Socialism

[cybercoma]

I know it doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion at hand, but is now a bad time to bring up how many Jews the Canadian government turned away during world war II, thus sentencing them to death?

[Guest eureka]

Democratically elected government's were responsible for which Holocaust? Not for any that I am aware of. Not for the first which was in medieval England: not for the one in Nazi Germany, either.

[Riverwind]

ESPECIALLY in Canada, where Alberta's interests haven't EVER been represented federally.  This country is nothing but dictatorship by central Canadians.  There is "autocracy", "theocracy" --there should be a new terM:  ONTARIOOCRACY -- dictatorship by lemming followers of the Liberal Party.

60%-70% of the population lives in central canada. In a democracy (the last time I checked) one person equals one vote, therefore you would expect that central canada would dominate gov't decision making. I would be seriously concerned if the narrow minded policies of an Alberta party representing a province with maybe 10% of the country's population had control over the national agenda.

That said, central canada is hardly monolithic - Quebec votes for the BQ largely because they want nothing to do with the social conservatives that seem to be driving the policy agenda of the CPC.

I have stated on this forum many times that I am not ideologically opposed to voting for a right of center party (like many Ontario voters). However, I can't vote for the Reform (oops, I mean the Conservative party) as long as it keeps trying to do its best impression of the Bush Republicans.

BTW - The Conservative party is the only political party whose supporters regularly insult the people that they need to bring over to their side. Your comment about 'lemmings' is typical. Harper's comment about the BQ today and SMM is another example that is an insult to all Quebec nationalists.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Democratically elected government's were responsible for which Holocaust? Not for any that I am aware of. Not for the first which was in medieval England: not for the one in Nazi Germany, either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hitler was elected.

[JerrySeinfeld]

ESPECIALLY in Canada, where Alberta's interests haven't EVER been represented federally.  This country is nothing but dictatorship by central Canadians.  There is "autocracy", "theocracy" --there should be a new terM:  ONTARIOOCRACY -- dictatorship by lemming followers of the Liberal Party.

60%-70% of the population lives in central canada. In a democracy (the last time I checked) one person equals one vote, therefore you would expect that central canada would dominate gov't decision making. I would be seriously concerned if the narrow minded policies of an Alberta party representing a province with maybe 10% of the country's population had control over the national agenda.

That said, central canada is hardly monolithic - Quebec votes for the BQ largely because they want nothing to do with the social conservatives that seem to be driving the policy agenda of the CPC.

I have stated on this forum many times that I am not ideologically opposed to voting for a right of center party (like many Ontario voters). However, I can't vote for the Reform (oops, I mean the Conservative party) as long as it keeps trying to do its best impression of the Bush Republicans.

BTW - The Conservative party is the only political party whose supporters regularly insult the people that they need to bring over to their side. Your comment about 'lemmings' is typical. Harper's comment about the BQ today and SMM is another example that is an insult to all Quebec nationalists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually in a true democracy like the USA, the senate (the senior chambre) is equal, elected and effective. Rhode Island has the same number of senators as does California.

Also, There is a true separation of powers so that the President doesn't hold all the power (unlike our 4-5 year dictatorships in this country).

And your comment about the CPC on social issues is sort of accurate and I agree that they'd be better off to lose them, but really these are not major issues for the CPC. The Libs have done a masterful job of painting the CPC into a corner on these issues in a successful attempt to lure people's attention away from their own theivery.

Message to Harper: drop the SSM debate and drive on with Health Care, National Unity and Honest Government; all areas where you easliy trump the Libs.

[Cartman]

Democratically elected government's were responsible for which Holocaust? Not for any that I am aware of. Not for the first which was in medieval England: not for the one in Nazi Germany, either.

Hitler was elected.

My understanding is that he was appointed.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Democratically elected government's were responsible for which Holocaust? Not for any that I am aware of. Not for the first which was in medieval England: not for the one in Nazi Germany, either.

