Some pigs are more deserving than others.

[Argus]

He doesn't say it but he might as well. This government's fixation on 'equity' at the expensive of equality and merit is likely going to cause any number of issues down the road for Canada as we become more divided along identity lines. It's short-sighted, unjustified and stupid policies like this which the Left pushes so enthusiastically and so brainlessly which damage society more than anything conservatives can imagine doing.

A lot was jarring about last spring’s record-setting federal budget, which the Senate approved last week. All the red ink aside, what caught my eye were repeated references to “equity-deserving” groups (though, its only economy, the budget didn’t use a hyphen). Thus in government procurement, there were to be “competitions open to businesses run by Canadians from equity deserving groups” in order to “help build a more inclusive economy” — by excluding businesses led by other groups. Similarly, the National Arts Centre receives $6 million over the next two years “to support collaborations with equity deserving groups to help relaunch the performing arts sector.”

 

William Watson: With fairness for some? | Financial Post

[cannuck]

The ONLY group deserving any equity in ANYTHING are those who actually perform productive work.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, cannuck said:

The ONLY group deserving any equity in ANYTHING are those who actually perform productive work.

Exactly.  THIS is why we should kill the disabled !  Also... billionaires who inherited their wealth.

[taps mic] this isn't live is it ?

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Exactly.  THIS is why we should kill the disabled !  Also... billionaires who inherited their wealth.

[taps mic] this isn't live is it ?

False equivalence.  Are you suggesting that Black or Indigenous are disabled?   That’s it isn’t it?   Interestingly it’s the same attitude that was the driving force behind providing free public education to Indigenous (including those who had to attend residential schools because they came from small communities where there were no schools).  It’s the idea that certain ethnicities are weaker and need special help, because they can’t do it for themselves.  Health care and education came from the first taxpayers, who were mostly European settlers.  

Edited July 7, 2021 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. False equivalence.  Are you suggesting that Black or Indigenous are disabled?   That’s it isn’t it?  

2. Interestingly it’s the same attitude that was the driving force behind providing free public education to Indigenous (including those who had to attend residential schools because they came from small communities where there were no schools).  

3. It’s the idea that certain ethnicities are weaker and need special help, because they can’t do it for themselves.

4. Health care and education came from the first taxpayers, who were mostly European settlers.  

1. What ?  No !  My issues is with the principle that only 'productive work' should be granted equity.  It's the wording of that precept that bothers me because, taken literally, it's not any way for a society to work.  Of course, Black and Indigenous people provide productive work and therefore deserve 'equity'.  'Equity', apart from whatever Trudeau is trying to make it, means "fairness" "assets" "a share" ie. money in this case. 

2. I don't see how.  These were religious and governmental leaders who wanted to "convert the Indians".   They didn't want to include them in business.

3. That's a perspective on it, but if you actually care about how poorly these communities are doing you have to offer something better than 'leave them alone to figure it out'.  This program sounds like more than just a handout, and should lead to people getting equity for 'productive work'.  They will be competing with large government suppliers, so this sounds to me like a 'leg up'.

4. I'll take the healthcare example to say socialized healthcare came of age in the 1960s and was paid, ultimately, out of federal tax paid by all races.

[myata]

The bureaucracy libre has broken out of all bounds, physical and reason's. Sigh. Yawn. The next stop is the budget collapse, I sincerely doubt anything short of that would have any noticeable effect. And of course, the notion of the "deserving" groups, out of the public pie, is way older than this, only the definition evolves. When is the next MP/GG salary review-raise coming up, please turn up the equity muzak.

[Zeitgeist]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. What ?  No !  My issues is with the principle that only 'productive work' should be granted equity.  It's the wording of that precept that bothers me because, taken literally, it's not any way for a society to work.  Of course, Black and Indigenous people provide productive work and therefore deserve 'equity'.  'Equity', apart from whatever Trudeau is trying to make it, means "fairness" "assets" "a share" ie. money in this case. 

2. I don't see how.  These were religious and governmental leaders who wanted to "convert the Indians".   They didn't want to include them in business.

3. That's a perspective on it, but if you actually care about how poorly these communities are doing you have to offer something better than 'leave them alone to figure it out'.  This program sounds like more than just a handout, and should lead to people getting equity for 'productive work'.  They will be competing with large government suppliers, so this sounds to me like a 'leg up'.

4. I'll take the healthcare example to say socialized healthcare came of age in the 1960s and was paid, ultimately, out of federal tax paid by all races.

