The !diot's prerogative: an existential challenge of modern representative democracies?

[myata]

Democracy (for me, us) is a movie theater - or supermarket. If we like it we clap and cheer. And if not, we blame someone/thing else and can do something stupid only to stick it up to - who? Because despite all the great and inspirational words, we have little or nothing to do with it. Only spectators or consumers here, really.

Aka, the !diot's prerogative. It erodes, degrades and in the eventuality, can end democracy. So how to bring the responsibility of a citizen for the decisions and ultimately, the state of democracy back in the loop, not in the words but daily, working practice? While obvious solutions can be elusive, it's becoming clear that representative, delegation pattern and practice can be one essential cause of the detachment and alienation of regular citizens from the processes and institutes of democracy. Eventually, the separation engenders the rise of the !diot prerogative with all its known and tested consequences.

Can democratic governance be executed by the citizens themselves, avoiding delegation of the privilege and responsibility? That is a question that may very well determine the trajectory of democracies in the next span.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Democracy (for me, us) is a movie theater - or supermarket. If we like it we clap and cheer. And if not, we blame someone/thing else and can do something stupid only to stick it up to - who? Because despite all the great and inspirational words, we have little or nothing to do with it. Only spectators or consumers here, really.

Aka, the !diot's prerogative. It erodes, degrades and in the eventuality, can end democracy. So how to bring the responsibility of a citizen for the decisions and ultimately, the state of democracy back in the loop, not in the words but daily, working practice? While obvious solutions can be elusive, it's becoming clear that representative, delegation pattern and practice can be one essential cause of the detachment and alienation of regular citizens from the processes and institutes of democracy. Eventually, the separation engenders the rise of the !diot prerogative with all its known and tested consequences.

Can democratic governance be executed by the citizens themselves, avoiding delegation of the privilege and responsibility? That is a question that may very well determine the trajectory of democracies in the next span.

What seems obvious to me is that these systems advance to a level where they're no longer effective at improving things.  Then they need tweaking or complete reform.  The systems that prop up political economy seem to have been The victims of their own success at times, or maybe they solve problems only to surface new ones. 

 

So what do we have today? 

 

To my mind we have great masses of people who either don't care, or who regard their political opinions as akin to their opinions on products or celebrities. 

And the problems we face today are much more complicated, and require more wisdom than we can ask of people . 

So the problems have outgrown our ability to work on them as a public 

 I would love to have a discussion on this, but in the past you will end up with a divisive set of posts demanding that liberals or conservatives, simply drop their world view in order to fix the problems. 

 

It's not realistic as a solution, nor does it even lead to a good conversation.

I tell you what Miata, I can host a conversation like this on my club page. But I will delete every single post, with prejudice, that attempts to disunify or blame groups rather than apply systems thinking.

Edited December 8, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[myata]

56 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

And the problems we face today are much more complicated, and require more wisdom than we can ask of people . 

So the problems have outgrown our ability to work on them as a public

That sums it up pretty well.

56 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I would love to have a discussion on this, but in the past you will end up with a divisive set of posts demanding that liberals are conservatives, simply drop their world view in order to fix the problems.

It's not realistic as a solution, nor does it even lead to a good conversation.

Look at it this way: in a new challenge, who guaranteed us that we could keep our ways and customs just as they were only maybe tweak them a little et voila, all good and back to sleep again? Did it work for the dinosaurs? Maybe they will have to drop their views and expectations in some way at least as the price of the ticket to the next span. They can certainly think and believe what they like, as anyone can but expecting to divide the governance between these two simple political poles may not be realistic in the new age. When and if the evolution presents us with a challenge can we show to it our wishes and/or conditions? If we don't like the change and to change where do we complain to?

Edited December 8, 2024 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, myata said:

That sums it up pretty well.

Look at it this way: in a new challenge, who guaranteed us that we could keep our ways and customs just as they were only maybe tweak them a little et voila, all good and back to sleep again? Did it work for the dinosaurs? Maybe they will have to drop their views and expectations in some way at least as the price of the ticket to the next span. They can certainly think and believe what they like, as anyone can but expecting to divide the governance between these two simple political poles may not be realistic in the new age. When and if the evolution presents us with a challenge can we set to it our wishes or conditions? If we don't like the change and to change where do we complain to?

How about..... Who collects the suggestions, refines them down to a subgroup that are practical and achievable in the immediate term, and presents them? 

