Friends are Electric

Had I been asked at any point up until perhaps the last year, but more likely even more recently than that, I would have denied ever being in the state of mind, would have denied being capable of ever possessing the opinions, that I am about to present.  Since my early teenage years I have bought into the myth of left and right, I’ve even written about it extensively here.  There are a variety of reasons for this, many legitimate and some less so.  I see, to be cliché about it, more clearly now.  I understand, or at least I believe I understand, things better.  Both the left and the right are, among other things, utopian ghosts.  The features I disliked about the typical political right, more specifically the Canadian political right, belonged no more to capitalism than they did socialism.  The positive features found in socialism can be found elsewhere as well.  There is no absolute, which is of course obvious and perhaps even a truism, but its still a difficult concept to grasp and accept, at least for me.

For the first time ever in my life I can honestly say that I accept capitalism as a potentially positive force.  I would say that, under the right circumstances, it is what is best for society.  I would not say that I am a capitalist, but this is a technicality which is central to this new understanding and I shall get to it with time.

In my youth I read Marx, I read the manifesto, I studied the philosophy as best as I was intellectually capable.  In the political climate of Canada, especially Ontario, which I came to political awareness in, this is an entirely reasonable and understandable thing.   Mike Harris and his neoconservative Progressive Conservative party were in power provincially, doing damage to the social structure of the province which we still have yet to recover from.  Jean Chrétien was weakening social programs to fight the deficit.  All around me were these policies, ostensibly of the right, ostensibly capitalist in nature, which were directly opposed to what I considered to be socially just.

Time does not on its own bring wisdom.  Had I remained isolated from philosophy, by which I mean had I been functionally illiterate, I would still likely be thinking in this way.  Had I not read the works of John Ralston Saul, The Origin of Wealth by Eric D. Beinhocker, had I not read Nietzsche and William Blake, Naomi Klein and Oswald Spengler, I would not have developed my opinions on these matters.  Even Mien Kampf, for all its terrible writing and weak arguments, was important.  Without these and other books I would have remained naive, functionally illiterate and certain.  I now understand things more fully, but at the same time know how little I know and how little I can truly know.  I am filled with doubt, glorious doubt, and can question anything I would once had accepted as fact and dismissed.

Time does not on its own bring wisdom, but properly used time can help one acquire it.  So, while I was never really a communist, I would no longer call myself one.  I would have during a period in my teenage years.  I would no longer call myself a socialist in the proper definition of the term.  Social democrat perhaps, but in the end these are just labels which have no inherent meaning.  The important change is that, unlike my teenage or even post-teenage self, I am no longer in a position to say with certainty that capitalism is an evil.

The reason I once called capitalism a negative actor is that I became confused about what it means to be a capitalist and what capitalism itself means.  It is not, as I once thought, about the maximization of profit.  It is not about the oppression of workers, or anyone else for that matter.  It is not about markets and their godhands.  These are all confusions that I am not alone in possession of.  In fact, especially the first and last, are symptoms of the illness afflicting modern capitalism.

If it is not about profit, then what is it about?  What could capitalism be about if it is not profit for the capitalist?  It is as simple as it is obvious.  Capitalism is about the creation of capital, which is in and of itself  profit.  Profit is a side effect, in many regards a desirable one, but not the goal.  It is about the creation of wealth.  Wealth is not money, although money is a useful measure of it.

What differentiates wealth and money then?  The former has a value beyond the abstract.  Money is useful when it is an abstraction of wealth.  Money becomes a dangerous tool, one capable of turning minds to radical (not necessarily violent radical) politics, when it is divorced from wealth.  The quest for paper profit, the business of most, if not all, modern banks, is a prime example of this.  Wealth is a factory, a mine, concrete products.  Money is an abstraction which does not really exist, although it is a very useful abstraction.  A vital one to the functioning of our society.  But not an end itself.

Markets are a useful tool for collecting enough money, abstracted wealth, to investing into the generation of new wealth.  This is in fact the purpose of capitalism, the use of wealth generated through capitalist projects to invest back into these projects.  Does a market, which is again an abstraction, have a will of its own?  Does it demand freedom, liberation from the chains which society has placed on it?  Or is it nothing more than a useful construct.  I would say the later in a healthy capitalist system.  Ours is not particularly healthy.  The market has no will of its own, the will forced on it belongs to men.  Rich men.  Powerful men.  These two attributes are neither positive nor negative in nature, no matter what the assembled speakers of the right or left may say.  The argument by these men, and they are men, that markets need to be free to work is an argument from selfishness.  These men have forgotten that with their power and their wealth it is their responsibility to give back to society.  Instead they wish to break the shackles compelling them to do this.  These CEO and upper management types have become more confused than I once was, they think they are capitalists.  They are no more capitalists than I am a capitalist.  Do either they or I own any means of production?  Then we are not capitalists.

