Scheer says he'd scrutinize CBC's work for Canadian emphasis if he becomes PM

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

1. You are reversing the burden of proof, you are the one claiming that "a market is like a garden", I'm claiming it's not (at least not in all cases).

2. I could just as easily argue that the government needing to manage all markets, because "a market is like a garden", implies that the government should manage everyone's garden, 

3. ...throw out this analogy and instead try to argue government intervention in the media on its merits.

4. Why don't we throw out the analogy and just discuss whether government intervention is good for a particular market in a case by case bases? I would argue that the first fundamental theorem of welfare economics justifies no government intervention in some cases, but Arthur Pigou's famous 1920 paper "The Economics of Welfare" justified imposing pigouvian taxes and subsidies in some markets to correct for negative and positive externalities.

5. In a free market, bad ideas should be able to compete with good ideas. There are millions of people discussing all sorts of ideas, I don't see how you can say/imply that no good ideas are being discussed anywhere.

6. On the facebook think, it appears that Trudeau is threatening facebook to get them to censor speech he doesn't like. This is very concerning.

7. One of the cases where government intervention can be justified is in the case of lack of competition in a market place. I am very supportive of competition laws, and I would argue that they should apply to large social media companies.

8. Encouraging murder is already conspiracy to commit a crime. That's illegal with out needing to resort to hate speech laws, even in the USA with its first amendment.

9. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

1. Maybe you don't get what an 'analogy' is.  It can't be proven, it's like a simile in poetry.  So I agree with you it's not like a garden in all cases.

2. The government doesn't manage ALL markets, nor should it, any more than a gardener tends to every part of the garden every time he goes out.  Most of the time it's fine, and you don't need to intervene.

3. I think we're largely agreed on the big picture.  Government intervention in media happens everywhere to some degree and it's understandable why.  It also isn't strictly good or bad.  All I'm arguing is that hate messages need special attention, and the form that we are seeing them in today is 'disunifying messages, weaponized by foreign agitators'.  You should absolutely still be able to criticize religions, ie. the Sam Harris podcast but not post lies like the Toronto Sun did about refugees.

4. I won't look into it, but it seems acceptable from this initial read.

5. To a degree, but after awhile some bad ideas have had their hearing and are 'done'.  We don't need to revisit the so-called ideas of mass execution of groups based on their common attributes only.  Just as some products are simply not allowed to be sold in a 'free' market.

6. Whether or not he 'likes' it is beside the point.  Presumably he is also censoring ideas that Scheer and Singh don't like.  It's not concerning at all if the ideas represent a threat to our country, and yes the devil is in the details.  There's no point in arguing those details here but if you agree that certain messages like that exist - hate messages with no merit, that currently fall outside existing hate laws in that they don't explicitly advocate violence - then we are on the same page.

7. How do you 'compete' with a lie posted on a Yellow Vests page in Facebook ?  The market analogy does not work unless a trusted source provides a counterpoint to that lie.  And the sources are paid propaganda agitators so it's not possible.

8. That's a smug response.  It's pretty clear that people are whipping up violence against groups and gaming the laws to get around it.

9. People seem to be afraid that their right to say 'n*****' is in jeopardy.  I guess they see some value in that but in any case I don't.  And I'm sure you will still be able to say it without getting charged.  Some private companies like Facebook might ban you but you can park out on your front lawn and mutter it all day long.  

 

 

 

[Rue]

Just now, -1=e^ipi said:

The analogy of a market being a garden is a bad one. Firstly, why does the tending need to be done by the government, as opposed to individuals? If we go with this analogy, then the government needs to tend to everyone's garden in every house across the country! Sort of like how the Soviets created the mass famine of Holomodor.

Secondly, government intervention isn't always justified for all markets. There needs to be an identified market failure, such as externalities, a public or common good, imperfect information, lack of competition, etc.

Thirdly, having bad ideas compete with good ideas for the support of the "ignorant people" is far preferable than having a government decide which views it views as in need of weeding out and which views it as the preferable views that the "ignorant people" need to follow.

 

Firstly, we don't have a proper market place of ideas, due to all the restrictions being imposed on it by various governments around the world. Secondly, the market place of ideas works far better and is far less dangerous, than any government controlled environment of speech, be it Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc.

I believe as we speak you capture what many in Hong Kong are concerned about if you do not mind me saying that and many have who came out of very restrictive government controlled environments. Its hard to explain that to people born in Canada who feel self entitled and have grown up in a world taking for granted the freedoms they have  and viewing  government as their protector of entitlements.

