Democracy

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

But I see no reason that the government should be involved in managing hospitals, anymore than it should be involved in managing service stations.

How is this related to democracy?

Many, many people feel that Universal Health Care is a sacred and inviolable right, something that we all (or mostly all) pay for and ought to receive. Some also argue that society as a whole, is better off when everyone is heathy and productive.

If the majority of canadians believe in universal health care, rightly or wrongly, consideration should be given to 'the will of the majority'. I would much rather see 'bills passed' ala the US than the 'dictatorial mandate' system used in Canada, especially on such issues, but I suppose one could rightly say that democracy is still 'a work in progress'.

The difference between a gov't vs. private interests running a hospital vs a service station are vast. The free enterprise system's ultimate goal is to collect the maximum amount of money while giving as little, and if possible, nothing, in return. Look at television. It generates billions in revenues, actors ar paid hundreds of millions, and when you stand up from the TV hours later, you can cup your hands and physically look at the value you received. Along those lines, and old wise man once said to me about 'wishing for stuff', "If you put your wishes in one hand, and shit in the other, which one will get filled up first?"

[August1991]

Thelonious, we're going off on a tangent here, but so what.

Many, many people feel that Universal Health Care is a sacred and inviolable right, something that we all (or mostly all) pay for and ought to receive.

What many Canadians want, I think, is guaranteed access to health services. The best way to do this is a government operated, universal health insurance scheme. Government managed hospitals and clinics are an entirely different matter.

Thelonious, you probably have insurance against car theft. If you're car is stolen, the insurance company pays someone else to make you a new car.

Separate the insurance to cover the costs of health services from the actual production of health services.

IMV, the State should organize health insurance with premiums paid through general taxes and then pay any claims submitted by private health providers.

The difference between a gov't vs. private interests running a hospital vs a service station are vast. The free enterprise system's ultimate goal is to collect the maximum amount of money while giving as little, and if possible, nothing, in return.

By that logic, the State should do everything and the private-for-profit do nothing since those free enterprise companies will just rip us off by taking our money and giving us nothing.

Thelonious, Deng Xiaoping and Boris Yeltsin both realized the hard way the absolute folly of your logic.

Look at television. It generates billions in revenues, actors ar paid hundreds of millions, and when you stand up from the TV hours later, you can cup your hands and physically look at the value you received.

If that's your opinion, then don't watch television. Are you forced to?

IMV, people choose television for its entertainment value. And value is a perfectly subjective measure.

[Charles Anthony]

If, however, you accept the premise that democracy has to make some concessions to practicality then PR and the current system are more closely related than PR is to pure democracy.

I do not accept that premise. I think that accepting concessions is the same as nullifying democracy. It is like being sort of pregnant.

You construct the rules (in effect, a different kind of gerrymandering) to get the results to suit your preferred result.

Again, there's no basis for that allegation in my arguments.

Yes, there is a basis. You constructed a rule (66%) but did not justify it except for practicality. That is the same as gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is designing the rules (albeit, the geographic layout of constituencies) to produce the "democratic" results that you want for the winner -- not to represent the electorate.

I'm arguing for a system that gives the most people the most chance to have their viewpoint heard in a practical way.

It does not sound like your method is majority rule. What you describe has already been summarized:

So, we hem our leaders in. One way to do this is to roll the die every few years to pick new leaders.

[Michael Hardner]

I do not accept that premise. I think that accepting concessions is the same as nullifying democracy. It is like being sort of pregnant.

Excellent. Then the only view of democracy that you would see fit is direct democracy and I can't argue with you on that. I admire the fact that you'd be willing to put in the time to make such a system work.

Yes, there is a basis. You constructed a rule (66%) but did not justify it except for practicality. That is the same as gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is designing the rules (albeit, the geographic layout of constituencies) to produce the "democratic" results that you want for the winner -- not to represent the electorate.

Oh. Sorry - we're talking about the referendum here. I see. It's hard to justify any number other than 50%+1 as being natural, I'll admit. I had to pick a number and thought 2-1 would be a good ratio to pick. Some have submitted that 60% should be the number. I think it's fair enough to say that some think 50% is too low a threshold for a big change. I agree with those people, but I agree with you that I can't justify my number.