If a proper capitalist, that is the owner, is reinvesting the wealth their operations generate and paying their taxes, which is a highly efficient way by which the rich and powerful can begin to fulfil the social responsibilities which come from their position, then a healthy capitalist system exists.  Other responsibilities would include fair wages, environmentally and socially sustainable operations and the like.  If the system in place lacks these attributes then it is a dysfunctional system which is only to varying degrees capitalist in nature.

I failed to appreciate the value of a functional capitalist system firstly and most importantly because it does not exist presently in the world.  Nor would a functional system which existed years ago, if it truly did exist ever, look like a suitable system today.  I saw the devastation, the problems, caused by a sick system and assumed, wrongly, that this was a system functioning ideally.  It was not, it was functioning as designed, but not in a manner even approaching ideal.   I was wooed by a system which promised easy, fast solutions to difficult questions.  These questions don’t require answers.  They require work to build a suitable solution for the present and continuous tweaking to ensure their continued function.  Whether the political right or political left represents what is required is irrelevant.

Whether spoken truly or not, the above says it all. The folly of the attempted escape from Paris of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette may serve as an important lesson to those who find themselves beaten.

The bread riots were an important contributing factor to the outcome of the French Revolution, and in fact may be the single most important reason for its success.   The widespread starvation created a kind of class consciousness in the peasants of France, which pushed for changes to the way government was run.  Their starvation, in a sense, awoke them to their power.  The most obvious goal they sought was an end to their hunger.

To their credit, the monarchy did make an attempt to overcome the famine.  One cannot judge the people, however, for remaining angry at the failings of the monarchy.  Famine was not the only cause of the revolution, after all.  However rightly, the king was judged by the outcome of his actions (or queen, as the case may be).  And they had failed.  Naturally this increased ill will towards the royal family.  Ill will was already at quite high levels by this point, and justifiably the royals began to fear for their lives.

At this point the supposed statement was made.  “Let them eat cake.”  Evidence does not support that it was ever said, especially by Marie Antoinette.  The statement is used as evidence of the royal’s lack of understanding of the situation in which they found themselves.  What it means is that the royals, in their plenty, could not comprehend the suffering of the masses.  Since they had plenty of food, even very rich delicacies (the cake) they failed to see that others did not.  It is also important to note that a better translation of “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” would translate brioche as an egg bread, since it was not a cake as we understand it, but rather a very egg and butter rich bread.

Whether or not such a thing was ever said is irrelevant, since the next action of the king shows his complete lack of comprehension of the situation equally well.

The royals, while very likely blind to a great many things, were not blind to the danger of their situation.  They fled Paris for a monarchist stronghold near the border of Holland.  They dressed themselves as servants to a Russian  baroness and fled in a very luxurious stage coach.  When the party stopped to exchange horses, the king insisted on resting.  He was recognized and they were captured later that morning, just a few kilometres from their goal.  Why one would stop for a rest when fleeing for their life is a strange thing indeed.

An even more critical interpretation can be found on pages 499-501 of John Ralston Saul’s  Voltaire’s Bastards.

What does this all mean?  What is the lesson?  Aside from the obvious, of course, which is to hide as quickly as possible if you are wanted dead.

The real lesson is that if you find yourself in a position of authority you must be receptive to the needs and problems of the people.  The very worst type of  bias is the idea that what benefits you most must necessarily benefit everyone most.

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.

A discussion on development in Northern Ontario, strikes on a large number of items I feel strongly about.

This morning, in my mailbox, was this delightful message from our local Member of Parliament, Peter Braid.  Before I continue and, so to speak, remove the muzzle on myself, I should point out that in the grand scheme of things, Peter Braid has done a fine job here in Kitchener-Waterloo.  He is, as far as I can tell, not the problem with the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC).  However, it is difficult to really determine things for sure since Mr. Harper keeps all of his MPs quite quiet most of the time.  The problem with the CPC is Mr. Harper’s autocratic leadership style.  That, however, is a low hanging fruit for another time.