Our  current country was started by people (the 1867 Canada) who wanted to pay taxes and obey King George and follow law and order handed out by a King. That collective political belief continues. Its why we do not mind gun control or medicare. We didn't distrust government in 1867 we saw it as our collective identity to resist the aboriginal world we did not want to assimilate in to

However if you speak to immigrants who came from Eastern Europe,  like Doukhabors, Ukrainians, Jews, people fleeing Communism, Nazism, military dictatorships, persecution, they  had a far different approach to governments and symbols of authority like the police or military. It was  cautious to say the least.I am a stereotype Canadian. A second generation whose grandparents and one parent fled oppressive regimes to come to Canada for freedom. So ee see the merit of a good strong government that preserves democracy but we also cherish free speech  and governments not being to pervasive because we saw them used as agents of persecution. So we are by nature centralist-we like to see a good  healthy dynamic or balancing of government regulation at times, and free market at other times...a balancing act while the next generations removed from this and only born in Canada see the government as the agent to guarantee their lifestyle of entitlements which we now call "rights" but for my parents or grandparents were considered "privileges" you had to work for, not  be given by government. I am 63. I am old enough to know people who sacrificed in WW1, 2 and Korea and speak to me. So I have that perspective plus the awareness of post WW2 economic booms and busts and self centered baby boomers who preached collectivism and then turned into the most greedy and dishonest of capitalists giving birth to confused children now entering the economic sectors totally disillusioned and feeling expendable and meaningless.

I aso  think with the reality of global market trading things have changed since WW2 and the very ability to achieve free markets has become impossible and w ehave wide spread cancerous predatory pricing practices including dumping which prevent fair trade.So now the question is how do we have nations cooperate with each other on macro and micro levels of economic levels  facilitating fair trade? Is  Is it possible?  Yes we have things now like the World Trade Organization and all kinds of economic trading alliances and bilateral free trade agreements between nations or collectives of nations like the Pacific Rim or EEC....but does the world  still simply breakdown into cartels /monopolies rigging supply and demand to inflate prices  to maximize profit no matter what we do?  Do  you  believe we can control  economic activities  generated by alliances of mega-international corporations like Union Carbide, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Colgate-Palmolive, etc., or the Chinese government corporation of corporations?

You ask me are politicians are  just puppets, covers, distractions  and pacifiers foro these  these business cartels so they can carry out their agendas.

Look how easy its been to turn people into Borgs from Star Trek, absolute sheep in a collective by just the device of the cell phone alone.

The information age has used internet and the cell phone to create one massive opiate that controls free thought.

Its why I do not use one. I limit it as a device for calling if I am in a car accident. I also do not buy a damn thing on line. However I like you and everyone else use the internet and realize credit cards are also a control mechanism and tracking device that have turned me into a Borg like you and everyone else.

Resistance is futile.

Regards 13 of 6666 

 

 

 

Edited June 12, 2019 by Rue

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Pretty unpopular suggestion.  I don't think you understand how politics works.  You have to do things people want.

It would be popular among conservatives, highly unpopular among the Left, and a big 'meh' among centrists, who can get their news about Donald Trump and storms in Louisiana from American networks if they so desire.

It's a highly inefficient and wasteful organization with a clear progressive bias in all aspects of its operations. Sell it off, if anyone is interested in buying it.

Edited June 12, 2019 by Argus

[taxme]

On 5/28/2019 at 7:52 AM, Neil Austen said:

You have got to be kidding! This guy is dangerous. "Scrutinize" means control. It is important to have the CBC because it is funded by the people for the people. While private media have their purse strings held by the rich or corporations. 
This is an important reason never to vote for a Conservative party. Just look at how Trump attacks the press in America. There is nothing as uneducated and undemocratic as to call the Free Press an enemy of the people. I still remember when Conservative Harper was touring northern Canada, Harper intimidated and coerced the press to such a degree that no Canadian journalist dared ask him any question of real merit. The Canadian journalists were so cowed that they got together, approached a visiting Chinese reporter, and implored him to ask a real question of Harper for them. Isn't that insane! Naturally Harper got his goon squad to eject the Chinese reporter before he got to ask it, so Canadians only got to read about how great the false Economic Action Plan is going. Not to mention, Harper had CSIS monitor and spy on reporters. Such a disgrace.

No doubt Harper was treating the libmedia as fake news and nothing more. When did the libmedia ever say something nice about conservatives or Harper? The American and Canadian libmedia are all controlled by the globalist elite and the globalist elite hate conservatism and will get their libmedia hound dogs on their asses to try and make fools of people like Harper and Trump. Why anyone in their right minds would believe anything the leftist libmedia ever says is beyond me. They lie all the time, and there are so many fools out there that believe their lies and propaganda. It's no wonder Harper was replaced by Trudeau. The stupid electorate wanted a bigger fool and bigger liar in Ottawa. Well, they got what they wanted. The fools. 

[-1=e^ipi]

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. You should absolutely still be able to criticize religions, ie. the Sam Harris podcast but not post lies like the Toronto Sun did about refugees.

You don't need hate speech laws to make fraud, slander, libel, or conspiracy to commit a crime illegal. Those are already illegal without hate speech laws.

 

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. To a degree, but after awhile some bad ideas have had their hearing and are 'done'.  We don't need to revisit the so-called ideas of mass execution of groups based on their common attributes only.  Just as some products are simply not allowed to be sold in a 'free' market.

I'll give you an example where the value of allowing such ideas to be discussed in a free society is more obvious. Take the idea that gay people should be killed.