It does not sound like your method is majority rule. What you describe has already been summarized:

There are two things being discussed - the referrendum and PR rule itself. Most of my arguments here relate to PR rule itself, and not the referrendum number. Sorry for the confusion...

And ... how'd we end up in THIS thread ?

[Charles Anthony]

And ... how'd we end up in THIS thread ?

You could not possibly have forgotten this thread, now, could have you?

There are two things being discussed - the referrendum and PR rule itself. Most of my arguments here relate to PR rule itself, and not the referrendum number. Sorry for the confusion...

The confusion is my fault. To me, there is no reason to have different rules for either. They are both democracy. It makes no sense to me to separate the counting rules. That is why I boldly carry on this thread!

I admire the fact that you'd be willing to put in the time to make such a system work.

Stop. I only said that if we had to be ruled by democracy I would rather have a 50%+1 count.

I never said that I would be willing to make such a system work. I think there is something even more fair than democracy.

[Michael Hardner]

I never said that I would be willing to make such a system work. I think there is something even more fair than democracy.

Benevolant dictatorship ?

[Charles Anthony]

I never said that I would be willing to make such a system work. I think there is something even more fair than democracy.

Benevolant dictatorship ?

Hmmm.... I am tempted...... I am not too sure how to answer this appropriately without getting myself tangled into an argument I can not defend.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, if you say you can't defend it then you're already waving the white flag. It would be rather unsporting for someone to attack you at that point.

[Charles Anthony]

It would be rather unsporting for someone to attack you at that point.

It would be worse than unsporting: it would be difficult to attack.

Suffice to say that I believe in the super-natural (do not ask me specifics, they do not matter). Thus, it would be foolish for me to discuss or argue my beliefs which incorporate the super-natural. Hence, I hesitate before responding because I wonder if a benevolent dictatorship is possible. I really had to think about it. (Not only can I not defend my beliefs but nobody could attack me. As far as a discussion is concerned, everything I say would sound like a hocus-pocus cop-out.)

My gut instinct is that a natural benevolent dictatorship is not possible, but then again, anything is possible if you believe in the super-natural!

However, if it was physically possible, I think I would like it. I think I would submit myself to it.

Nevertheless, I also question whether it would be strategically stable. I doubt that any dictatorship would be stable in the long run.

Luckily, my original statement included "more fair" so I can side-step a lot of my true (unfortunately, indefensible through logic) beliefs. I can answer the original question:

Benevolant dictatorship ?

No.

The reason is simple: a benevolent dictatorship can not be fair at all. I must reject it automatically even if I would like it personally.

I have a better cop-out (and I am expecting people to hate me for it).

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

(Not only can I not defend my beliefs but nobody could attack me. As far as a discussion is concerned, everything I say would sound like a hocus-pocus cop-out.)

You are too hard on yourself, if it could logically work, it would defend itself. I have an idea which strikes me to be along the same lines you may be thinking. I updated my signature today along these lines.

Democracy could be done away with, but one would have to believe that something is greater than themselves for it to work.

[Charles Anthony]

(Not only can I not defend my beliefs but nobody could attack me. As far as a discussion is concerned, everything I say would sound like a hocus-pocus cop-out.)

You are too hard on yourself, if it could logically work, it would defend itself.

The trouble with me is that I am not too sure if it is in fact logical. I never thought it through yet because I take it for granted.

To illustrate: if I taught you a new game called soccer -- I mean, football. After explaining all of the rules of the game, I ask you to logically prove that the ball will fall to the ground. Can you prove gravity? Can you explain gravity? Is the force of gravity logical?? Most people would not bother wasting effort thinking it through -- they go about every day of their lives comfortably taking the force of gravity for granted.

Luckily for me, the morality of my super-natural beliefs are compatible and do not conflict with my political beliefs. However, I am sure you have heard enough of my politics.

I have an idea which strikes me to be along the same lines you may be thinking. I updated my signature today along these lines.

I am curious.

Would you describe it as "more fair than democracy" without revealing what it is yet?

Democracy could be done away with, but one would have to believe that something is greater than themselves for it to work.