And what are the two poles really? 

They represent traditional values versus new thinking, security versus openness, community-mindedness versus individualism, limitless generosity and imagination versus pragmatism.

And if you think of them that way, you can actually apply any one of those approaches from a left or right viewpoint. 

Any of the new suggestions would have to touch on all of these, and would require a thoughtful and honest subgroup representing left and right and all the value sets I listed to discuss it. 

Far from having a group of people to have this discussion, to lead it as we all consider the possibilities... We don't have a viable common space to discuss them. 

But maybe my outline describes how the table would be set.

Edited December 8, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[myata]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Any of the new suggestions would have to touch on all of these, and would require a thoughtful and honest subgroup representing left and right and all the value sets I listed to discuss it. 

I'm not sure it would be a correct description of the society just because it was so two centuries back. Modern societies are much more diverse. What we have here is agglomeration of very different groups into two political corporations only because in the binary system it's the only way to get to the power. See the destination: now it's not about the interests and priorities of the society; not even about some shared views and common platforms; it slid all the way down to being only about how to get to that chair and stick in it for as long as possible.

But even proportional system thought it mitigates this issue could not fully address the problem of detachment and alienation. Modern democracies may have to find a way to bring the citizens back into the process of active and regular governance, rather than some ritual of legitimizing a detached one. That can be a formidable task, sure. But otherwise, with no meaningful change the writing seems to be on the wall, doesn't it?

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, myata said:

I'm not sure it would be a correct description of the society just because it was so two centuries back. 

 Modern democracies may have to find a way to bring the citizens back into the process of active and regular governance, rather than some ritual of legitimizing a detached one. That can be a formidable task, sure. But otherwise, with no meaningful change the writing seems to be on the wall, doesn't it?

I wasn't thinking of the classic definitions, I was thinking of general values of the various groups today. So I'll double down on what I said in that post. Have another look.

As for governance today? I've already stated on here what I think. I think that they should use technology to create non-anonymous local-based discussion groups, and reconnect people to their local MPS via online. I would also make the ministries autonomously and transparently run by CEO type leadership, who is known to the constituents. Constituents. And they would have to have reasonable constraints and goals. Leverage online nerd Nation to keep government honest. Simplify and make government more agile autonomous and prepared to fail in order to succeed in the long-term.

[myata]

All of that still with two behemoth management corporations out of 17th century, with zero factual accountability? A pompous ritual of legitimization every so many years and the wheel is all yours, exclusively? Keep it all as is just stick on it a modern interface/facade? All of this is a prime basis for no change. No incentives and zero interest.

As often happens in the evolution we persisted in trying to stretch the status quo till at all possible and then a bit further to almost impossible. And now there may not be incremental, gradual options of meaningful change. Who promised those? Where can such guarantees be gotten?

We could begin with doing away with the default duopoly. A party of change. A clear program of transparent technocrat governance and a swiping political reform. Popular representation as the first step. But almost certainly more will need to follow.

 

Edited December 9, 2024 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, myata said:

All of that still with two behemoth management corporations out of 17th century, with zero factual accountability? A pompous ritual of legitimization every so many years and the wheel is all yours, exclusively? Keep it all as is just stick on it a modern interface/facade? All of this is a prime basis for no change. No incentives and zero interest.

As often happens in the evolution we persisted in trying to stretch the status quo till at all possible and then a bit further to almost impossible. And now there may not be incremental, gradual options of meaningful change. Who promised those? Where can such guarantees be gotten?

We could begin with doing away with the default duopoly. A party of change. A clear program of transparent technocrat governance and a swiping political reform. Popular representation as the first step. But almost certainly more will need to follow.

 

I'm not sure whether you are critiquing my generalization of the two poles of politics or whether you are agreeing with it, but saying it's deficient.

I think it's clear that change "is in the air".  And the populists are the ones who have started tearing down the duopoly, arguably.  I would say that you have to change media landscape also to move forward.

[I am Groot]

On 12/8/2024 at 6:38 AM, myata said:

Aka, the !diot's prerogative. It erodes, degrades and in the eventuality, can end democracy. So how to bring the responsibility of a citizen for the decisions and ultimately, the state of democracy back in the loop, not in the words but daily, working practice?