The main message reads:

In these tough economic times, standing up for families is more important than ever.  The Conservative Government is delivering on its commitments to families.

We understand that everyone is stretching to make ends meet.  Our Government introduced measures that give families a break, long before the global recession hit, and now Canada’s Economic Action Plan is making sure families get the support they need.

We have delivered a new child tax credit, the Universal Child Care Benefit and a break for families that enroll their kids in amateur sports.

The marriage penalty in the tax system has been removed.

Registered Education Savings Plans have been strengthened, so families can plan better for the future.

All of these measures have helped put Canada and Canadian families in a strong position to weather the storm, and set the stage for a promising future.

The Conservative Government is also helping young families get a head start on buying their first homes, by providing up to $750 in tax relief.  We’re also providing first-time home buyers with more flexibility to buy or build a home.  They can now withdraw up to $25,000 from RRSP savings to do so, an increase from the previous limit of $20,000.

These measures don’t just help first-time home buyers; they also stimulate our economy by boosting demand for housing, which is a key driver of economic activity in Canada.

The Home Renovation Tax Credit is an important foundation of Canada’s Economic Action Plan.  We are lending a hand to families who want to improve their homes as their most significant investment, and at the same time, giving a boost to tradespeople and businesses that produce and sell building materials.

This year, as we fight the global recession, families will be able to claim a credit for eligible renovations worth up to $10,000 and receive up to $1350 in tax relief.

Right across the country, Canadian families are benefiting from this tax relief by improving kitchens and bathrooms, building new decks, laying new carpet or even putting on new roofs.

This activity is putting contractors, carpenters, and all kinds other trades people to work.

It’s generating local business at everything from hardware stores to lumber yards.

In turn, the entire Canadian economy reaps the benefits.

The Home Renovation Tax Credit, and the other new investments we’re making to stimulate the economy, are designed to create and protect jobs during this period.

All these measures reflect our belief that by making life a little easier for families, we can build a stronger Canada.

I found this to be a laughable piece, and will now take you through it, paragraph by paragraph.

In these tough economic times, standing up for families is more important than ever.  The Conservative Government is delivering on its commitments to families.

While this is pure false populism and thus disgusting, there is technically nothing wrong with it.  It does, however, set the tone for this entire piece.

We understand that everyone is stretching to make ends meet.  Our Government introduced measures that give families a break, long before the global recession hit, and now Canada’s Economic Action Plan is making sure families get the support they need.

I’d call both of these points entirely false.  The first is certianly, the second might be a matter of opinion.

Firstly, I recall Mr. Harper saying something to the effect that Canadians should be buying stock right now, since it is such a good deal.  He said this during an election campaign after the crisis had really struck.  An election campaign which he ran largely without a platform, and thus, without a plan.  The fact is that the crisis really started to strike noticably a few weeks earlier than this, and to the best of my knowledge nothing was done about it for quite a few months owing to a prorougeing of Parliament.

It has been pointed out to me that technically, from an economist’s standpoint, a recession starts after two quarter years of negative growth.  So the recession would not have started until later than when things went bad.  I call nonsense on this point, if this is the argument the CPC is using then they have failed at communication.  Use regular style english, not professional jargon, when communicating.

We have delivered a new child tax credit, the Universal Child Care Benefit and a break for families that enroll their kids in amateur sports.

Amature sports are definatly a middle-class past time.  This is good for the middle-class, who were hit rather hard in the ongoing depression.  The only negative comment one can say about this is that it will not benefit those hardest hit.  This is a trend in CPC policy, and by extension in this pamphlet.  Moving on to tax credits.  A tax credit will only benifit those who would be paying taxes, if you are unemployed, you probably do not pay taxes.  Again, hardly helping those who need it most.

The marriage penalty in the tax system has been removed.

Now, until I read this pamphlet I did not know what such a thing was.  Apparently, to use their slant on the matter, it is descrimination against single-earner households who pay higher tax rates than an even split between the two with the same overall total wage.  Certianly such descrimination, which is what it is, should not be encouraged.  There may be issues regarding which persons work in a household which this solution glosses over, and I intend to find out more myself, but for now, I’ll give the CPC this one.  Well done.

Registered Education Savings Plans have been strengthened, so families can plan better for the future.

