Canadian versus other political forums

[Pliny]

I have been on a political forum for several years discussing politics and I find the Canadian forums discuss what government should do about every subject, or whether the Liberals or the Conservatives deserve to govern, or what best serves democracy, or if taxes need to be raised or not, but rarely hear or read that government should be limited, downsized and play a minimal role in the lives of it's citizens. I might hear those sentiments from some stray American who generally gets dumped on for his political views unless he is pining for things Canadian like "free" health-care and other government services.

Canadians seem to have accepted government as having a very big role in their lives and can't imagine it being less intrusive or, if they do have some imagination, see that as a negative.

The optimum governmental scene, in my view would be that everyone be self sufficient and essentially be his own government. The opposite of that "optimum governmental scene" would be everyone collectively dependent upon the State for their sustenance.

So I would ask if we should work toward becoming dependent upon government or should we strive toward self-sufficiency? One leads to the totalitarian State the other toward anarchy. It is my contention that the size of a nation's government will be directly proportional to the irresponsibility of it's individual citizens, and I am of the opinion that Canada has a fairly large government in relation to the size of it's population and it is growing as is the US government.

[August1991]

I have been on a political forum for several years discussing politics and I find the Canadian forums discuss what government should do about every subject, or whether the Liberals or the Conservatives deserve to govern, or what best serves democracy, or if taxes need to be raised or not, but rarely hear or read that government should be limited, downsized and play a minimal role in the lives of it's citizens. I might hear those sentiments from some stray American who generally gets dumped on for his political views unless he is pining for things Canadian like "free" health-care and other government services.

There are many posters here who discuss limiting government. It seems logical however that participants in a political forum would discuss government policy.

Canadians seem to have accepted government as having a very big role in their lives and can't imagine it being less intrusive or, if they do have some imagination, see that as a negative.

Government has an important role to play in a civilized society. Unfortunately, few societies have figured out what that role is.

Individuals in a society have different mechanisms or institutions to co-operate and work together. Government is one of those institutions. A modern, civilized society could not exist without government.

[Posit]

I too am "self-governing".

However, government is inherently big and intrusive. If government were somehow downsized there would be a push by corporations to sell the services we now obtain through government (and deny those who cannot afford them) and big government would simply be replaced with bigger and more intrusive big corporations.

Recently the Innu of Quebec negotiated a deal for self-government within the framework of the Provincial jurisdiction. Not only is this a dangerous move to make Innu less than sovereign but less than municipalities, but the deal also included a corporation that provides services to the Innu in the signatories. IMV this is a dangerous and slippery slope by allowing a corporation a say in the creation of and the management a government. Governments are NOT corporations. They are institutions and the minute that you institutionalize corporations, we stand the risk of losing all democracy.

[jbg]

Canadians seem to have accepted government as having a very big role in their lives and can't imagine it being less intrusive or, if they do have some imagination, see that as a negative.

However, government is inherently big and intrusive. If government were somehow downsized there would be a push by corporations to sell the services we now obtain through government (and deny those who cannot afford them) and big government would simply be replaced with bigger and more intrusive big corporations.

You are both hitting on some very good points. A few months ago I finished reading Seymour Lipset's Continental Divide, a book about the differences between our two countries. One o fth epoints the book made was that liberal and conservative Canadians generally agree on a need for big, intrusive government, the so-called "Tory tradition" but may not agree on what the government should do with its power. The book pointed out that leftists and rightists in the US share a distrust and even hatred of their own government.

I think you're both hitting on this issue.

[Michael Bluth]

You are both hitting on some very good points. A few months ago I finished reading Seymour Lipset's Continental Divide, a book about the differences between our two countries. One o fth epoints the book made was that liberal and conservative Canadians generally agree on a need for big, intrusive government, the so-called "Tory tradition" but may not agree on what the government should do with its power. The book pointed out that leftists and rightists in the US share a distrust and even hatred of their own government.

I think you're both hitting on this issue.

I personally agree with the view of smaller government. Sometimes I get a little too caught up in the practicality of that in the Canadian setting.

We are still dangerously close to a one party state, i.e. perpetual Liberal Party of Canada rule. That may appear to be a little odd given that our current governing party is the Conservatives. However, I argue for many of the current 'big' government policies of the Conservatives as a practical necessity.

I empathize with those posters here who do not believe the Conservatives are moving towards small enough government. However, they need to accomplish that in small chunks. Any huge moves in that direction would lead to another Liberal government which, IMHO, is not in Candian's best interest at the moment.

[Posit]

Harper continues to prove that all the political parties in Canada are merely just a degree off from each other. Liberalism is the basic ideology and we see any moves by the Conservatives to use conservatism to steer their ship results in a dip in the polls. So Harper comes back and tries to polish the tarnish off the CPC image and returns to a more liberal approach to governance.