When you say "something" do you mean a power (example: God, yoga energy, etc.) or a principle (example: human rights, world peace, etc.)?

This is starting to sound like we should move on down to the Moral & Religious Issues category!

[Charles Anthony]

If the truth be known I would like to run for office, but not just yet.

You should.

But at least you voted with your heart to the best of your abilities.

I think voting for yourself is the only righteous way to vote.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

As Tobin would say, All in Good Time.

[mcqueen625]

By my reckoning, there are about 15 regular posters on this forum.  On Rabble, there are about 30 regular posters.  On Free Dominion, about 20 posters.  Poltiquebec has about 20 regular posters.

Yet, "Canada" has millions of voters.

There are a number of reasons. As has already been suggested, I believe many people have given up on our democracy because they feel their wants and desires are not going to be taken into consideration. Which is unfortunately often true, but who is to blame but those very same people? If you vote for politicians who lie to you, then go out and vote for them again, who is to blame but you?

The internet is still, in large measure, the province of the relatively young. This is a group which has distanced itself even more from politics. Most of the people I know in their twenties have little or no interest in politics. Those who do spend little effort familiarizing themselves with complexities. They want simple answers to all their problems, and are earnestly sure those answers will work perfectly. This is also a group which reads less than any generation we've had. They haven't got any patience either. Writing out a complicated statement (which many are incapable of doing), then waiting a day or two to read someone elses response is just too dull for them. They'd rather be playing video games or doing something else with constant and immediate feedback.

It's just as well, frankly, that most of them don't vote.

For older folk, I believe many are on the internet, but, though there are certainly exeptions, are too timid to insert themselves in the somewhat robust discussions over politics.

At the heart, though, of Canadians' distancing themselves from politics is continuing disappointment over the parties and leadership. Not since Trudeau have we had a politician who could inspire (not that I liked him either). Instead we have bland, crooked, dishonest self important men and women of no substance throughout the parties. What's to get excited about? The last time any party raised the excitment level of Canadians it ws the Reform Party, which had the shocking habit of speaking plainly! They spoke out on issues which angered millions of Canadians, but which all the other parties were united behind. They dared to criticise Bilingualism. They dared to criticse Immigration. They stood for traditional values. They were a breath of fresh air to many millions of Canadians. But they slowly mutated, under the constant barrage of the Central Canada media, and began to use their own spin doctors, and to hide their opinions behind doubletalk. Now they're the "conservatives" and they don't talk about immigration any more, unless it's to call for more. They don't talk about crime and law and order much. They don't dare talk about bilingualism except to say they support it. They've become just another of the political elite, joined at the hip, despite the party, agreeing on all major issues despite what the electorate thinks or wants. More than half of Canadians oppose the current concept of Official Bilingualism. But all parties fully support it. Huh? Probably half of Canadians want a drastic slowdown in immigration but all parties fully support the current level or more. Huh? Very close to half of Canadians are opposed to same sex marriage. Some politicians oppose it too, but all party leaders are in support except Stephen Harper, who won't even give his opinion. Huh? Our Health Care system is falling apart. Does anyone have any real ideas how to fix it? Is anyone willing to try something new? Not publicly.

Is there anyone who has enthusiasm for the Liberals? I doubt it. But they won anyway. Why? Because no one has enthusiasm for the Tories either. Why would they have? And no one who pays taxes can have any enthusiasm for the NDP.

I'm not sure who would be left to vote for if we voted for people who didn't lie to us. Unfortunately they all tell us what they think we want to hear until the elcetion is over and they are in charge, if that's what we want to call it. The reality is that the people we elect to office are not the one's running government, the bureaucrats are. It is very difficult if not impossible for a government to change that unless they want to fire every senior bureaucrat when they take power, and maybe that what should happen in order to affect change. Maybe it's time to elect the Supreme Court and the Senate, because Jean Chretian and Paul Martin have publically stated that the Supreme Court is the final word in this country. If they are then how is Canada a democracy by any stretch of the term?

[jbg]

Sorry, Canada is not the land of democracy!

It is the land of Elected Dictators!!!!

Canadians' (and Americans) lack of participation is the problem, not the structure of the system. There is plenty of unused opportunities for publc input. Let's start with the low turnouts to vote.