Equal pay for work of equal value!   That’s it.  When we begin to reward non-productive behaviour we incentivize it.  That’s what the Indian Act does.  It pays to stay on the reserves.  It pays to keep the Indian Status race card.  That pay comes from taxpayers, effectively maintaining a form of enslavement.  The inability to sell reserve property renders it relatively worthless.  If the land was endless, as it seemed hundreds of years ago when colonial settlement began and Indigenous were living traditional lives, living off the land without money was possible.  Unless today’s indigenous participate fully in the economy, working and making their own money and collecting taxes to pay for the upkeep and infrastructure on their land, they will remain dependent on the state.  Keep Indigenous down and they will indeed need the handouts.  We do this in the inner-city to some extent with housing, creating inter generational poverty and dependence.  I agree that supports are needed for those who are down, but only if coupled with policy that encourages the utilization of personal resources, including property, to maximize potential.  

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Equal pay for work of equal value! 

Ok, but as per #3 above - what new suggestions do you have to deal with the problems they face ?

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, but as per #3 above - what new suggestions do you have to deal with the problems they face ?

Be specific.   Whose problems?   The government of Canada has a subsidy program for Black businesses.  Inner city communities get additional education grants.  Indigenous get more benefits than any segment of society.  What about other races?  How do you quantify victimhood?   Where do you draw the line?  Privilege also exists among rich Blacks and Indigenous.  What about poorly raised kids of other races?   I can understand temporary supports for socio-economic reasons and supports for disabled and those who cannot provide for themselves.  Race-based funding is very problematic for many reasons and it ultimately reinforces racist ideas about inferiority because “some people just can’t get it together.”

Edited July 7, 2021 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. Be specific.   Whose problems?  

2. The government of Canada has a subsidy program for Black businesses.  Inner city communities get additional education grants.  Indigenous get more benefits than any segment of society.  What about other races?  How do you quantify victimhood?   Where do you draw the line?  Privilege also exists among rich Blacks and Indigenous.  What about poorly raised kids of other races?   

3. I can understand temporary supports for socio-economic reasons and supports for disabled and those who cannot provide for themselves.  Race-based funding is very problematic for many reasons and it ultimately reinforces racist ideas about inferiority because “some people just can’t get it together.”

1. Well, pick one.  There are a lot of them.  If you don't think government has a role in solving social problems then you can say so.

2. I don't know.  I think we have to talk about first principles before we talk about how to implement programs.

3. Yes, temporary until they are fixed. 

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well, pick one.  There are a lot of them.  If you don't think government has a role in solving social problems then you can say so.

2. I don't know.  I think we have to talk about first principles before we talk about how to implement programs.

3. Yes, temporary until they are fixed. 

Not all fixes come in the form of benefits and money.  In fact they can cause or reinforce problems.  

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Not all fixes come in the form of benefits and money.  In fact they can cause or reinforce problems.  

Agreed, but what would the fix be ?  It would have to cost some money, if only a little.

[OftenWrong]

Way I see it, the more we use race as a determinant in our polices, the more we talk about and obsess on race in every aspect of our interactions with others, result is an ever-present awareness of race as the means to identify ourselves. That doesn't make much sense at all.

These social ideas are naive in that they address the problem in the wrong way. It is not inclusive enough toward those who need the assistance, while making it easy for those who are already well off to take advantage of it.

Meanwhile the window dressing says "We've helped Blacks."
- Gives self a pat on the shoulder.

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. ... result is an ever-present awareness of race as the means to identify ourselves. That doesn't make much sense at all.

2. These social ideas are naive in that they address the problem in the wrong way. It is not inclusive enough toward those who need the assistance, while making it easy for those who are already well off to take advantage of it . Meanwhile the window dressing says "We've helped Blacks."
- Gives self a pat on the shoulder.

1. I don't know or care about that, but to see a better situation for certain groups.
2. How would you recommend helping them ?

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Agreed, but what would the fix be ?  It would have to cost some money, if only a little.

Before you can implement a fix you need evidence there's a problem the fix can address. I have not seen any such evidence provided.  With respect to most visible minority groups an unequal economic outcome between them and whites would seem to me to have been CAUSED by the government in the first place. That is, two thirds of visible minorities (as per census) are first generation immigrants and most of the remainder are their kids. Why would we presume that people immigrating from what used to be called third world countries would have the same economic outcomes as Canadians raised here?

With respect to natives the problem, as Trudeau the Elder said long ago, was that they need to join society rather than sitting out in the boonies like living museum pieces. There's no jobs out there in most of those locations and never will be. So it doesn't matter what 'equity' you grant to natives they're always going to be behind the rest of society.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. Before you can implement a fix you need evidence there's a problem the fix can address. 