There's a good video on Youtube by Larry Lessig that demonstrates that in America, what the people want over the years and decades has almost no correlation with what the American government does. Instead, it's what a tiny percentage of the country he calls the 'economic elite' want that gets taken care of. These are the people who fund politicians. Their opinions matter. Nobody else does.

In the UK, someone recently said, the people have been telling the political class for the last thirty years that they want less immigration and the political class has responded with a big, upthrust middle finger. How vigorously it was pumped up and down depended on which party was doing the pumping. But essentially, the will of the people was entirely ignored.

The result being that after promising to lower immigration to less than 100k in an election that gave them a huge majority, and then letting it rise to 800k, the Tories lost 100 seats to the Reform Party. The people voting for them knew that under a FPTP system the vote splitting would only benefit Labour, who they also cordially despised, but didn't care. Reform only got 5 seats but the voters seemed content to destroy the Conservatives Now, a couple of months on, Labour is despised, with a lower approval rating than Justin Trudeau.

In the US, we have Donald Trump as the answer to this anger at being ignored. Perhaps in the UK next election it will be NIgel Farange. Both, to put it politely, very flawed gentlemen. 

All of which is to say, it wasn't the citizen's irresponsibility which is necessarily causing issues but the arrogance of the political class. You can throw in the academic and media class for good measure. Both look down on ordinary people, as well, and neither is much interested in reflecting or even knowing their views.

If ordinary people's views are irrelevant to the elites it's unsurprising they don't always exercise them responsibly.

On 12/8/2024 at 6:38 AM, myata said:

Can democratic governance be executed by the citizens themselves, avoiding delegation of the privilege and responsibility? That is a question that may very well determine the trajectory of democracies in the next span.

 In order to responsibly exercise the choices and decisions in governance the citizen requires a good deal of information on issues and choices, and the likely consequences of those choices. And that requires they spend time to get that information from a media class not particularly interested in giving it to them - or certainly not giving it to them without a good deal of slant on what the people learn.

[Venandi]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

All of which is to say, it wasn't the citizen's irresponsibility which is necessarily causing issues but the arrogance of the political class.

I sure don't see it that way. We have such short memories IMO...

Citizens actually voted for all this. And in terms of arrogance, polarized voters have politicians beat hands down... just pick some of the more obnoxious keyboard warriors on this very forum and look at their posting history.  

For the most part, JT told us what he was going to do, and the things he didn't specifically tell us about were 100% predictable to anyone who was paying attention. Can anyone honestly say they're surprised at what's happened?   

People (particularly in the US) voted for politicians who openly campaigned on defunding police, then they complained about rising crime.  In the last election some 70% of Canadians were in favour of the very carbon tax they now despise. During Covid, 70% were in favour of vaccine mandates (and passports)... almost 30% of those folks were open to the notion of warehousing the unvaxed in what amounted to segregation camps and 18% (of that 30%) qualified as all in "lets do it." Most of the young women now complaining about women's sports and lost scholarship opportunities were the very ones leading the charge on transgender rights. 

As an aside, I should probably admit that I'm using those percentages from memory... I don't have time to look them up but I think i'm in the ballpark.

The point is, no one wants to admit this now, no one will admit that they cheered when their neighbours got fired, remember the blatant, manifestly hateful comments directed at the unvaccinated by people who didn't understand the science behind their concerns at the most basic high school level. It's still on display right here... instead of actually answering one of the questions I asked, one particular clown posted a meme saying STFU.

It reminds me of things like residential schools and eugenics...where the hell are those voters who previously thought these things were a good idea? Not peep one from them. 

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

In the UK, someone recently said, the people have been telling the political class for the last thirty years that they want less immigration and the political class has responded with a big, upthrust middle finger. How vigorously it was pumped up and down depended on which party was doing the pumping. But essentially, the will of the people was entirely ignored.

 For the same amount of time I've been branded as a racist xenophobe for suggesting that we tread carefully in terms of security, that we should closely monitor demographic concentrations and avoid warehousing new arrivals, and that we should take care not to exceed the capabilities of our infrastructure. All common sense ideas that come instantly to mind for anyone who vacationed in warm countries wearing a blue hat.

Now the people who called me those names are talking about things like deportations. How many of these folks admit to having a total reversal of opinion... the answer is NONE.

Now that the inevitable has happened and happened to such an extent that even the dullest are beginning to see the effects, they actually have the gall to blame politicians for giving them exactly what they wanted.