I believe that is why he is compelled to silence his Ministers, his cabinet and back-benchers. If it ever gets out that they are really Conseravtives behind the government they will surely be put back where Brian Mulroney left them.

And really...Liberalism isn't such a bad thing. We have a valiant attempt at universal health care (a socialist invention converted to a Liberal dominated bureacracy). We have a good post-secondary education system and a number of other bloated Liberal perks still runngin under a Conservative government. I think many people have to get over the idea that Liberalism is bad, when it is the only idealism practiced in government. The question always remains: Can the Conservatives be better liberals than the Liberals or the NDP? And the answer is not better but different, for now and for a change.

[B. Max]

The guiding principal of the reform party was limited government. Anyone who is old enough to remember, can remember a time in this country when we had limited government. A time when government was something you heard about but never really saw. Especially where it concerned your pay cheque.

[B. Max]

Harper continues to prove that all the political parties in Canada are merely just a degree off from each other. Liberalism is the basic ideology and we see any moves by the Conservatives to use conservatism to steer their ship results in a dip in the polls. So Harper comes back and tries to polish the tarnish off the CPC image and returns to a more liberal approach to governance.

That is incorrect. Harper's drop in the polls is a result of his swing to the left. The income trust lies the global warming nonsense, and pandering to quebec will all do him in in the end.

[Pliny]

I guess we haven't figured out what the role of government is.

It is, in my view, basically the only agreed upon agency in a society with the recognized legal ability to use force or designate the use of force.

I suppose it is expected that on a political forum government policy is discussed. Missed that point somehow.

Individuals in a society have different mechanisms or institutions to co-operate and work together. Government is one of those institutions. A modern, civilized society could not exist without government.

Being an agency of force government is more about confrontation and conflict than co-operation and working together. The majority of individuals in a society will co-operate and work together for the most part. In my view, a modern, civilized society will have the greatest amount of co-operation and will require the least amount of force, and thus the least amount of government.

Posit: I believe your fear of corporations stems from the governments protection and largesse it grants to corporations so that they may form cartels and monopolies. Corporations have no power of enforcement. Government is an agency of force and Corporations are not, so they will never replace government. They can only survive by supplying a service to the public.

The cost will be mainly determined by the consumers and their economic priorities. The difference between a corporation that receives government privilege and one that does not is that the one that does not faces the risk of failure and must cater to the consumer. One that is granted privilege by government in the form of tax breaks, corporate welfare, etc., does not face the same risk and is in fact favored but is not entirely subject to the will of the consumer.

Government services are mostly monopolies. Monopolies need not worry about profit or the consumer or innovation or ingenuity. If they are protected by government what incentives do they have? The most important thing is to work on maintaining the monopoly. The second thing is securing resources and the third thing is cutting costs in the delivery of services, essentially determining the costs of administration as high as can be justified.

[Pliny]

That is incorrect. Harper's drop in the polls is a result of his swing to the left. The income trust lies the global warming nonsense, and pandering to quebec will all do him in in the end.

Harper already has shown his colours. He left the reform party, returned when it had been subverted and combined it with the Conservatives. I believe you are right that those things you mentioned will do him in. His policies have shown to be not much better or different than the Liberals. It only remains to demonstrate whether he will be as corrupt if he can gain a majority.

[jbg]

Harper already has shown his colours. He left the reform party, returned when it had been subverted and combined it with the Conservatives. I believe you are right that those things you mentioned will do him in. His policies have shown to be not much better or different than the Liberals. It only remains to demonstrate whether he will be as corrupt if he can gain a majority.

I doubt he will be as corrupt. And there is something to be said for good government for its own sake, whatever its ideology. Clearly the LPOC rot had to go.

[Pliny]

I doubt he will be as corrupt. And there is something to be said for good government for its own sake, whatever its ideology. Clearly the LPOC rot had to go.

Definitely. And I was astounded at the lax attitude of the public, particularly in central and eastern Canada, toward the Liberals financial wrongdoings. Well, I have been surprised by the way central Canada votes and am currently of the opinion that they can't seem to get behind Dion, so they can surprise me again. The Liberals should spend a couple of decades on the back benches, in my opinion.

I have no uncertainty that the Reform party was railroaded into non-existence.

[marcinmoka]

Perhaps due to my being an immigrant, I do find it a bit disturbing to hear the sheer amount of both ingratitude and idealism floating amongst the voters. This is a nation, along with a handful of others, that provides so much stability, prosperity and opportunity that one would die for. We are all aware that no system is perfect, and that we should perpetually strive for improvement, but to make comments such as those I see all too often just shows how sheltered many people are from the realities of this world.