Good policy, but those who need assistance most lack money to save and are statistically less likely to educate their children.  Neither of these issues are addressed, granted, the later is a permanent problem and one can hardly blame the CPC alone for it.

All of these measures have helped put Canada and Canadian families in a strong position to weather the storm, and set the stage for a promising future.

This statement is true if you benefited from any of the above listed items.  If you were a middle-class family with money to invest and spend on leisure and had a single wage earner, you are benefiting greatly from these policies.  This does include a very large number of Canadians, and I will not take away from that.  However, one must remember that this is not everyone and that there are many Canadians who truly need assistance.

The Conservative Government is also helping young families get a head start on buying their first homes, by providing up to $750 in tax relief.  We’re also providing first-time home buyers with more flexibility to buy or build a home.  They can now withdraw up to $25,000 from RRSP savings to do so, an increase from the previous limit of $20,000.

Allowing people to use up any savings they may have to get the economy started up on the exact path that just lead to ruin, bravo.  Add more tax cuts which don’t help people who cannot afford a home or people who don’t pay taxes and you have more standard conservative policy.

These measures don’t just help first-time home buyers; they also stimulate our economy by boosting demand for housing, which is a key driver of economic activity in Canada.

Again: inflated housing prices help no one.

The Home Renovation Tax Credit is an important foundation of Canada’s Economic Action Plan.  We are lending a hand to families who want to improve their homes as their most significant investment, and at the same time, giving a boost to tradespeople and businesses that produce and sell building materials.

I’ve always disagreed that a home is an investment.  A home is the place you live and grow.  Perhaps it is idealistic of me, but I find it impossible to put a price on such a thing.  Much less allow it to cause intense inflation.  However, this does promote spending and does employ some tradespeople, so while I find this ideologically unpleasant, it may actually work.  Again, only if you already have money to spend and have any taxes left to pay after all these tax credits.

This year, as we fight the global recession, families will be able to claim a credit for eligible renovations worth up to $10,000 and receive up to $1350 in tax relief.

Right across the country, Canadian families are benefiting from this tax relief by improving kitchens and bathrooms, building new decks, laying new carpet or even putting on new roofs.

This activity is putting contractors, carpenters, and all kinds other trades people to work.

It’s generating local business at everything from hardware stores to lumber yards.

I won’t bother repeating myself on all this again.  It may work, but it doesn’t assist everyone in the country equally.

In turn, the entire Canadian economy reaps the benefits.

Time will tell, but I expect that it will have some benefits.  Just not equally across the board.

The Home Renovation Tax Credit, and the other new investments we’re making to stimulate the economy, are designed to create and protect jobs during this period.

All these measures reflect our belief that by making life a little easier for families, we can build a stronger Canada.

I won’t fault them on these last statements, this is just politician talk and any party would say the same.

In summation, the Conservative Party of Canada is behaving like a conservative party probably should.  I will not say that they do not have Canada’s best interest in their mind, since everything they have done does address the problems at hand, albeit in a round-a-bout and convoluted way which I find ideologically disagreeable.

I think my days of reading mail propaganda are over for a while.

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.

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.

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.

The courts got it wrong.  The people were selfish.  And now its all a mess.

Direct democracy is a wonderful thing.  People deciding what they want for themselves, not selecting someone who they hope will represent them.  A great thing indeed.  The voice of the people should be respected above almost everything else.

Why almost?  Because one of the most important principles of democracy is that the majority cannot remove the rights of the minority.  And this is what has happened.

You can bitch and whine and say that “NO! This was not a right they had and we can’t have taken it away for that reason!” And technically you would be correct.  But you have that right, and therefore everyone should have that right.  We are all equal, right?

That’s the theory.  But not today.

People: just because you think one thing does not make it right or wrong.  If you want a right or privilege, then everyone must have it.  Perhaps it is time to bring civics class back.  You do not have to agree on moral grounds but to pretend that actions such as this are democratic is shameful and disrespectful to democracy.

Do you want to live in a democracy or a dictatorship?  Ask yourself this and really thing.  A democracy means that everyone must be equal, even if granting such equality might be morally objectionable to you.  If you are not comfortable with this then stop lying to yourself and proclaim your beliefs for what they are: theocratic, authoritarian and foolish.  If you can accept that maybe, just maybe, people can be happy through lifestyles other than the one you have, then fight for democracy and fight for human rights.

The choice is yours, speak your mind.

I won’t necessarily agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it.