Hitler was elected.

My understanding is that he was appointed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No he was elected.

[August1991]

First, the Hitler/Nazi/Holocaust, democratically-elected government argument. Hugo uses this as an example to prove that government is bad, even democratically elected governments.

A civilized society is not solely determined by how the government is chosen. A tyrant can be chosen by popular vote, which is somewhat the case with Hitler. Hitler then arrested other Reichstag deputies and forced through enabling legislation. Many institutions failed to prevent the rise of a tyrant, but then Germany in 1933 was hardly a successful example of a civilized society. As they said in Algeria, this election will be the last election. By 1938, Germans couldn't get rid of the bastard.

I've said before, government is dangerous, but it's a useful institution. Tyranny is always a danger too and if Hugo thinks that abolishing government will abolish tyranny, he is sorely mistaken.

In countries such as Canada, we have independent institutions not the least of which are provincial governments. These form a counterweight to potential tyranny. (Note that Germany is now a federal republic too.)

This is essentially Sweal's Patented Useless Definition of Government revisited. If a condo association is government, then priests are government because they set the terms, conditions and dues for membership in the Church, and teachers are government because they set the requirements for education in their school, and corporate management is government because they set the requirements and compensation for their employees, and so forth. Basically, everyone is government.

However, the actual fact is that these examples are just private individuals and organizations exercising their property rights, to control their own things. If you are saying this is analogous to the Canadian Government, then you assume that this Government owns the entire nation.

I didn't know that Sweal took out a patent on this idea. Whatever.

Hugo, you seem obsessed by this idea that "the government owns the entire nation". Hugo, who is the government? Paul Martin? When you say "own the nation", what is being owned exactly?

A condo association is for all intents a "government". It amounts to a long term nexus of contracts with open terms between people who own their condo, and share ownership - I guess - of hallways and elevators. I could probably call a family a government too. Some relationships require that you submit to coercion. Why do you do this? Because you benefit.

Hugo, you sarcastically ridicule the idea that corporate management is "government". Well, consider a long-term employment contract. When an employee starts with IBM, who can know what changes will occur over the ensuing 30 years or so? True, the employee is free to quit and IBM is free to fire the employee. But after 10 years employment, the time and knowledge invested on both sides makes this an expensive contract to break.

No, not everything is a "government". Voluntary relations, as in a free market, are common as well. It would be nice to transact freely all relations through markets with all contingencies made explicit. But that is impossible. Individuals have a variety of mechanisms to co-operate and work together, and long term, open-term contracts are common. It is limiting to call all such relationships "government" since it is an abuse of language to refer to citizens of a marriage.

If you don't like your spouse, leave. If you don't like your job, quit. If you don't like your municipal government, move. And if you don't like Ontario taxes, move to Alberta.

----

And Sweal and Hugo, knock it off with the nonsense.

[Riverwind]

Message to Harper:  drop the SSM debate and drive on with Health Care, National Unity and Honest Government; all areas where you easliy trump the Libs.

Health Care: I have heard nothing from the CPC (or the Liberals for that matter) that has any substance. The issue will really come down to who to trust to make the right decisions. The CPC comes across as a bunch of ideologues who really hate the public system but only say they will protect it for political reasons. This will not play well with many Canadians.

National Unity: The CPC has made no serious attempt to reach out to nationalist Quebequers. Their single minded obsessions with Bush's agenda from Iraq and missle defence to SSM is so far away from the main stream in Quebec that a CPC gov't would do more to convince Quebequers that they need their own country than all of the antics of the crooks that took advantage of the Liberal party.

Honest Government: The CPC seems to have the upper hand by default on this issue because they have not been in power and therefore not had the opportunity to screw up. However, many people know that gov'ts of all strips get mired in ethical scandals (Conservatives in Sask, NDP in BC, et. al.) and may assume the CPC will end up being as bad as the Liberals. The net result is this issue will not likely swing many voters.

