Friends are Electric

The bank of Canada is not controled by parliament.  Many see this as a grand thing, as the people can not meddle in the economy.  I would call them fools.

The bank is ostensibly independent, but is largely run to the benefit of business.  Certainly what is good for business sometimes matches what is good for citizens, but not all the time.  This is strange, since rights of a citizen are constitutionally guaranteed,  while businesses are just a construct.  Constructs have protections of their interest which we, citizens, do not.

Parliament represents us, the people of Canada.  If parliament does not control the bank, then we do not control the bank.  The bank operates in the interest of a subset of citizens who have no doubt convinced themselves, and perhaps many others, that what is in their interest is in the interest of Canadians as a whole.

It is a problem.  A problem lacking a clear solution.

One wonders how

I have never made direct mention of them before, yet I constantly have been discussing the foolishness of their ideology.  And of the many undesirable direct consequences of their ideology. And now a direct attack by those who seek to destroy what for hundreds of years, perhaps thousands, citizens of the world have fought for.

The right to self determination.

This is sparked by an exceptionally ignorant editorial in this week’s issue of Imprint, the University of Waterloo student newspaper.   The editorial was titled No government is good.

What, exactly, is so wrong headed about this argument?  The first and most important problem is the argument that a non-functioning government is the best form of government, as though the people we elected to govern our nation are not up to the task  of it.

This idea has its source in a couple of deeply flawed ideas.

The first is the confusion between self interest and disinterest.   The former being what modern economics demands we operate solely by.  The later which democracy functions by.  Certainly economics is an interesting field of the social sciences, as important as any other, but it alone does not have the rights and responsibilities to run government, or any type of government policy.  Human beings are not solely self-interested beings, they are an irreconcilable combination of self-interest and group-interest.

Irreconcilable.  Combination.  Digest what that means for a moment.

Both factors are important for a functional human being.  Leave self interest for where it is best, and leave government to disinterest.  Society functions not based on the wild swings of the market but rather on the interactions of the human beings that make it up.  Interactions which do involve the buyer-seller relations described by economics but also the family, friends, neighbour, etc. relations.   When determining government policy, we must not enter with the thought “How can I get the best deal for myself,” but rather “What policies and practices are going to benefit society as a whole most.”

Ethics.  Operating for the greater good rather than the personal good or the private good.  When I am done school, self interest says that I should no longer care about education (unless I have children).  Group interest tells me this is the highest level of foolishness.  For social reasons as well as economic.  Certianly the old adage that the youth are the future does hold true and influences this, as employees and future employers as an economic argument but, more importantly for the fabric of society, education is the process by whch we train the next generation of citizens to act in the ethical fashion.

The second source of this ignorant argument is the corporatist.  The cult of the professional.

The ideology, which I am unsure if the writer even knows he subscribes to, is the principle that any task should be left to professionals and that the untrained cannot have an opinion, or an opinion which has an effect on the final outcome, about any topic which they themselves have no professional training or knowledge in.  Corporatism has its place, having an MBA decide the direction of pure scientific research would be foolish, since the MBA has no skills to help them.  Where corporatism is most dangerous is in government.

In government, corporatism has two important outcomes.  The first is that government must be run by professionals.  The environment ministry must be run by environmental scientists, since science is unbiased and impartial.  But are the scientists themselves biased?  And since they are scientists, they have no right to discuss policy with the natural resource departments, since environmental science is not the same as earth science.  And neither are the same as human resources, or finance or transportation.  Never mind the fact that all of these departments can be horribly interrelated to such a degree that any single specialist would never be able to see the big picture, the possible outcomes for other departments.  No, if you are not a professional in the field then your opinion has no validity.

Of course, the parliament itself is dominated by nonprofessionals.  The people elect it, and the people are not professionals in the art of government.   This is either solved by having professionals select government or by having the people select from a list of certified professionals.

Either case, our right to self determination goes out the window.   Which is the second important outcome.  We lose our right to govern ourselves.

Which is what the article is all about.  We have no right to determine how we want our society to be governed.  We are to be reduced to a passive role where the only vote of any consequence is which brand of toothpaste we purchase and from which store.   A mere mockery of democracy where societies interest is confused with the interest of large companies.

