Elitism and democracy (in democracy, etc)

[myata]

On 1/28/2021 at 10:24 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Because, really, people don't care about a single dissenter on most any issue right ?

The point here is quite straightforward imv: formal legitimacy does not always equal the actual one. When and if people cease to invest and participate consciously and willingly, it's only a matter of time before a democracy changes into something else, regardless of the formal label. And the second point I was trying to make is that to effect a necessary change one needs mechanisms and tools to carry it into the reality. Talking is not making a change it's only talking. And if effective or at least working tools of change were not developed, then logically, change wouldn't be possible. "It's such a can of worms - let someone else do it some time else (if they can)". Should it be made our unofficial motto?

Edited February 2, 2021 by myata

[cougar]

On 1/25/2021 at 3:53 PM, cannuck said:

That is a greed problem, not a capitalist problem. 

It may be a capitalist problem.  Socialism treats greed as a sin.  Capitalism promotes greed and rewards the greedy.

As I have already mentioned it earlier, socialism does not treat people as a commodity.  Capitalism does.

It is entirely possible that this is what drives its success.  You bring people from other places and increase demand - prices rise.  The country which was the donor of immigrants sees its population shrink and demand going down - a loss for them.

The bothersome thing is that in a greedy environment quality of life goes down the drain.   People eat and breath money, work overtime, have zero enjoyment of anything in some vicious circle to get ahead.

As I had mentioned before, if I knew what a pathetic place this is, I wouldn't have set foot here.  Too late.

Edited February 2, 2021 by cougar

[myata]

"Democracy for the people" always evolves through "democracy by us for the pueblo" to "power by us, forget the pueblo". Only democracy by the people, direct, everyday and active avoids this recurring in history theme, and trajectory.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, myata said:

1. Only democracy by the people, direct, everyday and active avoids this recurring in history theme, and trajectory.

1. How possible ?  No collective larger than a tribe can sustain this.

[myata]

21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. How possible ?  No collective larger than a tribe can sustain this.

But evolution doesn't ask for explanations and excuses. In the absence of new paths only the old ones remain.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, myata said:

But evolution doesn't ask for explanations and excuses. In the absence of new paths only the old ones remain.

What ? 

[myata]

On 1/14/2021 at 7:43 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

It's an old concept...way before "new populists"...and very Canadian:

 

 

 

On 1/14/2021 at 7:43 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

In Canada, such detachment has been the rule rather than the exception over the last 50 years, and the Laurentian Elite is largely to blame.

 

 

The detachment is visibly there but as already commented, I'll wouldn't be blaming the elites or any specific part of the society for this outcome. Complacency; self-absorption; focus on distraction and entertainment; delegation of civic responsibilities to the political class all contributed to the status quo. And the concern here is that it can be a one-way trajectory; its much harder to restore failing interest and trust in the democracy than to maintain it through participation, and evolution that is, meaningful and positive change.

[Nefarious Banana]

On 2/1/2021 at 7:42 PM, cougar said:

It may be a capitalist problem.  Socialism treats greed as a sin.  Capitalism promotes greed and rewards the greedy.

As I have already mentioned it earlier, socialism does not treat people as a commodity.  Capitalism does.

It is entirely possible that this is what drives its success.  You bring people from other places and increase demand - prices rise.  The country which was the donor of immigrants sees its population shrink and demand going down - a loss for them.

The bothersome thing is that in a greedy environment quality of life goes down the drain.   People eat and breath money, work overtime, have zero enjoyment of anything in some vicious circle to get ahead.

As I had mentioned before, if I knew what a pathetic place this is, I wouldn't have set foot here.  Too late.

a) Capitalism promotes taking the chances and hard work for reward. 

b) Huh?

c) People willing to take a chance and compete . . . no ribbon for every kid in the foot race.

d) Communistic statement . . . shows where your mind's at. Enough said about that.

e) If you had any personal drive and initiative, you'd be embarrassed by your pathetic statement, and be gone whence you came.