[Hugo]

My understanding is that he was appointed.

Review your William L. Shirer. His popular mandate made his the most powerful party in the Reichstag, based upon the Weimar proportional-representation electoral system. Hitler then performed some wrangling with von Papen and Hindenburg to form a government, but everything he did to attain power was perfectly legal according to the Weimar Constitution. Certainly it was a lot more legal than Paul Martin's jiggery-pokery over the last month or so.

First, the Hitler/Nazi/Holocaust, democratically-elected government argument. Hugo uses this as an example to prove that government is bad, even democratically elected governments.

Actually, no, I'm using that as an example to dispel Sweal's notion that everything a democratic government does to its citizens is voluntary on their part.

Hugo, you seem obsessed by this idea that "the government owns the entire nation". Hugo, who is the government? Paul Martin? When you say "own the nation", what is being owned exactly?

I can tell you who the government is not: all of us. Otherwise, as I demonstrated, the Holocaust was 11m suicides. The government, then, is those who exercise or are agents of those who exercise coercive power which is nevertheless protected by law.

This is all covered quite well by Franz Oppenheimer, if you fancy a read. Here's an extract as paraphrased by Rothbard:

The great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive ways of acquiring wealth; one, the above way of production and exchange, he called the "economic means." The other way is simpler in that it does not require productivity; it is the way of seizure of another's goods or services by the use of force and violence. This is the method of one-sided confiscation, of theft of the property of others. This is the method which Oppenheimer termed "the political means" to wealth. It should be clear that the peaceful use of reason and energy in production is the "natural" path for man: the means for his survival and prosperity on this earth. It should be equally clear that the coercive, exploitative means is contrary to natural law; it is parasitic, for instead of adding to production, it subtracts from it. The "political means" siphons production off to a parasitic and destructive individual or group; and this siphoning not only subtracts from the number producing, but also lowers the producer's incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence. In the long run, the robber destroys his own subsistence by dwindling or eliminating the source of his own supply. But not only that; even in the short-run, the predator is acting contrary to his own true nature as a man.

We are now in a position to answer more fully the question: what is the State? The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the "organization of the political means"; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory.[4] For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively "peaceful" the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society.[5] Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a "social contract"; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation.

When I say 'owned' I mean exercising the right to control, since that is all that ownership means. The government of Canada has pretensions to control all property and people in Canada, particularly as the Charter contains no guarantee of property rights, therefore, it owns everything.

A condo association is for all intents a "government". It amounts to a long term nexus of contracts with open terms between people who own their condo, and share ownership - I guess - of hallways and elevators. I could probably call a family a government too. Some relationships require that you submit to coercion.

Firstly, this is just reiteration and not development of your argument. You have not responded at all to the property-rights question.

Secondly, if you willingly submit, it isn't coercion, is it?

Hugo, you sarcastically ridicule the idea that corporate management is "government". Well, consider a long-term employment contract.

Again, failure to develop the argument. I need make no response yet.

It would be nice to transact freely all relations through markets with all contingencies made explicit. But that is impossible.

Why?

Individuals have a variety of mechanisms to co-operate and work together, and long term, open-term contracts are common. It is limiting to call all such relationships "government"...

Then you need to re-examine your ideas, because the definition of "government" you have offered me - in which you refer to a condo governor board as a government - means that these mechanisms also would have to be government.

And Sweal and Hugo, knock it off with the nonsense.

Has Greg appointed you moderator? No? Then it is not your place to make any such remarks. If you feel that inappropriate things have been said then take it up with Greg. It's his jurisdiction, not yours, despite your previous illusions that this website, to which you contribute nothing, is somehow at least partly your property anyway.

[Guest eureka]

Hitler was both elected an then appointed as Chancellor. He was elected as leader of a party that was far from being representative of the majority of Gremans.