To anyone who lives within Canada, resentment of Toronto is a known but potentially strange phenomenon.  If you are not aware of it then you are probably from Toronto.  You may also live near another major Canadian city, and resent it for much the same reason which I theorise.  I personally hail from Northern Ontario, which is important as we probably have the greatest resentment for Toronto in the entire country.

As the title suggests, I believe that colonialism is to blame for these feelings.  Toronto is the economic capital of Canada.  Any reasonable person would admit this fact.  It follows that many international companies have their Canadian head offices in Toronto, as well as many Canadian companies.  This means that a large percentage of the decision making power in the Canadian economy is located in Toronto.  When a factory, mine or mill is closed by the head office of a company, likely located in the city, it is other parts of the country which suffer.  So, by virtue of housing these companies, the city is seen as responsible.

Beyond this, companies tend to place all of the management positions in the city.  This makes sense from their perspective as it keeps their corperate headquarters localised.  But this has the effect of keeping many of the high paying, non-directly productive jobs in Toronto.  From the perspective of the rest of the country, however, it seems as though the city itself is parasitising the country, feeding off the success of others while contributing only to its own well being.

Both of these factors, the disconnect between control structures within the city and the front line elsewhere and the parasitic relationship the city has with the rest of the country feel very much like colonialism without the violent  physical oppression.  If you add the media control and the fact that the rest of the country routinely hears local news from Toronto as relevant to their own location, you start to get more of the cultural aspects of colonialism as well as the economic which have already been described.

People within Toronto are unlikely to have an idea about the goings on in the province outside their city.  This is akin to the way many Canadians feel when watching “Talking to Americans” or other such programs.  The cause is the same: the colonial power has no need to know of the goings on in the colonies.

Within Ontario itself, Toronto also plays the roll as political capital.   Again, the reasons why the city is so dominant is clear to anyone who pauses to examine the situation, especially with regard to population and distribution of population.  But, again, to those who exist elsewhere in the province, there is still a dictatorship from the city.  Unless Toronto splits party support quite evenly, the votes of Northern Ontario, for example, are mostly irrelevant.  Once again, the structure is logical but leads to issues.

Considering the above arguments, it is easy to see why the rest of Ontario has an antagonistic relationship with the city of Toronto.  It is a political, economic and cultural oppressor and colonial power.  Within confederation, the same problems can be extrapolated to how the rest of the provinces feel towards Ontario.  The same considerations apply.  As well, anyone living near a major Canadian city, especially a provincial capital, can feel themselves sweeped away by the domination of the city.

The situation, by pure reason, makes perfect sense.  However, this pure reason is not considering the effects this has on people who live in the country, both inside and outside these cities.  The people within are largely oblivious to the way the rest of the country views them, which is largely part of the problem.   This is ignorance, pure and simple, and ignorance is an attribute to be combated.  People living elsewhere have the problem of feeling less important or slighted by this ignorance.  The end result is further dysfunction within Canadian confederation.

For now, I present no solutions or recommendations to this issue.  Personal education would go a long way to mitigating these issues, but I refuse to hold my breath.  Just as Torontonians are blissfully unaware, the rest of Ontario takes joy from its resentment. It is a truly dysfunctional relationship, but it helps to define the cultural landscape in this province and country, and perhaps that is worthwhile.

I recently made some statements about the nature of the public good, which I feel compelled to clarify exactly what I mean, in the hopes of convincing the reader of the nature of society.

First, the public good is a positive populist principle used here to mean what is best for the sum total of the citizens in whatever electoral area we are discussing, be it municipal, provincial or federal. Serving the public good is serving society as a whole, not serving individuals.

For example, socialised medical care is in service of the public good, since society as a whole benefits from healthy people. Safe and modern infrastructure benefits the public good because no one benefits if bridges fall down or if brownouts are demanded due to electricity capacity.

Acting in the interest of the public good is an exercise in rejecting what may be best for you personally in favour of what is best for the whole of society. It is always better for you if you pay less tax, but if government is unable to deliver the services required of it then lower tax is not in the public good.

Acting in the public good is just a matter of doing what is best for society from an absolute point of view, not from an ideological point of view.