There will always be corruption, but the fact that Canada continuously ranks among the LEAST corrupt nations on earth is a testament in itself.

Even more disturbing is the crowd who claims the "disappearance" of democracy due to so many years of Liberal rule, despite the fact that this government was by all standards, democratically elected.

The majority of individuals in a society will co-operate and work together for the most part.

And this "co-operation" manifests itself as a democratically elected government.

In all honesty, I would much prefer to elect responsible individuals I trust to make the thousands of decisions daily which are necessary to maintain a civil society, and review their performance every few years and see if they are worth electing again. And while I am sure we could create a consensus and co-operate between individuals in some primitive agrarian society, I doubt we would have the society we enjoy today if each day we had to spend trying to create consensus between 30 million other people on EVERY matter, ranging from setting target inflation rates to choosing which calibre of weapons our suitable for our police, hiring border guards, to approving medication for sale on the market.

As much as I would love to claim it true, I am no renessance man. My knowledge in bio-chem and pharmacology, while perhaps being greater than average, is still pedestrian. In terms of aerospace engineering. Ditto. Same goes for macro-economic policy.

Even more perplexing, how would you go about dealing with hostile threats which are bigger than most "collectives" but smaller than the sum of the nation state, i.e terrorism, organized crime, let alone other hostile states.

In my view, a modern, civilized society will have the greatest amount of co-operation and will require the least amount of force, and thus the least amount of government.

And which society is this?

One leads to the totalitarian State the other toward anarchy.

I think you cryptically answered your own question. I would believe the nations that are America, Canada, E.U, Australia, Japan,etc have the most admirable societies. Most other nations tend to fall into the "too much government that it inhibits freedom and innovation/efficiency" trap, or the "too little government that it creates chaos and a security deficit" trap.

We seem to have found a nice balance (with some obvious room for improvement) and I hope we stay here.

Edited August 20, 2007 by marcinmoka

[marcinmoka]

I recall in passing, hearing someone on TVO's "The Agenda", explaining politics in the simplest, yet most brilliant manner imaginable in response to some abstract question out of left field. The gist of the answer, was something to the effect of :

No political party is out to PLEASE YOU. They are out to find a position which pleases, as best as it can, some 15 million Canadians.

Deal with it. Unfortunately, the universe does not revolve around you.

[jbg]

I have no uncertainty that the Reform party was railroaded into non-existence.

I have no uncertainty that the Reform party had little hope of any significant penetration east of Kenora and the failure to merge would have left Canada in the one-party grip of the LPOC for a long time, or worse, would have encouraged the Bloc to start running candidates in non-Quebec francophone ridings, with highly divisive effect.

[Pliny]

Marcinmoka, you like the status quo. You weren't here 50 years ago. We have seen a steady decline in stability over that period. It isn't really a Canadian thing but a global problem of the encroaching State. They have replaced economics with a neo-economics to better engineer society.

It may look rosy to you and to many developing countries that have governments that use their force to grab the wealth of their country such as Zimbabwe and Venezuela. There is no stability where private property is not the foremost right of the citizen.

We here are losing more and more the concept of private property that can be usurped by government and governments that don't recognize this tend to fall sooner or later. Often sooner.

Your comments reflect, I think, the majority of Canadians. In being under the wing of government we tend to give it more leeway and are less vigilant about it's activities. They are good and benevolent, after all, and will surely do well by us if we just let them get on with the business of governing.

I must ask you a few more questions but I have no time at the moment. I will be away for a day or two but will get back to you.

[Pliny]

I have no uncertainty that the Reform party had little hope of any significant penetration east of Kenora and the failure to merge would have left Canada in the one-party grip of the LPOC for a long time, or worse, would have encouraged the Bloc to start running candidates in non-Quebec francophone ridings, with highly divisive effect.

The staunch conservative, I see. You are probably correct but I would rather they had stuck to their principles than sell them to gain power. It would have been a more politically confrontational nation had they done so and less stable but in the long run we would have come out stronger. If we had continued and made it through the rough waters we would have had a more clear idea of where we were headed as a nation. Well, we do for sure now. A much larger nanny state.

[Michael Bluth]

The staunch conservative, I see. You are probably correct but I would rather they had stuck to their principles than sell them to gain power. It would have been a more politically confrontational nation had they done so and less stable but in the long run we would have come out stronger.

What do you mean by more politically confrontational?

A one-party Liberal Party of Canada state is not confrontational at all.

After how many consecutive Liberal majorities is it just a matter of going through the motions of being a democracy? 4? 5? 6?

Moral victories are for chumps. Canada is far better of with a pragmatic Stephen Harper as PM than with Paul Martin or Stephane Dion.