[cougar]

2 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:

e) If you had any personal drive and initiative, you'd be embarrassed by your pathetic statement, and be gone whence you came.

Nope.  It will not change the reality outside my own existence.

You will still be driving along roads littered with garbage.  You will still be a sheep steered by your corrupt government where you are expected to work harder and harder for less rewards.  You will still live in a place where healthy ecosystems are replaced by equipment yards and parking lots to ensure "economic growth".  You will still live in a lie where people put on pink glasses and plug their noses, pretending they do not feel the stench.

Forget about me; look around you at your own meaningless existence. 

 

[Nefarious Banana]

Communism might work for you . . . . did you come from a communist country or background?

[cannuck]

On 2/1/2021 at 9:42 PM, cougar said:

It may be a capitalist problem.  Socialism treats greed as a sin.  Capitalism promotes greed and rewards the greedy.

I very much have to disagree with this.   Socialism IN THEORY treats greed as a sin, but it is nothing but pure greed that inspires EVERY socialist leader to reward themselves and their friends far in excess of what every other citizen will ever see.  That is why absolute socialism as demonstrated by such visionary leaders as Chairman Mao, the Kim dynasty, Maduro, Castro and let's be honest the USSR's great communist revolutions resulted in nothing but mass deprevation and death for the citizens while the leadership went on to live extremely comfortable lives.  The only way socialism succeeds for its citizens is to operate under the much more transparent social democracies that can check dishonesty and greed.  AND, you will note: every successful social democracy lives ONLY within a capitalist economy tempered by social POLICY, not ownership of ALL of the means of production.

Similarly it is not capitalism that worships and rewards greed, it is Casino Capitalism that uses capital for speculative gain and CREATES NO WEALTH - which is also the Achilles heal of full bore socialism.   Capitalism rewards productivity, not greed.  Unfortunately, we have not learned to recognize the difference between endeavor that creates wealth vs. systems that do nothing but re-distribute wealth.  The latter is easily identified by the common charactaristic that wealth is redistributed according to privilege granted to those who can exploit it from greed - be it within a so-called capitalist economy or a socialist/communist one.

[myata]

And so in 170 years or so we have completed creating something that could not change and cannot evolve. By definition and in principle, or maybe on principle. Any tiny, microscopic change is an enormous can of worms measured in decades and billions of public money. And even at that, never completed and signed off, an infinite and infinitely expensive process like the turtle in the paradox. None, simply zero set goals and important, even critical projects completed in decades. Yes we can: ask for more money; create a panel and discuss; appoint independent commissioner; write a report and action plan; but that is not the result, only activity. A planet can circle a star for billions of years and never meet it; same with the bureaucracy and set goals.

Swimming in the pool was $3, now $6 (before the pandemic). Every few months, please note the price of service is increased by $0.25. Excuse me, whose salary has doubled in a decade? Maybe "public" hospital's CEO? Same with "public" transit, no point in taking it to downtown and back (close to $10) unless one's in the office 9-5 Mon-Fri - and when is it going to happen again?

And that is simply not a great prognosis in a complex and evolving environment. Even more rapidly evolving than ever. What if one morning we woke up and it's not working. The fuel, those public billions, has run out...

[cannuck]

2 hours ago, myata said:

The fuel, those public Trillion($) of debt, has run out...

there, fixed that for you.

[myata]

Such an ironic conundrum, you know that it can't go on like that much longer, and then you know that's the only way it could work so if it fails would be a total disaster. Where's the philosopher who could solve it for us?!

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Such an ironic conundrum, you know that it can't go on like that much longer, and then you know that's the only way it could work so if it fails would be a total disaster. Where's the philosopher who could solve it for us?!

Not sure what you are saying but aren't you asking for an economist ?

[cannuck]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Not sure what you are saying but aren't you asking for an economist ?

