Social Justice

[Michael Hardner]

Here are some people trying to push for open and accountabel govt. How successful they are is another matter. http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773595

I don't think we can have it without an engaged citizenry. And most people have just retreated into cynicism against the govt, any govt, because of the power of big money arrayed against them.

Very good. There are dozens of such organizations. The term 'Open Government', it should be said, is more often tied to new media initiatives such as the Sunlight Foundation in the US.

Prior to new media, there were concerns that the Balkanization of the news and the rise of infotainment was destroying our democratic compass. Then the web showed up.

[eyeball]

Well, I know what the definitions of "open" and "accountable" are. I should've asked "what does an open and really accountable government look like?" I'd like some specifics, to see if it would actually work.

You can't even differentiate between state secrecy and personal privacy.

In the meantime who on Earth could possibly know what an an open and really accountable government looks like when there's never been one?

[Canuckistani]

You seem very confident that the web leads to more open govt. I'm not so sure. I think the govt will get more and more control of it. I understand that the current web close to collapsing from overuse, and something new will have to be put in place. My guess is that govt will make sure to control it this time. Also, the web is so full of bs, who knows what's factual on it. And, it can only disseminate information that is available - ie not what the govt manages to keep secret.

You said earlier that you thought Canada had greater liberty than ever. Is that because of the web, in your opinion, or why?

(Have you ever read Shockwave Rider by John Brunner?)

Edited May 29, 2012 by Canuckistani

[dre]

Quote

I'm just left wondering how many fishery and forestry regions will have to collapse in this country before you city folk take notice?

Maybe all of them ? If we're buying from offshore will anyone really care ?

Yes... they will definately care after a while. If we stop endeavoring to produce things then sooner or later imported products will be too expensive for us to buy. Even in its current state of disrepair fishing is a 5 billion dollar industry that employs almost 150 thousand people, and ships products around the globe. We need MORE productive enterprise like this, not less.

[Michael Hardner]

You seem very confident that the web leads to more open govt. I'm not so sure. I think the govt will get more and more control of it.

"the web leads to more open govt."

Maybe if you look at how the web has effected the rest of the world, then that statement can lose the last word. The web leads to more open. Like a sieve you can't stop the info from leaking through.

I understand that the current web close to collapsing from overuse, and something new will have to be put in place. My guess is that govt will make sure to control it this time. Also, the web is so full of bs, who knows what's factual on it. And, it can only disseminate information that is available - ie not what the govt manages to keep secret.

These are problems, for sure, but look at MLW. I would say it's a better source for factual information than the evening network news on television, and why ? Crowdsourcing, multiple points of view, validated sources are some of the reasons.

You said earlier that you thought Canada had greater liberty than ever. Is that because of the web, in your opinion, or why?

No, the web has barely impacted government - government is in fact a hold out right now. Canada has greater liberty, perhaps, because freedom is negotiated and negotiations have been going on in Canada since forever. Negotiation and compromise are a big part of how we function as a nation - maybe that's why.

(Have you ever read Shockwave Rider by John Brunner?)

No. Last book I read was... autobiography of Diane Keaton.

The Shockwave Rider is a science fiction novel by John Brunner, originally published in 1975. It is notable for its hero's use of computer hacking skills to escape pursuit in a dystopian future, and for the coining of the word "worm" to describe a program that propagates itself through a computer network.[1][2] It also introduces the concept of a Delphi pool,[3] perhaps derived from the RAND Corporation's Delphi method - a futures market on world events which bears close resemblance to DARPA's controversial and cancelled Policy Analysis Market.

I'm done with dystopias... the future is bright and shiny.

[Michael Hardner]

If we stop endeavoring to produce things then sooner or later imported products will be too expensive for us to buy.

"produce things" ? As in "manufacture" ? If that's what you're saying then there are pretty obvious counter examples here.

Even in its current state of disrepair fishing is a 5 billion dollar industry that employs almost 150 thousand people, and ships products around the globe. We need MORE productive enterprise like this, not less.

That's a resource industry, though. Are we PRODUCING oil, fish, coal ?

[Canuckistani]

"produce things" ? As in "manufacture" ? If that's what you're saying then there are pretty obvious counter examples here.

That's a resource industry, though. Are we PRODUCING oil, fish, coal ?

I don't think your argument holds here. Nobody is arguing that we should not be exploiting the resources we have. But, if all we do is ship them out in raw form, and buy back value added products made from them, then sooner or later that will catch up to us. In BC we've had this discussion for ever, especially around wood - that we should be adding more value to it, if we want to continue to enjoy prosperity.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think your argument holds here. Nobody is arguing that we should not be exploiting the resources we have. But, if all we do is ship them out in raw form, and buy back value added products made from them, then sooner or later that will catch up to us.