 

If we allow the gay-hating people to make their arguments, be it that they think its unnatural or that they think that god commands us to kill gay people, then those arguments can be debated and defeated in an open society. Not only does that have the potential to convince people in our country that their positions are wrong, and that they shouldn't kill gay people, but such debates and arguments would be seen globally. This would include countries that kill gay people such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. By allowing such arguments and debates to be heard, we would help to sway public opinion in these countries, which would eventually lead to the end of killing gay people once public opinion gets high enough.

 

By banning such hate speech, we would be doing a disservice to all the gay people in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other awful regimes as it would reduce our ability to prevent the future killing of gay people in these countries.

 

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. Whether or not he 'likes' it is beside the point.  Presumably he is also censoring ideas that Scheer and Singh don't like.  It's not concerning at all if the ideas represent a threat to our country, and yes the devil is in the details.  There's no point in arguing those details here but if you agree that certain messages like that exist - hate messages with no merit, that currently fall outside existing hate laws in that they don't explicitly advocate violence - then we are on the same page.

"hate" is just too vague. I hate cancer and think it is awful. Does my hate message of hating cancer have no merit? What if I hate nazis?

 

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

7. How do you 'compete' with a lie posted on a Yellow Vests page in Facebook ?

Through argument. If they make false claims, then explain why they are wrong.

 

If they are committing fraud, libel or slander, then that's already illegal, so it's a non-argument in favor of banning whatever the state considers "hate" speech.

 

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The market analogy does not work unless a trusted source provides a counterpoint to that lie.

Just like North Korea, with the government determined "trusted source"...

 

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

8. That's a smug response.  It's pretty clear that people are whipping up violence against groups and gaming the laws to get around it.

If you want to argue for hate speech laws, then it doesn't make sense to use examples of speech that are already illegal even in the absence of hate speech laws.

 

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

9. People seem to be afraid that their right to say 'n*****' is in jeopardy.

.....................................................................................................................................................................

Edited June 13, 2019 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

10 hours ago, Rue said:

I believe as we speak you capture what many in Hong Kong are concerned about if you do not mind me saying that and many have who came out of very restrictive government controlled environments. Its hard to explain that to people born in Canada who feel self entitled and have grown up in a world taking for granted the freedoms they have  and viewing  government as their protector of entitlements.

What is going on in Hong Kong is really sad. The so called "People's Republic of China" is not holding up its end of the bargain in the transfer of Hong Kong, the PRC is supposed to respect the democratic independence for 50 years.

Edited June 13, 2019 by -1=e^ipi

[Argus]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

What is going on in Hong Kong is really sad. The so called "People's Republic of China" is not holding up its end of the bargain in the transfer of Hong Kong, the PRC is supposed to respect the democratic independence for 50 years.

The PRC has not respected a single treaty it has signed during its entire existence.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

1. You don't need hate speech laws to make fraud, slander, libel, or conspiracy to commit a crime illegal. Those are already illegal without hate speech laws.

2. I'll give you an example where the value of allowing such ideas to be discussed in a free society is more obvious. Take the idea that gay people should be killed.

If we allow the gay-hating people to make their arguments, be it that they think its unnatural or that they think that god commands us to kill gay people, then those arguments can be debated and defeated in an open society. Not only does that have the potential to convince people in our country that their positions are wrong, and that they shouldn't kill gay people, but such debates and arguments would be seen globally. This would include countries that kill gay people such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. By allowing such arguments and debates to be heard, we would help to sway public opinion in these countries that killing gay people is bad, which would eventually lead to the end of killing gay people once public opinion gets high enough.

 

1. The Sun suffered nothing for their false reporting, except a stern word from The Press Council - which they ignored.  

2. I find your example completely naive.  How about a real world example ?  A major newspaper in Canada's biggest city whips up hate against a minority group to the point where unhinged people try to burn them out of their homes.  Nobody does anything about it.  The newspaper suffers in no way whatsoever and no one cares.  My example is real by the way.

Keep saying we're going to be like North Korea if we do something like this, as you will.  But I ask you at what point are you going to say something should be done about actual violence against actual people due to currently-legal hatemongering ?  Serious question.

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. I find your example completely naive.  How about a real world example ?

Real world example? Gay people are killed for being gay in the real world. That's a real world problem, and free speech is the best mechanism to stop it.

Edited June 13, 2019 by -1=e^ipi

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Real world example? Gay people are killed for being gay in the real world. That's a real world problem, and free speech is the best mechanism to stop it.

You haven't given a real world example, more like a real scenario paired with your solution and an unfounded assertion that it's the best way.  Look at my last paragraph and answer that.

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. The Sun suffered nothing for their false reporting, except a stern word from The Press Council - which they ignored. 

The Sun, a single time, reported something about natives in a building by mistake.

And you've been in a bug-eyed frenzy about it ever  since. On your deathbed you'll still be ranting about that article the Sun one wrote about your beloved refugees.

[SpankyMcFarland]

I like Power and Politics and the local news. Our media’s problems are faced by nearly any small country (in population) next to a much larger one that speaks the same language.