[Charles Anthony]

This is a question of the morality of democracy. Let us assume that your one vote makes any semblance of a difference.

As an aside, does "acting in my own interest" mean voting to kill welfare, if I don't think it is a program I will ever use? Does "acting in my own interest" mean voting for no childcare, if I don't have kids? Etc? Should I always be putting my own interest firsts?

BTW, I'm a boomer and it is likely I will collect OAS, despite this I would vote to kill OAS as a program. I'm not acting in my own self interest. Should I be?

Yes, you should vote your own self-interest. How else can an elected official reliably determine and maintain the reputation of representing what the electorate wants?

There is a different way of looking at democracy and voting. I could say that voting inherently is wrong and thus, you should not even vote. The reason voting is wrong is because you are swinging a double-edged sword. You are not only saying: "I choose this guy to be my ruler!" but you are also working to impose a ruler on your fellow voter. I would posit that we are not bothered by this breach of freedom because schizophrenically we know that such coercion is infinitesmally powerless -- yet we believe in the power of voting, nevertheless.

[Canadian Blue]

QUOTE

But BD, why does the government alone sell alcohol at the retail level? By the same logic, the government should alone sell vinegar, salt and bottled water. Would you be in favour of a Alberta Vinegar Control agency?

To better control that alcohol does not get sold to minors. Vinegar does not have that problem. Your logic is lacking logic.

Actually when I was in Ontario which has a government run liquor store, I was ID'ed maybe 3 times out of 30. In Alberta I usually get ID'ed half of the time. In the end I don't think it will make much of a difference whether its private or government run.

[Saturn]

Actually when I was in Ontario which has a government run liquor store, I was ID'ed maybe 3 times out of 30. In Alberta I usually get ID'ed half of the time. In the end I don't think it will make much of a difference whether its private or government run.

Of course it does. The LCBO is one of the most profitable crown corporations in Ontario which provides billions of revenues to the province, which are used to fund education, health-care, infrastructure projects and so on. If it were privatized, that would most likely mean that it will be handed over as a monopoly to political friends of the government in power, which means that the profits will no longer go to the above noted areas but will most likely go to fund some worthy and profitable project overseas. So, yes, the difference will be huge.

[Canadian Blue]

How much money does the LCBO actually pump into government coffers, as well shouldn't we allow some choice in economic matters like buying liqour.

I was responding to the notion that a government owned beer store will always check ID's, which they obviously don't.

[Saturn]

How much money does the LCBO actually pump into government coffers, as well shouldn't we allow some choice in economic matters like buying liqour.

I was responding to the notion that a government owned beer store will always check ID's, which they obviously don't.

The LCBO pumps over a billion $ into the provincial government's coffers and I sure don't want it sold off to someone's friends for nothing. Of course as the most profitable crown corp in Ontario, Harris was eager to privatize it but was just short on time to actually do it and McGuinty has been barely able to contain himself (we'll see how long that lasts). I view alcohol as a luxury good or as a bad at times since some people don't seem to be able to handle it appropriately, so I don't particularly want to see more choice in buying it.

Actually they always checked my ID until I turned 28 or so but I've been told that I look younger than I am. But whether they check IDs would probably be determined by what the incentive for sales is vs the disincentive for getting caught, not by whether the store is government owned or not. I'd make a guess and suggest that the sales incentives for employees are strongest in private, owner-operated businesses, followed by private non-owner operated businesses, followed by government operated businesses. Finally, sales of "fake" alcoholic beverages, which kill and blind thousands of people around the world (and I think are a much bigger problem than selling beer to minors), can IMO be better managed by a large government-operated corporation than a multitude of small mom and pop operations.

[mikedavid00]

but who is to blame but those very same people? If you vote for politicians who lie to you, then go out and vote for them again, who is to blame but you?

That's a bit too idealistic. All Canadian parties in recent decades are out for their own power and agenda. It's like saying that Pakistani voters are to blame because they have politicians that lie to them. They are given no choice. People there vote, and no scandals there suprise them. They have come to expect it. Same with Canada.

The core factor here is that politicians in Canada hold too much power and voters do not get to have a say on any issues. If voters were allowed to vote on yearly propositions on how tax dollars should be spent and other importants laws, then I garuntee there would be a 10x increase in forums and posters.