Really ? How so ? Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia are a couple of examples that come to mind. Singapore ?

In BC we've had this discussion for ever, especially around wood - that we should be adding more value to it, if we want to continue to enjoy prosperity.

On the world market, what advantages does Canada bring ? Our productivity has been low in comparison to our closest neighbour in manufacturing. Do we cling to that because it's helped us until recently, or do we let it go. Also, keep in mind that a lot of manufacturing jobs are paying less and less to stay alive.

[Canuckistani]

Really ? How so ? Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia are a couple of examples that come to mind. Singapore ?

You're saying HK and Singapore live from exporting raw resources? SA does, and people are making dire predictions for SA when that happens.

On the world market, what advantages does Canada bring ? Our productivity has been low in comparison to our closest neighbour in manufacturing. Do we cling to that because it's helped us until recently, or do we let it go. Also, keep in mind that a lot of manufacturing jobs are paying less and less to stay alive.

I'm not married to manufacturing. As you said, it's often mind numbing work. I'm saying we'd better find something to do besides export resources. I can't think of what that something would be besides manufacturing, which is why I started the topic I did.

[g_bambino]

You can't even differentiate between state secrecy and personal privacy.

The state holds your health records; we have a public health system in every province, remember? How about your income? Your criminal record?

[ed.: sp]

Edited May 29, 2012 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

The answer is that nobody really knows. "Open" means "open information" and information in 1867 isn't the same as information in 2012. Access to Information Acts were enough to keep government "OPEN" in the 1970s, but not enough today.

That doesn't really clarify how open, or in what way it affects accountability, or who or what will exercise that accountability, holding the government to it.

[Michael Hardner]

You're saying HK and Singapore live from exporting raw resources? SA does, and people are making dire predictions for SA when that happens.

1. HK isn't manufacturing much, as far as I know and Singapore is high tech mostly.

2. People are making direct predictions for SA when what happens ? Oil runs out ? That's pretty clear, but Canada is no Saudi Arabia. We have talents in many areas, and not even one type of resource that we depend on.

I'm not married to manufacturing. As you said, it's often mind numbing work. I'm saying we'd better find something to do besides export resources. I can't think of what that something would be besides manufacturing, which is why I started the topic I did.

In terms of international trade, there are services, agriculture and tourism to think about.

[Michael Hardner]

That doesn't really clarify how open, or in what way it affects accountability, or who or what will exercise that accountability, holding the government to it.

Let me put this in front of you one more time:

Are you asking me to explain them to you because you don't like the idea, or because you're actually curious ?

The details of who/what/where/when/how are not yet clear. The thing that is clear is that something will happen. The government will have a need to be accountable because people will demand it.

[Canuckistani]

1. HK isn't manufacturing much, as far as I know and Singapore is high tech mostly.

2. People are making direct predictions for SA when what happens ? Oil runs out ? That's pretty clear, but Canada is no Saudi Arabia. We have talents in many areas, and not even one type of resource that we depend on.

In terms of international trade, there are services, agriculture and tourism to think about.

Canada is also no HK or Singapore. I don't think their solutions would work for us.

If oil ran out, our GDP would take a huge hit if we have nothing to replace it. We should be using the wealth generated by oil to build something for the future - I think that's still manufacturing, but I'm open to hearing about alternatives that could employ large numbers of people that doesn't require super high level skills. Obviously we need a mix of everything, but I still see manufacturing as something to be supported. As the report said - use the income from oil/resource exports to build infrastructure and otherwise support manufacturing.

[Guest Peeves]

i've been studying social justice for a number o years now. i know more about social justice than most. it seems to m that most canadians arent concerned about social justice which makes this country shameful. i would like to know what people on here think the definition of social justice is. there are many people out there who think they know what sj is but distort it so badly that its embarrassing. tell what you think sj is and ill let you know if you have an actual clue about the concept. dont bother posting if you cant post an intelligent definition of sj as i have no time to debate with the weak minded followers of capitalism.

In some cases the abbrev. 'sj' might stand for stupid jerk or silly juvenile. I'll give the poster the benefit of doubt and assume rather it stands for supercilious jejunity.

[Guest Peeves]

Social justice means equality for all. all people have equal access to goods and services. all people do their part to save the environment. there are no rich and no poor. everyone is in the middle and happy. there is no crime no poverty. no one thumbs their nose at the poor/

Like (failed) USSR, (failed) China, (failed) Cuba, but oh yeh, it's working for the common good in North Korea.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Peeves

[dre]

That's a resource industry, though. Are we PRODUCING oil, fish, coal ?

No manufacturing is not the only kind of productive enterprise. Harvesting and productising resources is productive activity.