2. ...CAUSED by the government in the first place.

3. With respect to natives the problem, as Trudeau the Elder said long ago, was that they need to join society rather than sitting out in the boonies like living museum pieces.  

1. Yes, I agree you need to agree that there's a problem.  If you don't think the representation of some groups, as they appear in certain statistics, is a problem then we don't need to discuss further.

2. So the poor state of these groups was caused by the government.  Ok, that's a new one.   

3. He still tried to help them.  If he failed then it seems he was causing the problem - is that what you meant ?

[myata]

How's an MP work "productive"? Where, what market or common sense says that it should be paying up to 4 times average salary of a productive worker? When the privilege game has begun there will be no end. Some will always be more deserving and it's shameful that they know and mention that word, "equitable" or maybe just saying it.

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't know or care about that, but to see a better situation for certain groups.
2. How would you recommend helping them ?

1. That's great. But if you read what I said, it's not likely to make a better situation for those groups. It makes for a splashy headline though, to capture the attention of those who don't have time to know or care about things.

2. Recommend helping who, exactly? Once you figure that out get back to me.

Don't say "blacks". Lame answer.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Recommend helping who, exactly? Once you figure that out get back to me.

 

You are stonewalling. I have asked several people, lots of times, what they suggest.

All they say is that they don't want to cut a cheque.  

 

Basically, if you folks had an idea beyond not giving them money, I'm pretty sure that I would have heard it by now.

And so, this stalemate and inertia will result in no changes.

 

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Yzermandius19]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Agreed, but what would the fix be ?  It would have to cost some money, if only a little.

you can't solve social issues by throwing money at the problem

heavy handed government intervention makes the problem worse

the road to hell is paved with good intentions

equality of opportunity and equity of outcome are not the same thing

achieving the former is desirable, achieving the latter is not

meritocracy ftw

Edited July 8, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[OftenWrong]

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are stonewalling. I have asked several people, lots of times, what they suggest.

All they say is that they don't want to cut a cheque.  

 

Basically, if you folks had an idea beyond not giving them money, I'm pretty sure that I would have heard it by now.

And so, this stalemate and inertia will result in no changes.

 

 

Have a nice day.

 

No need to go away mad. You seem rather touchy lately, and I haven't even started picking on you yet. A sure sign of being conservative is having a thicker skin.

Another trait is to not presume right away, but be ready for practically anything. You didn't even answer who you want to help. It's rather fundamental.

For example the new Black-only benefit is available to a black Canadian. Drake is a black Canadian, so he could apply for it.

Another Canadian who is not black may not apply for it, even though they might be really struggling. They could meet every criteria for getting the funding save one- their skin is not black.

It's hard to even have a conversation on "what could be done" when you realize how much waste there is in government bureaucracy.

Personally I think the direction we were already going in Canada is fine. Racism was much more prevalent years ago. Don Rickles was funny, live on stage.

[Michael Hardner]

29 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. No need to go away mad. You seem rather touchy lately, and I haven't even started picking on you yet. A sure sign of being conservative is having a thicker skin.

2. Another trait is to not presume right away, but be ready for practically anything. You didn't even answer who you want to help. It's rather fundamental.

 

1. I'm not mad.  I said have a nice day.
2 Ok - "the Indians".  There you go...

I said have a nice day because I'm done with this.  I pretty much know people are saying "let's do nothing" although they are cloaking it in things I generally agree with: "cutting a cheque isn't enough" "money doesn't solve problems".

But really... it's "let's do nothing"

 

Have a really nice day.

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I'm not mad.  I said have a nice day.
2 Ok - "the Indians".  There you go...

I said have a nice day because I'm done with this.  I pretty much know people are saying "let's do nothing" although they are cloaking it in things I generally agree with: "cutting a cheque isn't enough" "money doesn't solve problems".

But really... it's "let's do nothing"

 

Have a really nice day.

when the "doing something" is counter-productive

"doing something" isn't helping

stop looking to the government as a solution to the problem that government intervention created and continues to exacerbate in the name of "doing something"

stop scapegoating others as not wanting to help because they point out the flaws in your preferred method of "helping"

Edited July 8, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

51 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

 stop scapegoating others as not wanting to help because they point out the flaws in your preferred method of "helping"

I simply said that you want to do nothing.  How is that scapegoating ?  

Your criticisms are valid, so suggest something else.

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I simply said that you want to do nothing.  How is that scapegoating ?  

Your criticisms are valid, so suggest something else.

less government handouts, collectivism, segregation, paternalism and more private property, integration and individual freedom

more charity, less bureaucracy

Edited July 8, 2021 by Yzermandius19