Ideologies are an attempt to force society to conform to a pattern, rather than drawing patterns from society and using those. Ideologies of all kinds are inherently Utopian and impossible to achieve. Anyone acting in the public good ignores ideology and focuses on what is best for a specific situation.

For example, although both socialists and conservatives would disagree with me quite extensively, sometimes it is appropriate to privatise a crown corporation or a government service. Sometimes it is appropriate to have government take on a role which was provided by private enterprise. The only question you need to ask yourself in each case is who will serve the public better. If a private corporation is unwilling to serve the entirety of the public with an important or necessary service, then it falls to government to either make up the difference, relieve private enterprise of their role in the area or subsidise services. The same sort of behaviour is required of government in the case that private enterprise is better able to serve the public as a whole.

Anyone claiming that the above is an inappropriate way of looking at things has probably fallen victim to ideology and has a Utopian view, such as the belief that the free market will solve all problems. The market is quite able to solve a large number of issues when it is profitable to do so, but the market is an entirely inappropriate method to deliver services to dispersed populations where profit margins are too low or nonexistent at all.

It is governments role in a democratic society to be responsible to the people. The people are the source of power as it is their vote and their voice which forms government. Since a government is responsible to the people first and only, it falls to the government to promote the public good. This has not happened in recent times. Governments have been ignoring the source of power and legitimacy, the people, in favour of serving private interests of corporations or specific sectors of society.

Argument on the Public: the public good moderated by individual rights is the fitness function for public policy.  If and only if a set of choices have the same value of public good can other factors come into play.

Argument on Culture: culture belongs to the public and exists for the public. The public is served through the further development of culture.  Public domain culture is publicly owned and controlled.

Culture and the Public taken together mean that public ownership of culture is in the public good.  However, creation of culture is also in the public good.

So we have an equipotential.  Total public ownership of culture is in the public good, but if creators are not compensated then less culture may be produced.  Total private ownership may cause extra creation of culture, however this culture serves the public good less than publicly owned culture.

It is our government’s job to maximise public good.  It falls to governments to create laws which balance the need for compensation with the public good of public domain culture.

Copyright is the current mechanism for this.  Under current laws the public good is not served and creators are not protected, distributors are.  Distributors do not create culture, nor do they look after the public good.  Current law fail to maximise public good, which is the role of government.

Dead culture creators do not need to be encouraged to develop culture, they are incapable of doing so.  Excessive protection periods do not promote public good either.  Both of these harm the public by preventing material from entering the public domain.

Excessively short protection periods prevent a suitable livelihood from being derived from the creation of culture.  No protection in the case of sudden death are dangerous as well as the creation of culture often comes with no pension.  Dissuading the creation of culture is against the public good as culture is not created.

Reasonable protections for the creators of works maximise the public good by encouraging creation of works while moving works into the public domain within the lifetime of those  who are alive for the creation.

Since culture is shared and dynamic, it is important to ensure that people living within a culture are not punished or dissuaded from the use of their culture.  The use and transmission of culture is how it lives and develops.  A culture which does not change and is not shared is dead.

Governments must be reminded that they are accountable to the public and that their purpose is to serve the public, not any group.  Problems such as this, and many others, can be quickly worked out in principle and consultation with the public may begin to determine the form of the final solution.  Such is the way of an effective, responsible government.

The purpose of a Socratic Society is to encourage the public discussion of ideas.  Ideas are the foundation of democratic society.  Only through public discourse can we defeat the demons of ideology and authoritarianism and reaffirm our place as citizens.  This is the purpose of a Socratic Society.

University campuses have a multitude of public venues for such public discourse.  These may be highly organized and structured, or they may take the form of a more organic meeting of ideas.

From my personal research, I know that many  formal debate and idea societies exist around Ontario campuses.  They are a start. What I imagine goes much beyond.

Instead of discussion in a closed group (however welcoming and open they are to outsiders and new members), discussion should take place in public.  Public is meant in the sence of public and accessible, as such any shared space for nonexclusive use where noise is not an issue.  Examples include grassy fields, cafeterias and other common spaces.  Passers by aught to be invited to participate as much as possible.

In pursuit of a more organic form of conversation, the structure of formal debate must be ignored.  Formal debate is a fine method of high level discourse, but is not appropriate for general public participation and tends to exclude all but a  few participants from taking part.  The idea of a Socratic Society aught to be inclusion of idea by discarding strict rules and formalities.

