharkman Posted January 22, 2012 Report Posted January 22, 2012 We just might be living through the worst government in the history of our nation. This kind of sentiment(liberals stamping their feet in a momentary hissy fit) is not uncommon and I take comfort in it for it shows a great under-estimation of Harper. Until he is taken seriousy by the braintrust of the left there will be no threat to his administration. Keep bitchin'. Quote
eyeball Posted January 22, 2012 Report Posted January 22, 2012 And has as much scientific credibility as psychology. You're way to generous, economics is more like astrology or alchemy, especially the way Conservatives practice it. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Moonlight Graham Posted January 22, 2012 Report Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) The author's assertion that libertarianism is by default "dopey" clearly identifies his cries of stupidity as based solely on projection. The author's point was that it's stupid to make policy based on rigid ideological generalizations rather than what's logical & supported by facts/stats & on what's best for the country. And he's right. Edited January 22, 2012 by Moonlight Graham Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 22, 2012 Report Posted January 22, 2012 The author's point was that it's stupid to make policy based on rigid ideological generalizations rather than what's logical & supported by facts/stats & on what's best for the country. And he's right. That is the way I see it as well. Quote
Topaz Posted January 22, 2012 Report Posted January 22, 2012 It's not a stupid rule IF...you're a MP with a small business. o, wait, Tony must have gotten AN e-mail asking for changes! Canadians must remember , these MP's don't stay MP's forever, so they are going to try and changes the rules and laws to benefit themselves after they leaveand if helps other Canadians consider it lucky. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 22, 2012 Author Report Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) The author's assertion that libertarianism is by default "dopey" clearly identifies his cries of stupidity as based solely on projection. Libertarianism is dobey. Without government intervention into the markets, smoothing out the bumps, we may have never gotten out of the Depression. It's because the government intervenes in private affairs that things aren't worse than they are. Libertarianism wants the government out of all private affairs, which includes the markets. It won't work and it will be disastrous if it ever happened. Thankfully, nobody in Ottawa is that stupid. The conflict, by the way, is that the economic sphere has now bled into the political sphere (and frankly the sphere of community and persona life, but we'll save that for another point). When private businesses make decisions that harm hundreds or thousands of people, we expect the government to intervene. They're expected to give tax breaks to businesses and other incentives. However, in an advance capitalist economy, the government is also expected to smooth out the bumps of poor business practices by providing a safety net. Even minimally that safety net requires revenues: taxes. Yet, there's populist resistence to taxation. It's a contradiction endemic to capitalism. Prior to advanced capitalism c. late 1930s-1970, which uses state intervention to smoth the bumps, there were violent clashes with industry. The president sent troops to Flint, MI to stand between GM's private police force and the protestors they were beating. The last thing a capitalist system needs is disruption, uncertainty, and the risk of a violent overthrow. This would be par for the course if a Libertarian were in charge and made the broad sweeping changes they recommend because there is no mechanism for levelling the dips in the economy. When businesses destroy the economy and people have nothing left to lose they will without fail resort to revolutionary violence, unless the government involves itself in the business of private enterprise. All of this is necessary because capitalism is inherent unstable, but politicians can't talk about that. They can't talk about how it creates classes, class warfare, and distrust in society. Edited January 22, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Smallc Posted January 22, 2012 Report Posted January 22, 2012 Libertarianism is stupid...but this government isn't libertarian. It also isn't the worst in history. How you get there is baffling to me. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 22, 2012 Author Report Posted January 22, 2012 Libertarianism is stupid...but this government isn't libertarian. It also isn't the worst in history. How you get there is baffling to me. I never said it was. I said it could be. Bennett's government was probably the worst in history, but this ideology based governing and policy based on complete ignorance of the epirical data is going to set the country back a generation. Quote
Jack Weber Posted January 22, 2012 Report Posted January 22, 2012 Not that I agree with everything the Consevatives do, but I have to say that I think worst ever is quite a stretch. There's four more years of potential stupidity to come!!! Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Jack Weber Posted January 22, 2012 Report Posted January 22, 2012 Better education? PhD in philosophy = $100,000 toilet paper. So is your Friedmanite economics bird cage liner diploma.... European Mercantilism just called...They want you back at HQ... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Jack Weber Posted January 22, 2012 Report Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) nope, sorry - your attempt to marginalize won't work here... as a relative newb you lack the MLW history that would have clearly presented you exactly what my educational background is. But as I said your shtick is to avoid the actual arguments and focus in on your juvenile bias. by the by... just how does the ridiculous Harper Conservative "one-for-one" rule determine what regulations are good, and which are bad? A Friedmanite infantile???? I never woulda thunk it!!!! (and in the parlance of Uncle Milty's sycophant) Wait until he tells us that Free Marketeers and corporate slurpers are the "new global humanitarians" and anyone else is a "hippy" and a "Marxist/revolutionary/socialist" loser... Edited January 22, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 22, 2012 Report Posted January 22, 2012 I think ALL political parties need to adapt to the more modern democratic model. To merely change their premises is not enough, the goal should be to improve citizen input, to make democracy more functional instead of more divisional. Quote