He used his office to begin the establishment of a totalitarian government that never was supported by a majority in a free elction.

His government came about through terror not democracy.

Holocast was first used in respect of a massacre of Jews shortly around 1180 in Medieval London. There, jews were massacred by the mobs for a gift they made to Henry II who was somewhat unpopular by then. The word Holocaust was used to describe the incident in writings of the time.

The only point is that any "Holocaust " can not be the act of a democratically elected government unless it is one that has hidden its nature from the electorate and entirely deceived the electorate. A democratically elected government is one that must have used democratic means to get elected and those means must be absent in any oppressive regime.

I can understand Sweal's anger but, also think the duel should return to one of the intellect.

[Hugo]

Hitler was both elected an then appointed as Chancellor. He was elected as leader of a party that was far from being representative of the majority of Gremans.

The same can be said of almost all democratically formed governments. Even those with an electoral majority usually don't have the support of over 50% of the population as a whole. For instance, George W. Bush got 51% of the popular vote, which is 62 million people out of a population of 295 million, or 21%. In 1936, FDR got 60.6% of the vote, which was 27.4 million out of 128 million, or 21%. Even discounting the under-18s, this still means that both were opposed by most of the population.

The point was not that Hitler had majority support in Germany, because he didn't, and it's incredibly rare for any democratic party to get that. In fact, I think it may never have happened. The point was that his government was the product of a democracy, and democratic procedure was not violated to get him into government.

He used his office to begin the establishment of a totalitarian government that never was supported by a majority in a free elction.

Hitler was always careful to keep his government legitimate according to Weimar law, hence his rubber-stamp democratic procedures and holding of sham elections. For a democratically elected government to subsequently abuse and expand their power is really nothing new - Lincoln, FDR, Bush Jr, etc. As I said, if you write off Hitler's government as undemocratic because of this, you write off most historical Western governments with it.

Holocast was first used in respect of a massacre of Jews shortly around 1180 in Medieval London.

Right, but we all know what "the Holocaust" usually refers to, don't we? I think that, without further clarification, when a person mentions "the Holocaust" we assume he means the Nazi oppression of Jews and other minorities between 1933 and 1945.

The only point is that any "Holocaust " can not be the act of a democratically elected government unless it is one that has hidden its nature from the electorate and entirely deceived the electorate.

Isn't that all democratically elected governments? Find me an historical democratic government that has kept every single one of its campaign promises and never done anything to disillusion anybody. Again, if you write off the Nazis because of this, you write off virtually all Western democratic governments with them.

I can understand Sweal's anger but, also think the duel should return to one of the intellect.

Something tells me Sweal won't be back here for a while.

[Guest eureka]

A governmet that holds sham elections to increase and sustain its hold on power is not a democratically elected government.

A government that uses the Press to disguise its nature is not a democratically elected government. A Free Press that comments freely on government and Party is the basic building block of democracy.

No government that does not sustain that Press is democratically elected.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Message to Harper:  drop the SSM debate and drive on with Health Care, National Unity and Honest Government; all areas where you easliy trump the Libs.

Health Care: I have heard nothing from the CPC (or the Liberals for that matter) that has any substance. The issue will really come down to who to trust to make the right decisions. The CPC comes across as a bunch of ideologues who really hate the public system but only say they will protect it for political reasons. This will not play well with many Canadians.

National Unity: The CPC has made no serious attempt to reach out to nationalist Quebequers. Their single minded obsessions with Bush's agenda from Iraq and missle defence to SSM is so far away from the main stream in Quebec that a CPC gov't would do more to convince Quebequers that they need their own country than all of the antics of the crooks that took advantage of the Liberal party.

