Eternal keepers of the status quo...

[AsksWhy]

The rules of the game dictate how the game is played; to which effect, those responsible for enacting and amending laws in Canada (Parliament) determine how we play the game within our borders.

The PM we elect into power, and the Senate that person chooses (which is comprised entirely of Owners - owning property with a net worth of at least $4,000, in addition to owning land worth no less than $4,000 within the province he or she is to represent), intrinsically reinforce capitalist tendencies via the laws they choose to enact... whether we support the current regime or not, demonstrating an illusion of democracy, but furthermore confining our ability to induce significant change.

My question is: If we decide (one day) that Capitalist practices do more harm than good and want to escape this way of doing business, will we be able to unravel all that we have tried to protect for the past century?

[eyeball]

Not without pitchforks and torches.

Lots and lots of torches.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, AsksWhy said:

If we decide (one day) that Capitalist practices do more harm than good and want to escape this way of doing business, will we be able to unravel all that we have tried to protect for the past century?

We don't have Capitalist practices, we have a hybrid.  This happens because we have an open society and are able to discuss problems through politics and protest.  From the 1930s to the 1960s our system changed to adopt socialist aspects while the Communist model did not.  Self-organization is the best way for societies to improve.

As such, things will change through our process.  The harm you speak of will be discussed and remedies will be tried.  Will they work ?  Maybe not; maybe there are limits to how much society can do to mitigate the harms done to the environment, for example.  

If they don't change through our process they will change through collapse, or due to the emergence of a better system.  For the latter option - if you have a better system and a way to transition to it please tell us.  For the former option - be careful what you wish for.

[segnosaur]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

Not without pitchforks and torches.

Lots and lots of torches.

Those torches brought to you by Ever-Flame, a trademark of BurningStuff Inc. Remember, when you are burning stuff down, Turn to Ever-Flame for all your destructive purposes.

 

[segnosaur]

9 hours ago, AsksWhy said:

The rules of the game dictate how the game is played; to which effect, those responsible for enacting and amending laws in Canada (Parliament) determine how we play the game within our borders.

The PM we elect into power, and the Senate that person chooses (which is comprised entirely of Owners - owning property with a net worth of at least $4,000, in addition to owning land worth no less than $4,000 within the province he or she is to represent), intrinsically reinforce capitalist tendencies via the laws they choose to enact... whether we support the current regime or not, demonstrating an illusion of democracy, but furthermore confining our ability to induce significant change.

My question is: If we decide (one day) that Capitalist practices do more harm than good and want to escape this way of doing business, will we be able to unravel all that we have tried to protect for the past century?

First of all, $4000? Yes, there may be people who are so poor that they can't afford $4000. But for all practical purposes that is such a small amount that the number of people that it would disqualify (who might actually want to serve in the Senate and who have all the other qualifications) would probably be insignificant.

Secondly, the house of commons (which maintains the majority of the political power anyways, and are elected positions) has no such requirement for property. If Joe Poor-man (who lived on the street and had nothing to his name) wanted to run for MP (or even prime minister) and he could convince a significant number of people to vote for him, he'd be in office.

So no, we don't just have the "illusion" of democracy. We actually do have a functioning democracy.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

12 hours ago, AsksWhy said:

My question is: If we decide (one day) that Capitalist practices do more harm than good and want to escape this way of doing business, will we be able to unravel all that we have tried to protect for the past century?

Well you can do it through democracy by amending laws or passing new ones or voting out old ones you don't like.  We can amend the constitution, which is extremely messy but technically possible.

[AsksWhy]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We don't have Capitalist practices, we have a hybrid.

Not exactly - this is what we call perception: the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.

cap·i·tal·ism / kapədlˌizəm / noun

noun: capitalism

1. an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

In our beautiful country: PRIVATE OWNERS ARE THE STATE!

As early as 1758, qualified voters were "MEN over 21 years old who OWNED PROPERTY" (http://lop.parl.gc.ca/about/parliament/senatoreugeneforsey/time_travel/timeline_content-e.html#1758). They developed a system that allowed themselves to create the rules of the game, which is still in effect to the present day. A great example of The Few choosing to oppress The Many.

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This happens because we have an open society and are able to discuss problems through politics and protest.

It seems to me like it's a very one-sided discussion: owners among owners, or owners waiting out protestors... making it not very "open" at all really.

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

From the 1930s to the 1960s our system changed to adopt socialist aspects while the Communist model did not.

com·mu·nism / kämyəˌnizəm / noun
noun: communism

1. a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

so·cial·ism / sōSHəˌlizəm / noun
noun: socialism

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Based on these definitions it seems like both approaches advocate shared ownership; only semantics differentiate the two. How did we adopt socialism but not communism? You might want to elaborate on your thought here.

 

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Self-organization is the best way for societies to improve.

As such, things will change through our process.  The harm you speak of will be discussed and remedies will be tried.  Will they work ?  Maybe not; maybe there are limits to how much society can do to mitigate the harms done to the environment, for example.

Things will NOT change through the current process (their process); and if we try to convince ourselves that they will, it will be through the least efficient manner ever - trying to get owners to convince each other that maybe they shouldn't try to own everything.

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If they don't change through our process they will change through collapse, or due to the emergence of a better system.  For the latter option - if you have a better system and a way to transition to it please tell us.  For the former option - be careful what you wish for.

I DO NOT and WILL NEVER wish for collapse - only an idiot would want to experience such chaos and turmoil; but I do believe a better system can emerge if we can fairly assess our current political and economic systems without the preset biased opinion that they are not impeding progress.

Edited December 15, 2016 by AsksWhy

[AsksWhy]

13 hours ago, segnosaur said:

First of all, $4000? Yes, there may be people who are so poor that they can't afford $4000. But for all practical purposes that is such a small amount that the number of people that it would disqualify (who might actually want to serve in the Senate and who have all the other qualifications) would probably be insignificant.

I make a fair sum of money each year, but I don't "own" the land I live on or the property I live in - the bank owns it all until such time as I can pay it off. This disqualifies me for at least 20 - 25 years (or more) based on current economics trends - and I'm one of the few people I know who actually tries to manage my money effectively. Small sum or not, this disqualifies a significant number of people.

13 hours ago, segnosaur said:

Secondly, the house of commons (which maintains the majority of the political power anyways, and are elected positions) has no such requirement for property. If Joe Poor-man (who lived on the street and had nothing to his name) wanted to run for MP (or even prime minister) and he could convince a significant number of people to vote for him, he'd be in office.

Please don't fool yourself ... Joe Poor-man would have no money to support an ad-campaign and would be shut out of the conversation before it even started - that's the system they have established. Parliament has a House of MP's to help solidify the illusion that their constituents actually matter - the real decisions are made at the Senate level and up.

13 hours ago, segnosaur said:

So no, we don't just have the "illusion" of democracy. We actually do have a functioning democracy.

MP's and their constituents would be silenced automatically by the Senate and those above them if the public decided they are done with the idea of protecting the status quo. Martial law would be activated and people would be further oppressed.  Not very democratic IMO.

Edited December 15, 2016 by AsksWhy

[AsksWhy]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Well you can do it through democracy by amending laws or passing new ones or voting out old ones you don't like.  We can amend the constitution, which is extremely messy but technically possible.

It just makes me wonder... If we let it go too long, is it really "technically possible"? It sounds a lot like the world population problem.