For that to work, you would have to find one that actually understands how an economy works.   Have only ever met one such unicorn (Sir Roger Douglas - who as it happens saved his country from the brink of bankruptcy by doing thigs that were needed to put it back on its feet).

[myata]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Not sure what you are saying but aren't you asking for an economist ?

A system that needs always more in for always less out is not sustainable, conceptually and practically. The eternal (bureaucratic) movement cannot exist, the public pocket is not bottomless and will run out. And no economist would help us here because that's the only system we have managed to create and so there's no alternative.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, myata said:

A system that needs always more in for always less out is not sustainable, conceptually and practically. The eternal (bureaucratic) movement cannot exist, the public pocket is not bottomless and will run out. And no economist would help us here because that's the only system we have managed to create and so there's no alternative.

None of this is true.  

[Nefarious Banana]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

None of this is true.  

. . . . because you said so?  

Clarify your all encompassing statement.

[myata]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

None of this is true.  

Then please name one national-level objective that has been completed, finished and done in the past say, three-four decades. Because if it does not exist it would mean that what was said is exactly and literally true: nothing was completed despite enormous public money thrown at it.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, myata said:

1. Then please name one national-level objective that has been completed, finished and done in the past say, three-four decades.
2. Because if it does not exist it would mean that what was said is exactly and literally true: nothing was completed despite enormous public money thrown at it.

1. What ?  Your last post didn't say anything about national-level objectives... so why are you asking this in response to my point ?    National level objective ?  I don't know... the FTA ?  Even the gun registry, which was a debacle, was 'completed'.

2. Yeah, you didn't say that.  If you did, it would also be false.

It's making me doubt you know what you're talking about.  I don't really care, because it's just a broad critique of our political economy which I actually criticize myself.  So ... even though you can't articulate anything, I suspect we agree in the end. ?   Let's just be friends then...

 

 

[myata]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. What ?  Your last post didn't say anything about national-level objectives... so why are you asking this in response to my point ?    National level objective ?  I don't know... the FTA ?  Even the gun registry, which was a debacle, was 'completed'.

 

 

A "registry" worth XYZ public billions is not an objective; it's only a registry, a bureaucratic tool and btw does it exist still, after all the billions spent? An objective, not to be confused, would be a stable and sustainable reduction of gun violence in the country. Cheers on the direction of thinking though, this is exactly how it works: just replace the reality with a thing, a bureaucratic checkmark on paper and already it starts looking "pretty good!".

Elimination of child poverty? Achieving the greenhouse targets? Cleaning industrial pollution sites? Quality drinking water in remote communities? Reduction in income inequality?

OK, why go far, let's take a simpler example: the Phoenix system. So, how long should it take, and cost to the public to fix a software glitch, cased by incomplete or incorrect specs produced by overpaid public bureaucrats with fat pension plans? The number, please. So that we know what you're talking about.

Here's a big revelation: the thing already works mostly to sustain itself - and forget about targets, objectives, reality even common sense (like $...M golden parachutes to "public" CEOs). And why would get any better, would it?

[Michael Hardner]

48 minutes ago, myata said:

1. A "registry" worth XYZ public billions is not an objective; it's only a registry, a bureaucratic tool and btw does it exist still, after all the billions spent?

 

2. And why would get any better, would it?

1. Are you a native English speaker?  Objective means goal or target.  Creating a registry is an objective.  Whether it's still in use or not doesn't change whether it was ever done.

2. This sentence tells me that you are not.

Even with your narrow definition, objectives have been met.  But what I said before stands: we likely agree.  I just can't read your posts without wondering what your meaning is.

[OftenWrong]

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't know... the FTA ?  Even the gun registry, which was a debacle, was 'completed'.

You mean the debacles that were later "uncompleted", are completed. I see...

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

You mean the debacles that were later "uncompleted", are completed. I see...

Well, come on... the claim was hugely broad.  The government has never attained an objective.

Not even a press conference ?  

I'm not here to teach people English, nor are you here to defend bad arguments.  But you should enjoy yourself, my friend.