In the place of strict rules of conduct, however, other generalized rules are required.  Ideology aught to be avoided, as ideologies are Utopian and are thus unattainable.  Any discussion should centre around the real, physical world.  Disagreement should be encouraged as it leads to discussion, however, disagreement should not lead to personal attacks.

Socrates would wander around Athens asking questions of whoever he found.  He was an annoyance to the public who wanted nothing more than to be left alone and unthinking.  Thought is what humans are best at.  It is our responsibility to follow this path and revive the discussion of ideas in public.

Background: cbc.ca

Beyond that, especially the level of ignorance in comments.  My serious question is whether or not anyone reads anymore, or if they just have a knee jerk reaction and run with it.

Elections Canada decided that it was against religious freedom to force people to remove veils in public for the purpose of voting.  They would be required to reveal their face in private to an official prior to getting their ballot.  This was to prevent, for example, men seeing a woman’s face if she did not wish it to happen.  This was an enabling decision made to allow greater participation by every Canadian citizen.

And let me repeat: this was an interpretation of a longstanding law.  Not a new law.  Not rewriting laws.  This was the interpretation of the existing law.

What was announced today was the highly controversial policy to change the existing election laws to prevent this from happening.  I have theories about why such a policy might have been brought forward in the first place, but these are my own personal opinions about the matter and are irrelevant to present discussion.

So let us review the facts:

Elections Canada announces interprets existing law and decides that veiled voting is permissible in our democracy.  The Conservative Party of Canada presents a plan to change the law, realize that there is no will in the House of Commons, which was democratically elected by the entire country, to bring forth such a plan.  The Conservative Party of Canada kills the plan in a huge show of public relations.

An example people might understand:

What if it was illegal (impossible for it to be so, I would not support it) to vote with a cross showing.  Why, I don’t know.  Just say this was the case.  Would we be up in arms?  Yes.  Everyone in the country aught to be, I don’t know if they all would be, but I know that I would oppose such action.  Yes, are other issues with a veil.  No, I am not saying the situation is identical.  Or even related.  There are issues with veils, I honestly think there is a gender issue related to it.  But if a person wants to wear one, they should not be prevented from doing so.

Which brings us to the politics of it.

If the majority of the house does not want to pursue a piece of legislation, then (theoretically) the majority of Canadians do not want a piece of legislation.  We can debate whether or not our MPs represent us until the proverbial cows come home, it changes nothing (I know mine does not represent me) .

The Conservative Party of Canada is in minority government, which means there are more opposition members than government members.  They cannot do whatever they want, which is good for Canadians (the same can be said of any other party, minority governments are inherently much more democratic than majorities).

But I digress.  The point is: read to become informed, avoid knee jerk reactions, think, think, THINK.  An informed and thinking citizen is what this country needs, not clients.

We hear a lot of talk about referendums these days, especially about how they are the most pure form of democracy which a society can have.  Direct democracy, it is argued, represents the true will of the people in creating consensus about how a society should move forward.

Now, anyone reading this after having read other posts I have written, will know that I am going to speak against direct democracy.  And naturally, one must question my stability upon attacking such a target.  Surely, everyone having an equal say in deciding the outcome of an important (or unimportant) question is the definition of a good democracy.  And obviously I am going to disagree, and hopefully, in the process of explaining why, bring you onto my side concerning this topic.

So let me begin.

The first reason why I disagree with the use of direct deomcracy is that it reduces political discourse to marketing.  And by this I mean the question posed to the public.  How do you pose the question? Which shall be the `yea’  side and which the `nay’.  This is an important consideration, as one has an obvious negative connotation.  Certianly, most people would not be affected by such a simple matter, but one cannot deny the complexity of the decision making process, perhaps such considerations should not be ignored.

Beyond which side shall be yes and which shall be no, the exact wording of the question becomes incredibly important.  If you can word the question correct you might be able to win people to your side.  Or just keep them from the opponents side.  If the question makes it sound treasonous to disagree, some might abstain rather than disagreeing.  Likely not many, but some.