Is there a better example than that of people who voted to become sanctuary cities who are now whining about paying the taxes to support the very thing they demanded. Like, what did you think was going to happen? 

Were you expecting another outcome here? 

Edited December 9, 2024 by Venandi

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

All of which is to say, it wasn't the citizen's irresponsibility which is necessarily causing issues but the arrogance of the political class. You can throw in the academic and media class for good measure. Both look down on ordinary people, as well, and neither is much interested in reflecting or even knowing their views.

...the people have been telling the political class for the last thirty years that they want less immigration and the political class has responded with a big, upthrust middle finger.

If it's true that all ordinary people mostly want is fewer brown people then they should be looked down on as the fu cking losers they are. Losers make it so easy for their arrogant political not to mention economic betters to take advantage of them - like voting for a fake billionaire to fix things.

But but but...no poor man ever gave me a job.  🤣

 

[myata]

14 hours ago, I am Groot said:

In the UK, someone recently said, the people have been telling the political class for the last thirty years that they want less immigration and the political class has responded with a big, upthrust middle finger. How vigorously it was pumped up and down depended on which party was doing the pumping. But essentially, the will of the people was entirely ignored.

But of course, this how the system was conceived in the 17-18th century, and exactly for this reason: show a facade of democratic legitimacy and do what it likes once the ritual is over. Proportional representation doesn't solve all alienation problems but at least it makes governments much more responsive and connected to the interests of the society.

[myata]

On 12/9/2024 at 1:13 PM, eyeball said:

Losers make it so easy for their arrogant political not to mention economic betters to take advantage of them - like voting for a fake billionaire to fix things.

But but but...no poor man ever gave me a job

In the society and political system that makes universal, shared prosperity its key objective - why that superficial growth, really if it cannot produce anything close? there would be no way to ignore or bypass the interests and priorities of citizens. The contract is two-way: citizens are responsible and involved to make competent, transparent and responsible governments. And governments are attuned and attentive to the problems and priorities of citizens. Two-way connection and feedback. Break one line and we are back to the old problems.

Edited December 11, 2024 by myata

[I am Groot]

On 12/9/2024 at 12:43 PM, Venandi said:

Citizens actually voted for all this. And in terms of arrogance, polarized voters have politicians beat hands down... 

They voted for him for a variety of reasons. Voting is always a compromise. I've never voted for anyone I liked. I just try to pick the least worst choice. And that says our political choices are poor. As Larry Lessig pointed out in his TED talk on the lack of democracy down south, if you get to pick those who run, then it doesn't really matter who the voters choose.

On 12/9/2024 at 12:43 PM, Venandi said:

For the most part, JT told us what he was going to do, and the things he didn't specifically tell us about were 100% predictable to anyone who was paying attention.

I said in 2015 that that no one who thinks budgets balance themselves would ever manage to have one. But  most people go about their busy, complicated lives and have no time to spend on politics. They're not on forums like this, don't read the paper much, and spend little time thinking about what the politicians are doing. In no small part because they don't feel they have influence over them anyway -because they don't.

Maybe what we need is a constitutional amendment that says the leader of a party who campaigns on certain major issues has to make a good-faith effort to adhere to those promises once elected or resign.

 

On 12/9/2024 at 12:43 PM, Venandi said:

Can anyone honestly say they're surprised at what's happened?   

He never said he was going to quintuple foreign workers. He never said he was going to flood the country with foreign workers disguised as students. He never said he was going to turn the refugee determination system into an open border. He never told us what all these climate change rules, regulations, and laws were going to cost our economy, and for what little result. He never said he was going to turn our already limp-wristed criminal justice system into a farce. He said his independent boards would be unbiased and appoint the best people as judges and senators. 

Now, should the voters have found out? How? It's not like the media were going to tell us. The media shy away from giving the public information that might sway the viewers/readers into going against policies the media support. So they'll pump out lots of stories on the need for climate change policies. But zero stories on the costs to the economy and society. Lots of stories on say police abuse of blacks and indigenous people. Zero coverage on the level of criminality in the Black and Indigenous communities. Lots of stories on happy, grateful refugees. Virtually zero coverage on refugees who commit crimes or stay on welfare for the rest of their lives, or on the overall cost of the refugee system.