The UK is also a dictator style of gov't, but they still act upon valor and integrity for the British citizens and do not pander for votes the way Canada has done since Trudeau. Blair atleast admitted that multiculturalism isn't working. This is on behalf of the good of Britan. If he wanted to pander and please, he would have made no comments.

Keep in mind that Canada is North American, not European. Thus we're seing corruption and abuse of power at our political levels becuase the valor and dignitiy is long gone from out gov't since Pierre Trudeau messed up our country.

The internet is still, in large measure, the province of the relatively young. This is a group which has distanced itself even more from politics.

Regardless, there is a larger proportian of 'involved' people in the US.

Most of the people I know in their twenties have little or no interest in politics.

Because they don't get to take an active role like Americans do. Unlike Europe, we are past the stage that we can 'trust' what big brother is doing above us. We now have to take power back to the poeple. This is living in North American work-based society.

Those who do spend little effort familiarizing themselves with complexities. They want simple answers to all their problems, and are earnestly sure those answers will work perfectly. This is also a group which reads less than any generation we've had.

I'm sure poeple have been saying that about the young generation since the beginning of time. Kids have poltiical viewpoints and will always strive for control. If anything, it's our Universities that are not promoting independant thought and research.

They haven't got any patience either. Writing out a complicated statement (which many are incapable of doing),

I'm guilty of this.

It's just as well, frankly, that most of them don't vote.

To be honest, they don't vote because they don't have to. They won't vote if they don't have a say in hour our taxes and laws are run. Poltiicans should be governing, not dicatating. If they dictate, people will just accept the dictatorship (myself included) and not vote.

I do not vote. You can go into idealsisms that solve nothing, or the reality of the situation that we need serious gov't reform and manditory voting.

For older folk, I believe many are on the internet, but, though there are certainly exeptions, are too timid to insert themselves in the somewhat robust discussions over politics.

That's becuase nohting gets accomplished. This forum is just for entertainment. Our lobby goups in Canada also accomplish nothing. The CBC and Toronto Star are litterly the two only organiziations that are able to shape laws and legislation in Canada.

At the heart, though, of Canadians' distancing themselves from politics is continuing disappointment over the parties and leadership. Not since Trudeau have we had a politician who could inspire (not that I liked him either).

That's part of the problem. We don't need a celebrity. We don't need a Fidel Castro or Kim Jeong Ill to play big brother dictator to us. We need somoene who governs our state for the benefit of the poeple.

We've got to let go of thinking 'leaders' are the solution to Canada's problems. They are not the solutions. We are the solution. We are unbiased, impartial, and want whats best for us. Dictators want what's best for them. Now we're in 7th place and about to lose G8 status for this very reason.

The last time any party raised the excitment level of Canadians it ws the Reform Party, which had the shocking habit of speaking plainly! They spoke out on issues which angered millions of Canadians, but which all the other parties were united behind. They dared to criticise Bilingualism. They dared to criticse Immigration. They stood for traditional values. They were a breath of fresh air to many millions of Canadians.

I agree. And that is the last party in Canada I ever have, or ever will probably support. They were accused of being racist and every other name in the book. But you know, they weren't there for their own agenda, they were there to fix Canada's serious probablems for the people. This is what I call being 'progressive'.

Now they're the "conservatives" and they don't talk about immigration any more, unless it's to call for more.

If they do, they will be labelled as racist and lose votes. It's the immigrant vote that will secure them a majority gov't. Thus, they are litterly forced to pander to these people. Again, this is NOT in the best interest and welfar of Canadians when a gov't start to behave like this.

This is why we have a seriously corrupt and broken polticial system. We are not in Europe. It's time to let go.

They don't dare talk about bilingualism except to say they support it. They've become just another of the political elite, joined at the hip, despite the party, agreeing on all major issues despite what the electorate thinks or wants.

I fully agree. This is why I support no parties and don't vote. But don't blame *me* for the fact that the CPC is doing this. Don't even blame the CPC. You can only blame our political system. If anyone was to blame it was Trudeau who screwed up our country and turned it into minority voting blocks to secure power.