Honest Government: The CPC seems to have the upper hand by default on this issue because they have not been in power and therefore not had the opportunity to screw up. However, many people know that gov'ts of all strips get mired in ethical scandals (Conservatives in Sask, NDP in BC, et. al.) and may assume the CPC will end up being as bad as the Liberals. The net result is this issue will not likely swing many voters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Health Care: Many people already believe the CPC is in favor "secretly" of private health care. They should harness this as an opportunity as Canadians begin to warm up to new ideas for fixing health care other than throwing money at it -- throwing money is the only trick the Libs know and they have married themselves to public ONLY care after last year's election. This is a real opportunity for the CPC.

National Unity: "SIngle minded obsessions" is a bit of a stretch just because they happen to agree that Canada should accept missle protection from the US AT NO COST TO CANADA. The CPC has some work to do in Quebec, but you are way off if you think they have alienated Quebeckers. Only the Libs have done that.

Honest Government: This is a no brainer not even up for debate.

[JerrySeinfeld]

The only point is that any "Holocaust " can not be the act of a democratically elected government unless it is one that has hidden its nature from the electorate and entirely deceived the electorate. A democratically elected government is one that must have used democratic means to get elected and those means must be absent in any oppressive regime.

SOunds like the Libs to me.

[Cartman]

I would like to know your views on immigration Hugo. If the state is to be eradicated, would this essentially mean the eradication of borders?

Something tells me Sweal won't be back here for a while.

He was banned.

[August1991]

The same can be said of almost all democratically formed governments. Even those with an electoral majority usually don't have the support of over 50% of the population as a whole...

Until we have a better way to decide the many collective decisions that market relations cannot manage, I don't really care how government is decided - as long as there are sufficient safeguards to ensure against tyranny. (Basic rule: we can throw the buggers out.) With that, over time, governments will approximate what people want. I'd accept even government by lottery, which is almost what we've got now.

[Note to left wing posters: The government can do much good and choosing government by lottery is dumb. Think about it.]

Hitler was always careful to keep his government legitimate according to Weimar law, hence his rubber-stamp democratic procedures and holding of sham elections.

I'm as guilty as anyone for wandering in my posts but let's discuss Hitler in another thread. I'll start it in Religion/Morals/History...

When I say 'owned' I mean exercising the right to control, since that is all that ownership means. The government of Canada has pretensions to control all property and people in Canada, particularly as the Charter contains no guarantee of property rights, therefore, it owns everything.

I own my house but in another thread, there was debate about who owns the air stretching 10 km above my house. Who does? Can I sue Air Canada if their plane flies in my air?

Hugo, when I say that you are obsessed about government ownership, this is what I mean. I own my house, but I don't own the air stretching 10 km above my house. Why? You tell me.

For fun, I could discuss SAM missiles, law suits and zig-zagging planes. Instead, I'll talk about love and marriage.

----

When two people marry, they sign a contract that has few explicit clauses other than "We'll share everything and let someone decide any dispute." Case: Three months after the marriage, Bob discovers a winning lottery ticket he'd forgotten four months ago. Sam says they should share. Bob's family says no and Bob wants to go to an arbitrator.

[Hugo: You deleted your comment about contingent market contracts which I had intended to insert here.]

If you sell me a litre of milk for $2, it is reasonable to expect the milk is not sour and the money is not counterfeit. If not, we quickly work it out, or establish a reputation.

Unfortunately, human relations are typically much more complicated. This wonderful, voluntary milk-money exchange only works in specific situations. It doesn't work well for lost then found lottery tickets. Why? It is impossible to list every possible contingency in every contract. At a certain point, people accept future unspecified coercion because of the expected benefit now. "Marco, if I cheat on your sister, you can come and beat me up."

Hugo, people fall in love, marry and buy condos. The condo is private property. But who owns the elevator? Who owns the hallway? How do people own the unknown future?

---

I would like to know your views on immigration Hugo. If the state is to be eradicated, would this essentially mean the eradication of borders?

Cartman, excellent question. I'm curious to know what you and Hugo think.

[Hugo]

Until we have a better way to decide the many collective decisions that market relations cannot manage

Which are they?