 

On 12/9/2024 at 12:43 PM, Venandi said:

People (particularly in the US) voted for politicians who openly campaigned on defunding police, then they complained about rising crime.  In the last election some 70% of Canadians were in favour of the very carbon tax they now despise.

Again, this is due to the media. Canadians support carbon taxes because the media have been virtually unanimous in telling them how good they are and how necessary they are. Mostly it's people like me who have more time on their hands than is good for us who can pry beneath the cheery statements and look for other sources online.

On 12/9/2024 at 12:43 PM, Venandi said:

During Covid, 70% were in favour of vaccine mandates (and passports)..

Because the media told them they were effective and necessary. Only the occasional crank said otherwise. The media also shied away from telling us almost all the fatalities were people with serious, underlying diseases, or that those in what they almost humorously call "Long Term Care Homes" are so sick and frail they rarely ever live more than two years. What we got instead were stories of healthy people dying horribly of this new disease. Which did happen, albeit rarely.

And btw, had the original covid not mutated the original shot would have been dramatically more effective. Vaccines do work.

On 12/9/2024 at 12:43 PM, Venandi said:

Most of the young women now complaining about women's sports and lost scholarship opportunities were the very ones leading the charge on transgender rights. 

No. The ones leading the charge on trans rights are pretty over there to the left. Ordinary women have always been dubious about it. And conservatives, of course, know it's all bullshit. But again, the media were on-side with the far left and castigating anyone who argued as an evil, bigoted, hateful person who wanted children to die.

You could also, btw, use the strange popularity of the Palestine cause among young, college-age women as another example of how information sources pervert popular choices. Day after day of sob stories in the media of children dying is what's responsible for that. No context is ever really given, no comparison to other wars and how many children died in them, no questioning what stopping would even mean other than more attacks on Israel. 

On 12/9/2024 at 12:43 PM, Venandi said:

As an aside, I should probably admit that I'm using those percentages from memory... I don't have time to look them up but I think i'm in the ballpark.

The point is, no one wants to admit this now, no one will admit that they cheered when their neighbours got fired,

<shrug> I'm a law and order guy. I go by the rules and expect others to. I didn't like the masks but I wore them. Watching people get into screaming, violent fights over it, even on airliners just made me dismiss them as crazy. We live in a society and you either abide by the rules of that society or leave.

On 12/9/2024 at 12:43 PM, Venandi said:

It reminds me of things like residential schools and eugenics...where the hell are those voters who previously thought these things were a good idea? Not peep one from them. 

Once again, look to the mainstream media. They pushed the residential school slaughter/genocide for all they were worth. And no one who questioned it even slightly survived. Same with the BLM and 'systemic racism' nonsense. Remember Stockwell Day? He was a regular on those political panels until someone asked him if he believed Canada was systemically racist. He said no and he hasn't been seen or heard from since. Any media person, any academic who challenged the genocide narrative got disappeared. 

On 12/9/2024 at 12:43 PM, Venandi said:

 For the same amount of time I've been branded as a racist xenophobe for suggesting that we tread carefully in terms of security, that we should closely monitor demographic concentrations and avoid warehousing new arrivals, and that we should take care not to exceed the capabilities of our infrastructure. All common sense ideas that come instantly to mind for anyone who vacationed in warm countries wearing a blue hat

With you on that one. Been banned from any number of groups on reddit for daring to question immigration in even the most careful terms focused almost exclusively on economics. And arguing demographics was a non-starter until lately. The university post-modernists have successfully pushed the idea of cultural relativism until it's become something of a religion to the Left, and spread throughout the mainstream media. What? You want to test immigration applicants to see if their cultural values line up with ours!? RACIST! XENOPHOBE!" The very idea that our culture might be better than some other countries, like say Pakistan, was considered blaspheme, the stuff of white nationalists. 

Those young women out screaming angrily on behalf of Palestine being 'free' are actually championing another Islamic state. That's what Hamas intends to put in place, and what people there voted for. An Islamic state that would brutalize or even execute those same women if they dared to open their mouths to complain about anything, or dared show their hair.

On 12/9/2024 at 12:43 PM, Venandi said:

Is there a better example than that of people who voted to become sanctuary cities who are now whining about paying the taxes to support the very thing they demanded. Like, what did you think was going to happen? 