More than half of Canadians oppose the current concept of Official Bilingualism. But all parties fully support it. Huh? Probably half of Canadians want a drastic slowdown in immigration but all parties fully support the current level or more.

But they need the Quebec votes, thus, it has to be done in order to cator to another minority group in Canada. Don't you see what is happening?

We've already lost poltiical power in this country. It's gone now. over 20% of Canadians are not even born here. Almost 50% of Canada doesn't even speak English. The country has been shaped into minority groups to keep a single political party in power. thus, if you want sucsess in politics, you MUST cator to these grouups.

The only thing that will change this is to give gov't back to the poeple, give more power to the provinces, and stop letting the feds dictate which means DRASTICALLY reducing it's powers. We also need to have manditory voting in order to get people involved.

This is what has to happen or we'll be a second world couontry in 10 years.

Huh? Very close to half of Canadians are opposed to same sex marriage. Some politicians oppose it too, but all party leaders are in support except Stephen Harper, who won't even give his opinion. Huh? Our Health Care system is falling apart. Does anyone have any real ideas how to fix it? Is anyone willing to try something new? Not publicly.

Well the environment is more importatnt becuase Stephan Dion and the CBC say so.

Is there anyone who has enthusiasm for the Liberals? I doubt it. But they won anyway. Why? Because no one has enthusiasm for the Tories either. Why would they have? And no one who pays taxes can have any enthusiasm for the NDP.

You can't really blame the poeple OR the parties at this stage. It really isn't there fault. The Reform party would have one hands down if you could have just turned the clock back 20 years. But the climate in Canada was already corrupted by muticulturalism (Libearl voting ploy) and the CBC's power to abuse.

Arar is not just an isolated incedent. It's a much, much bigger symbol of where our country is going. And to be honest, our political climate is beginning to shape into a typical, corrupt, 2/3rd world style of dictatorship where the public is entitled to nothing, and they are entitled to everything. A system where public tax dollars are looted and money is passed around in envelopes and given to friends and relatives.

Oh yeah.. that already happened...

[Canadian Blue]

Actually they always checked my ID until I turned 28 or so but I've been told that I look younger than I am. But whether they check IDs would probably be determined by what the incentive for sales is vs the disincentive for getting caught, not by whether the store is government owned or not. I'd make a guess and suggest that the sales incentives for employees are strongest in private, owner-operated businesses, followed by private non-owner operated businesses, followed by government operated businesses. Finally, sales of "fake" alcoholic beverages, which kill and blind thousands of people around the world (and I think are a much bigger problem than selling beer to minors), can IMO be better managed by a large government-operated corporation than a multitude of small mom and pop operations.

I'm not sure, I thought that was what regulation's were for. Once again comparing lets say Alberta to Ontario I don't think their is much of a difference. Except that in Alberta they allow competition.

[geoffrey]

I haven't been checked for an ID since hmmm, likely before my 19th birthday... and it's supposed to be ID under 25. I've been told I look around 25, but hey, they are a couple years off.

At 17 I had no issue getting into bars and clubs with friend's ID's, of which they looked nothing like me. It was a simple nod and the assumption that "ok kid, I know what your doing, but we're just going to look the other way. At least we can say we checked."

That's bars, liquor stores and lottery tickets. I don't even worry about leaving my wallet in the car now, I know I'm not getting checked.

I cross the board into B.C. for a ski weekend in Panorama last week(mmm mmm great snow) and every liquor store ID's and I was ID'ed at DINNER!!! For wine!!! Wow. It was weird, never had that happen.

So ya, Saturn is right. The profit/risk is definitely going through their heads. If they don't sell to me, someone else will down the street.

[Figleaf]

The only party which has actually shown an interest in destroying the country is the NDP

Don't forget the Mulphoney Conservatives. About the only thing that can explain most of what they did is a secret intention of selling Canada to Uncle Sam.

[Canadian Blue]

I highly doubt any political party, or party leader is intent on destroying Canada.

Don't forget the Mulphoney Conservatives. About the only thing that can explain most of what they did is a secret intention of selling Canada to Uncle Sam.

Oddly enough the same attack was directed at the Liberal's in the late 1800's.