All this highlights another important issue: oversimplification.  This works two ways.  First, the phrasing of the question can make  an answer seem obvious of gloss over the nuances of the actual situation.  The other, more dangerous, simplification is in the results.  55% in favour of a proposition is a majority.  The government can then go ahead and implement the proposition and disregard the detractors.  But 45% of people disagreed.  They have been silenced by the majority.  Thus, a false sense of agreement and support is created.

The final issue I shall discus for the time being is the public good.  This is a simple argument: direct democracy encourages selfishness, you are to vote how is best for you.  In a general election, since more than a single proposition is being voted on, you are more likely to vote along what is best for society as a whole.  Selfishness is the enemy of democracy, and referendums breed selfishness.

Those are some reasons why I dislike direct democracy and tremble when people call for greater use of it.  Tomorrow I shall discuss selfishness and its negative effect on democratic society.  Until then, think hard.

A neoliberal will argue that they support decentralisation because local governments are better able to deal with the ‘facts on the ground’ than a more centralised government.

This may be the case.

Certainly a local government is more in tune with the particular concerns of the people living in a province, region, township, city.   And there is a lot of truth to this fact.  A strategy to deal with poverty in Toronto is going to look different than a strategy in Timmins, Ontario or Churchill, Manitoba.

But there is another reason.  I would argue the real reason.   Related to division and conquest.  Certainly, no party could ever successfully destroy something like medicare on the national level.  The country is too large and diverse for any regional power to get enough strength and will to do so.  If they did manage then they would suffer tremendously during any following elections.

But on a regional level, things are much more prone to wild shifts.  In Ontario, for instance,  Mike Harris was able to rule the province owing to the population distribution.  On a more local level, the lessened diversity of opinion results in the chance of dangerous change occuring much more easily and rapidly.

This is, in my opinion, why neoliberalism is so in favour of decentralisation.  It has nothing to do with imaginary gains in efficiency, since a functional democracy is highly inefficient by design and necessity.  It has everything to do with the increased effectiveness in destroying the public good to increase their own power.

All this is not to say that centralisation is best in every case.  Just that a ballance of powers is best.  Reason is best when determining these things.  It just must be remembered that we should all do what is in the public’s good, not  our own personal good.  We must act as citizens, not selfish individuals.

We shall have a change over the coming white.  Trust me on this.  Of course, things are always changing and denial of this fact is absurd and foolish.  But I digress.

The point is that things change.  And to stay current we must change as well.  Which is the most important aspect of living in a democracy.

To clarify, if you find yourself disagreeing with something said, it does neither you nor the person advancing the opinion any good to just react.  Instead, you should reflect on the statement, determine what exactly you disagree with.  And then, most importantly, tell yourself why you disagree.  This means that you will be able to defend your position if you ever have need to do so, which is important to the functioning of Canadian democracy, and democracy everywhere.

This, of course, is a risky proposition.  What if you find that you have no reason why you disagree with a position? I would argue that you then owe it to yourself and the author to either discover a real why to your rejection.  Or, much more importantly, accept the argument into your grand narrative.  This later case is what you owe yourself if you find that you actually agree with the position, even if you initially thought otherwise.

We can all go through life rejecting and accepting things based solely on the source or the impression, but as citizens of a democratic nation we owe it to ourselves, the country, and most importantly the populous of this country, to be thinking beings who truly attempt to understand our wonderfully complex nation to the fullest extent we can.

There is, of course, a complicating factor.  That of theory and dogma.  What I mean by this is that we all have fundamental assumptions which are unquestionable to us.  Examples include thermodynamics to scientists, the divine origins of holy texts to the religious, or other axioms to other theories.  Science has shown that at some level you must take something as a given, and it is best to take the simplest and fewest things as given.  In science, this is not a trivial task but it is at least self regulated.  For our own personal world view, there can be no regulation except for our own world view, which is by definition biased.  For this reason it is highly important to examine your axioms from time to time to see if they are reasonable assumptions to make.

And the final word: what is appropriate today might not fit tomorrow.  As the world changes the organizations and organs of government which best serve the citizens change.  Do not let yourself be trapped in the assumption that what worked yesterday will work today or tomorrow.  If something is working, however, it could continue to work into the future.  Be logical.  Be rational.  Be good citizens.