"produce things" ? As in "manufacture" ? If that's what you're saying then there are pretty obvious counter examples here.

Manufacturing is extremely important yes. In order to import stuff you need to export stuff or you will have a trade deficit that eventually becomes a current account deficit. You can only export 3 different things... commodities and raw materials, value added products, and services. In Canada we have lots of resources and materials to sell so we have been able to balance our trade more or less. That helps countries like Canada and Saudi Arabia, but most other western countries wont be able to do that.

[eyeball]

Let me put this in front of you one more time:

The details of who/what/where/when/how are not yet clear. The thing that is clear is that something will happen. The government will have a need to be accountable because people will demand it.

Except bambi's going to be demanding to see your medical files instead. Why is anyone's guess.

[Michael Hardner]

Canada is also no HK or Singapore. I don't think their solutions would work for us.

I concur. I'll point out now that I brought up those examples as a response to a blanket statement that we need to "produce". It sounds like you agree with me that blanket statements like that aren't necessarily true.

If oil ran out, our GDP would take a huge hit if we have nothing to replace it.

By the time oil runs out, we'll have an energy replacement.

We should be using the wealth generated by oil to build something for the future - I think that's still manufacturing, but I'm open to hearing about alternatives that could employ large numbers of people that doesn't require super high level skills.

We don't need to employ large numbers of people, necessarily, if there's less work to do.

[Michael Hardner]

Like (failed) USSR, (failed) China, (failed) Cuba, but oh yeh, it's working for the common good in North Korea.

China failed ? Excuse me ?

[Michael Hardner]

No manufacturing is not the only kind of productive enterprise. Harvesting and productising resources is productive activity.

Ok, so then this sentence:

"If we stop endeavoring to produce things then sooner or later imported products will be too expensive for us to buy."

...is elementary as in "If we stop working, we won't have any money."

Manufacturing is extremely important yes. In order to import stuff you need to export stuff or you will have a trade deficit that eventually becomes a current account deficit. You can only export 3 different things... commodities and raw materials, value added products, and services. In Canada we have lots of resources and materials to sell so we have been able to balance our trade more or less. That helps countries like Canada and Saudi Arabia, but most other western countries wont be able to do that.

I concur absolutely. The question I have now is about "trade deficits". If the US exports steel to China where GM builds cars and sends them back to America to be assembled at screwdriver plants, then sold... does the trade deficit model really apply ?

[Argus]

China failed ? Excuse me ?

Communism failed. Capitalism succeeded in enriching the state and most of the people, but Communism only enslaved them

[Canuckistani]

I concur. I'll point out now that I brought up those examples as a response to a blanket statement that we need to "produce". It sounds like you agree with me that blanket statements like that aren't necessarily true.

Or necessarily false - we can go round and round on that one.

By the time oil runs out, we'll have an energy replacement.

Not the issue - it's not lack of energy, but having something to export. We won't need much energy if we're don't have much economic activity in Canada, like manufacturing.

We don't need to employ large numbers of people, necessarily, if there's less work to do.

No we don't. But if we don't create a society that shares, that would cause untold misery. And even if the sharing is just welfare, people don't actually have anything useful to do, that's a disaster too. In both cases we would still need to be generating wealth to share with the over surplus of workers. Don't know if our current immigration policy makes much sense under that scenario either.

That was the thought in the 50's and 60's. Greater leisure time and wealth for all. I was told in high school that they had to teach me recreation because when I graduated I could expect to only work 20 hours a week. Never happened. Kurt Vonnegut wrote an amusing book about it (Player Piano?) where only the elite get to work. The plebs are well supported financially, but they have nothing to do. When the protagonists car breas down (obviously he's an elite), they swarm all over it wanting to help fix it, to show they are still useful.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Canuckistani

[Michael Hardner]

Communism failed. Capitalism succeeded in enriching the state and most of the people, but Communism only enslaved them

Okay. I guess if you accept that socialist meant Communism, then that makes sense. Does equality equal communism ?

[dre]

Ok, so then this sentence:

"If we stop endeavoring to produce things then sooner or later imported products will be too expensive for us to buy."

...is elementary as in "If we stop working, we won't have any money."

I concur absolutely. The question I have now is about "trade deficits". If the US exports steel to China where GM builds cars and sends them back to America to be assembled at screwdriver plants, then sold... does the trade deficit model really apply ?

...is elementary as in "If we stop working, we won't have any money."

Not its not quite that elementary because you could work really hard and still have a negative balance of trade.

I concur absolutely. The question I have now is about "trade deficits". If the US exports steel to China where GM builds cars and sends them back to America to be assembled at screwdriver plants, then sold... does the trade deficit model really apply ?

Sure... it still applies, the trade deficit would just be smaller.