Big cities attract artists, alphabet people, and immigrants. They're also places of big government because they provide public transit, huge public housing estates, shelters, welfare, etc. And so they tend to have a lot of people who want government to take care of them. People who live further out need to be a lot more self-sufficient. Try living in a rural area without a car, for example. Good luck with that.

But overall, I still believe the main problem is the media, and a political system that forgives lies and broken promises but comes down brutally hard on anyone who steps even slightly out of line in offending people. Our politicians are bland people with few accomplishments because accomplished, aggressive people who strive for better don't tend to be shy and mild-mannered, and tend to be a lot more blunt - and the media will crush them for it.

[I am Groot]

On 12/9/2024 at 1:13 PM, eyeball said:

If it's true that all ordinary people mostly want is fewer brown people

Who said anything about brown people, you illiterate twat? People in the UK got resentful of Poles flooding in while Poles have gotten resentful of Ukrainians. You get any large mass of people coming in and causing issues with housing, prices, etc., you're going to have people complaining. 

There was one interesting poll I recall where people said too many brown people were coming in. But the funny thing about that poll was that the brown people polled felt that more than the white people did. I took this to mean they thought too many unskilled people with unpopular values were coming in from the 3rd world. Which is certainly true.

[I am Groot]

On 12/10/2024 at 12:48 AM, myata said:

But of course, this how the system was conceived in the 17-18th century, and exactly for this reason: show a facade of democratic legitimacy and do what it likes once the ritual is over. Proportional representation doesn't solve all alienation problems but at least it makes governments much more responsive and connected to the interests of the society.

Does it? Maybe in the extreme. The political class throughout Europe has ignored the will of the people for the last decade. Much of it still does. This has meant people have had to turn away from the regular parties to new parties or those called 'fringe'. Even today most mainstream parties in Europe stand shoulder to shoulder against the will of the people on the subject of immigration/migration. The only good thing about proportional rep is it more easily allows the people to pull down those parties and replace them with new ones.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Who said anything about brown people, you illiterate twat? 

People in these sorts of discussions who go on to point out that immigrants should be from the same culture as old stock immigrants so they fit in better. They're not talking about Poles and Ukrainians coming across America's southern border. And I highly doubt British polls taken today are reflecting sentiments about immigration from 30 years ago.

 

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

There was one interesting poll I recall where people said too many brown people were coming in. But the funny thing about that poll was that the brown people polled felt that more than the white people did. I took this to mean they thought too many unskilled people with unpopular values were coming in from the 3rd world. Which is certainly true.

That's a convenient take.

My take is that high-grading only skilled immigrants from the 3rd world makes everything worse in the places they come from and drives more migration away from them as a result.

If we were really serious about reducing or eliminating immigration we'd be trying to turn the places people are fleeing into places they'd rather stay in.

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

People in these sorts of discussions who go on to point out that immigrants should be from the same culture as old stock immigrants so they fit in better. They're not talking about Poles and Ukrainians coming across America's southern border. And I highly doubt British polls taken today are reflecting sentiments about immigration from 30 years ago.

By any logical assessment of the immigrants we get from different parts of the world, wanting them to be from Europe actually makes perfect sense. They would not only fit in better culturally, not only be far less of a security risk, but European immigrants earn a lot more than immigrants from anywhere else in the world according to Immigration Canada.

Give me a good, logical reason why we SHOULDN'T prefer them as immigrants.

 

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

.If we were really serious about reducing or eliminating immigration we'd be trying to turn the places people are fleeing into places they'd rather stay in.

The job of our government is to make life better for Canadians, not Nigerians. We can control immigration, including the illegal time, by simply having the proper laws in place.

[myata]

13 hours ago, I am Groot said:

This has meant people have had to turn away from the regular parties to new parties or those called 'fringe'.

That is true. Still the contrast is right before our eyes, like an experiment set by the evolution itself:

Europe (proportional system): "fringe" gains momentum, but rarely (Italy the only example so far) makes it to be the lead force in the government. The full political spectrum of the society is wider and more complex even when one party, drive or agenda is gaining momentum.

U.S., UK, brexit (binary): once "fringe" makes it into, then takes over one part of the duo, it shoots straight up to the top of the political system. The binary thing doesn't care and couldn't care less what is it it's propping, just inflates to to one of the two possible options, this or that, nothing else. And we know in this situation, faced with a baby choice under enormous marketing pressure societies can make wrong choices. The pressure is just too strong to retain independent and rational opinion, for many or the majority. Germany, UK, US - it can be taken as a given that under strong and persistent ideological/marketing pressure focused on one point, majorities even in democratic societies can give in.