CPCFTW Posted January 22, 2012 Report Posted January 22, 2012 So is your Friedmanite economics bird cage liner diploma.... European Mercantilism just called...They want you back at HQ... Who said I have an economics degree? But I would certainly respect an econ academic's opinions on this matter far more than a philosophy "academic". Quote
Scotty Posted January 22, 2012 Report Posted January 22, 2012 The author's point was that it's stupid to make policy based on rigid ideological generalizations rather than what's logical & supported by facts/stats & on what's best for the country. And he's right. If that was the author's point he made a damned poor case for it. All I took from his rant was that he was furious that clement had said that for every new regulation the bureaucrats had to find an old one and delete it. And that tories were poo-poo heads, or words to that effect. Apparently PHDs in philosophy don't require an expansive vocabulary. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 22, 2012 Report Posted January 22, 2012 I never said it was. I said it could be. Bennett's government was probably the worst in history, but this ideology based governing and policy based on complete ignorance of the epirical data is going to set the country back a generation. I'm curious. What country do you live in? Clearly you're not talking about this one, with Mr. Pragmatic himself as PM. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
cybercoma Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Posted January 23, 2012 There's a difference between being pragamatic and pandering. Quote
mentalfloss Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) Well that settles it. Your experience in 2 philosophy courses (at what University again?) is the perfect argument for indicting the entire discipline. His fallacious arguments would also explain why he sucks at philosophy. For those of us privileged enough to be part of the ivory tower (smirky smirky), I would highly recommend Joseph Heath's - Filthy Lucre: Economics for People Who Hate Capitalism. Does a really good job of critical analysis of both the left and right. Edited January 23, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote
Boges Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) It's interesting the column calls Conservatives stupid. It just attacks certain things Tony Clement has done. It's not a comprehensive damning of what the CPC has done in it's 6 years in power. It's just nitpicking a few things. Calling people with differing political views stupid says more about the author than the people the author is talking about. Edited January 23, 2012 by Boges Quote
cybercoma Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Posted January 23, 2012 How many times does it have to point out that it's not calling the supporters or people with particular political views stupid? Many of you see the word stupid and jump to all of these conclusions without actually reading the article or understanding what is being called stupid here. Quote
Boges Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 How many times does it have to point out that it's not calling the supporters or people with particular political views stupid? Many of you see the word stupid and jump to all of these conclusions without actually reading the article or understanding what is being called stupid here. So if I believe that Abortion is "Evil" and I say that any party that supports Abortion is Evil. What am I saying about the followers of said party? Quote
cybercoma Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) I don't know. Do all the followers support abortion? Or do they follow the party for myriad reasons? Besides, I've never met a single person that PRO abortion. Edited January 23, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
PIK Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 I've spent much of my life in Ottawa and know all about the Glebe. It's a breeding ground for hippies. Like ''The friends of lansdowne''lol Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
PIK Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 History will say that the worst will be trudeau's and the 2nd worse will be when the idiots put in the 2nd trudeau. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Boges Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 I don't know. Do all the followers support abortion? Or do they follow the party for myriad reasons? Besides, I've never met a single person that PRO abortion. Sort of like how People that are PRO Life are anti-choice. I'm sorry but attaching the stigma of "Stupid" onto ideals of a political party are pretty divisive. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Posted January 23, 2012 Sort of like how People that are PRO Life are anti-choice. I'm sorry but attaching the stigma of "Stupid" onto ideals of a political party are pretty divisive. I'm not going to get into a pro-life, pro-choice argument here with you, but suffice it to say that pro-lifers gave themselves that label. It's obviously the case that the policies are pretty divisive. This one-for-one rule, as a single example, is pretty stupid. I mean, monumentally stupid. Potter explains clearly why. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.