[Drea]

After how many consecutive Liberal majorities is it just a matter of going through the motions of being a democracy? 4? 5? 6?

The voters vote in a democracy. Tough luck if your "party" isn't the one who wins most often.... pft.

Those who espouse "We are a dictatorship! The Liberals have been running the country forever!"

are simply mad that the politicians they chose on the ballot were not chosen by the majority. If Canadians want a CPC majority, they will vote for it. If Canadians want a Liberal majority, they will vote for it.

Democracy = majority rule. Get over it.

[marcinmoka]

Marcinmoka, you like the status quo.

Of course. That is why myself, along with millions of others, have moved here from places were property rights really do not exist and not in this imagined sense.

You weren't here 50 years ago

Considering I am in my 20's, yes, I admit so.

We have seen a steady decline in stability over that period

Every single generation has this rather bizarre notion that modern epoch is somehow worse now than it was in the past. In 50 years, I too shall most likely be one of those grumpy old men wishing for the good ol' days. It is a generational divide. What we see as progress, you see as unfamiliar change. The reality is that we are healthier, better informed, better connected than all previous generations.

But nonetheless, we seem to be incapable of abandoning this romanticized ideal we have of our own youths. Not that I blame you for it, as this is a common phenomenon.

They have replaced economics with a neo-economics to better engineer society.

This portion could also do with an explanation if you have time.

Who are "they"?

What do you mean by better engineering society?

What exactly is "neo-economics"?

[Topaz]

No one person can please everyone and no party can, that is a given. What matters is HOW they govern and how they use the tax $$. The secret to a party governing , in my view, is to keep the taxpayer happy and be there for the citizens that really do need the help. Most people only want a job, home and kids and are more than willing to work for it, but if a government does something to destroy or damage ones opportunities to be self-sufficient, like the income interst change, than you have a country of unhappy people. I think it would be wise for everyone that wants a college and university degree, it should come out of our taxes and when the people start to work, there will be more tax $ collected and go back into the government. I like to see a government that has parts of all the parties, keep the people happy and the government will stay in power. I don't think people say that they are happy inder this government, do you??

[Higgly]

I have been on a political forum for several years discussing politics and I find the Canadian forums discuss what government should do about every subject, or whether the Liberals or the Conservatives deserve to govern, or what best serves democracy, or if taxes need to be raised or not, but rarely hear or read that government should be limited, downsized and play a minimal role in the lives of it's citizens. I might hear those sentiments from some stray American who generally gets dumped on for his political views unless he is pining for things Canadian like "free" health-care and other government services.

You're right. But politics is about government is it not? In any case, what you say is true. Canadians do expect government to solve a lot of problems that the US government just leaves to the free enterprise system. That's why we have universal helath care and the US has huge numbers of people going bankrupt because of health care bills. Oops. Forgot. US citizens can no longer declare bankruptcy in the US due to health care bills. Another George Bush innovation.

[Michael Bluth]

Those who espouse "We are a dictatorship! The Liberals have been running the country forever!"

are simply mad that the politicians they chose on the ballot were not chosen by the majority.

Democracy = majority rule. Get over it.

1993 Federal election - Liberals = 41.24% of the popular vote. Result? Majority government.

1997 Federal election - Liberals = 38.46% of the popular vote. Result? Majority government.

2000 Federal election - Liberals = 40.85% of the popular vote. Result? Majority government.

Hmmm, 13 consecutive years of Liberal majority government and not once did they come close to being 'chosen' by the majority.

Those who are going to go off on ill-informed rants should really think a little more before posting their condescension.

[jbg]

The staunch conservative, I see.

A "staunch conservative"? Hardly. If anything, I am a left-wing extremist, so liberal that I've been banned from Rabble about 12 times.

You are probably correct but I would rather they had stuck to their principles than sell them to gain power. It would have been a more politically confrontational nation had they done so and less stable but in the long run we would have come out stronger. If we had continued and made it through the rough waters we would have had a more clear idea of where we were headed as a nation. Well, we do for sure now. A much larger nanny state.

How would the one-party monopoly have been broken peacefully? The answer is it wouldn't have been.

[jbg]

1993 Federal election - Liberals = 41.24% of the popular vote. Result? Majority government.

1997 Federal election - Liberals = 38.46% of the popular vote. Result? Majority government.

2000 Federal election - Liberals = 40.85% of the popular vote. Result? Majority government.

Hmmm, 13 consecutive years of Liberal majority government and not once did they come close to being 'chosen' by the majority.

Those who are going to go off on ill-informed rants should really think a little more before posting their condescension.

To be fair, only Diefenbaker and Mulroney have been "chosen" by the majority in that sense.