What you said about the detachment of traditional politics is very true. Once in power, representatives see and feel problems faced by regular people from a distance. They create an artificial environment a sphere for themselves. And of course once the difference, the power gradient between the inside and outside, real world reaches certain point it bursts. We have to find a way of democratic governance that makes connection to the reality of life almost daily. How, that's the question.

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, I am Groot said:

 The job of our government is to make life better for Canadians, not Nigerians. We can control immigration, including the illegal time, by simply having the proper laws in place.

I felt that your statement was true but wanted to challenge myself as see how much it might be so.  I like to use PEW for my sources on this:  

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/03/19/europeans-credit-eu-with-promoting-peace-and-prosperity-but-say-brussels-is-out-of-touch-with-its-citizens/

 

Quote

Public concerns about immigration often center around culture and a perceived link to terrorism. Across the 10 nations surveyed, a median of 51% believe immigrants want to remain distinct from the broader society, while 38% think they want to adopt the nation’s customs and way of life. A median of 57% say immigration increases the risk of terrorism in their country, while 38% believe it does not.

Many do see upsides to immigration, however, including the view that immigrants make their country stronger through their hard work and talents.

Most also support encouraging highly skilled people to come to their country for work, and a median of 77% favor taking in refugees from nations where people are fleeing violence and war.

The genie in the bottle is how much immigration does help the economy.  Regions that don't encourage immigration are starting to see problems in "aging out" but I do think it's not a linear equation here.

If you have counter stats, that's fine, but my main point is that neither intellectual elite, nor the vague idea of "the people" have the full answer on complex topics like immigration and all of it's effects.  We can do a lot better at coming up with answers if we have some kind of (gasp) public dialogue to come up with approcahes.

Once again, I'm proposing something (dialogue) which was invented centuries ago and has served us well...

[Michael Hardner]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

 

My take is that high-grading only skilled immigrants from the 3rd world makes everything worse in the places they come from and drives more migration away from them as a result.

 

Well, this is a slog ... https://finance.yahoo.com/news/18-countries-doctors-2023-225836640.html?guccounter=1

The 18 mentioned don't include India, Pakistan.  So it's possible to import Doctors without impacting the host country.  I have been hearing about this for 30 years, maybe it's time to ask why our political system can't solve long-term problems like highways, subways, medical provision.

I lived in France and the transit systems simply expanded over time without the public yelling matches and cronyism.

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, I am Groot said:

By any logical assessment of the immigrants we get from different parts of the world, wanting them to be from Europe actually makes perfect sense. They would not only fit in better culturally, not only be far less of a security risk, but European immigrants earn a lot more than immigrants from anywhere else in the world according to Immigration Canada.

Give me a good, logical reason why we SHOULDN'T prefer them as immigrants. 

You just did - they costs more.  Bringing an Indian versus a Belarusian ... why pay more for the latter ?  Indian folks fit in just fine.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, myata said:

 

What you said about the detachment of traditional politics is very true. Once in power, representatives see and feel problems faced by regular people from a distance. They create an artificial environment a sphere for themselves. And of course once the difference, the power gradient between the inside and outside, real world reaches certain point it bursts. We have to find a way of democratic governance that makes connection to the reality of life almost daily. How, that's the question.

This strikes me as obvious but there's also something you're missing: "regular people" really are the people here.  People who are participating in the above-board economy, voicing opinions, following the news, emailing their MP and - most importantly - VOTING.

A huge part of 'regular people' do not participate.  Participation has been spiking recently but it's not necessarily a trend.  I would say it's a response to bad times and to the prospect of big changes.  "The" system does not work for the bottom half of our citizens very well at all.

[Michael Hardner]

Kudos to @myata for a good thread.... coincidentally V's "keyboard warriors" don't seem as interested in this topic.  I guess it's because it's actually an important issue and not something you can just toss mud at as a "woke" thing...

[myata]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

most importantly - VOTING.

Nope. No way. There's voting and voting. Not all voting is the same, even if the word is. "Voting" as in baby choice, milk or porridge? No thanks. I want ice cream. Have no interest in a pointless ritual that at this age has very little to do with genuine representation of people's interests and priorities.