As Roy Childs said, you have to establish things: first, that there is a problem, secondly, that government solves that problem. Statists far too often assume that government will solve market problems when empirical evidence suggests that it does not. They also assume that there are problems that need solving when logic suggests that what they perceive as a problem isn't a problem at all.

I don't really care how government is decided - as long as there are sufficient safeguards to ensure against tyranny.

These safeguards don't work. All checks and balances are within the control of the State. What we do is to hand all the power and guns to one group of people and expect them to police themselves. It never works. This is why government always expands and the extent of its human rights abuses always grow.

I own my house but in another thread, there was debate about who owns the air stretching 10 km above my house. Who does? Can I sue Air Canada if their plane flies in my air?

You're right, this was asked, and I already answered it.

Unfortunately, human relations are typically much more complicated. This wonderful, voluntary milk-money exchange only works in specific situations. It doesn't work well for lost then found lottery tickets. Why? It is impossible to list every possible contingency in every contract.

And that's why we have arbitrators. The State doesn't even pretend that it can solve this problem and that is why the State has courts. Why do you pretend it can?

At a certain point, people accept future unspecified coercion because of the expected benefit now.

What did I just say? If you accept it it is not coercion. Please tell me whether or not you actually understand this.

Look: someone cuts me with a knife. That's coercion. Someone cuts me with a knife because he's a surgeon and I paid him to. That's not coercion. Same act, but because of my consent, one is not coercive.

The condo is private property. But who owns the elevator? Who owns the hallway? How do people own the unknown future?

This is too stupid for words. I'm not justifying it with a response.

I would like to know your views on immigration Hugo. If the state is to be eradicated, would this essentially mean the eradication of borders?

Yes. No States mean no borders, no borders means no concept of "immigration", just people freely moving about as they see fit.

[Leader Circle]

ESPECIALLY in Canada, where Alberta's interests haven't EVER been represented federally.  This country is nothing but dictatorship by central Canadians.  There is "autocracy", "theocracy" --there should be a new terM:  ONTARIOOCRACY -- dictatorship by lemming followers of the Liberal Party.

60%-70% of the population lives in central canada. In a democracy (the last time I checked) one person equals one vote, therefore you would expect that central canada would dominate gov't decision making. I would be seriously concerned if the narrow minded policies of an Alberta party representing a province with maybe 10% of the country's population had control over the national agenda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who ever said anything about Alberta controlling the national agenda? If the CPC got in, why in the world would Alberta have control in anything? Ontario still has the largest population, so they would mostly decide. (Which is not fair IMO!)

It is the narrow minded pukes like yourself, who see this as the "Alberta Party" not the CPC.

If Harper plans to be PM, he has to win Ontario and do what they tell him to, simple as that. If anyone thinks differently, they'd be wrong!

Spar, come in from left field, the sun has melted your brain or the seagulls have shit on you so bad, you cannot see ahead of you!

[Riverwind]

If Harper plans to be PM, he has to win Ontario and do what they tell him to, simple as that. If anyone thinks differently, they'd be wrong!

My original comment was in response to someone who claimed that Canada was somehow undemocratic because the views of Alberta were not reflected in the gov't of the country.

You right, Harper needs to appeal to the people of Ontario and Quebec if he wants to get elected. If the polls are any guide, he has a lot of work to do.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

just people freely moving about as they see fit.

Incorrect. People either moving around other people or endlessly negotiating easement rights (with no enforcable set standard) that may differ from day to day, etc, etc...So, ultimately, it would be people moving around as others saw fit.

[Hugo]

So, ultimately, it would be people moving around as others saw fit.

As always, I define freedom as having natural limits where it encroaches on other people's freedom. So it goes without saying that, when I say to move around as one sees fit, that means without encroaching on anybody else's rights, because that would abrogate their freedom to move.

So you either move into unclaimed wilderness or you go someplace where the current owner is willing to either sell, give or lease to you.