Alternately we could refer to the right wing movement in its extreme as "malignant selfishness." At its extreme it involves self harm.
Is it only a malignant pathology politically if it involves self harm? If it is unfair but sustainable is it an illness or garden variety greed?
Fortunately for the left, there are no left wing policies that are selfish and/or self-harmful. Thusly, there is no need to examine within.
Alternately we could refer to the right wing movement in its extreme as "malignant selfishness." At its extreme it involves self harm.
Is it only a malignant pathology politically if it involves self harm? If it is unfair but sustainable is it an illness or garden variety greed?
Fortunately for the left, there are no left wing policies that are selfish and/or self-harmful. Thusly, there is no need to examine within.
This is of course the irony of right wing responses:
The right wing denies that there is a public good but as soon as you advocate for it the right wing will say that you are being selfish.
No, truly left policies are by definition to support the public good and are not selfish but nice try Cody.
We can debate how viable and wise left policies are but if they are left they are by definition not selfish as they are not about individual wealth but the whole group which is the opposite of selfish.
Right wing is by definition self centred (individual) and left group which is not individual.
It is a crock to suggest anything otherwise as this is the definition of what is right or left.
But you can see from Cody that the right are trying Orwellian logic more and more even trying to create confusion between right and left. Soon Cody will probably try to confuse us about up and down. Wait for it...
I think that the right wing is based on a refusal to consider the existence of a collective good despite evidence that it exists and is essential -- the air we breath is a collective good.
Well, nobody pays for the air we breathe. And sidewalks, even though they cost something to build, are still free and also a collective good.
I don't think it's that conservatives "don't believe" in a collective (or public) good. Strictly speaking, a public good (in economics terms) would be something that is both non-excludable (meaning it's there for anyone and everyone) and non-rivalrous (meaning it's value doesn't necessarily diminish when more people use it).
I think conservatives tend to reject the idea that they should pay (or perhaps pay MORE) for something that they feel they don't or won't need (e.g. a safe injection site) and/or something that is rivalrous (e.g. a GAI).
I know it's popular to just assume they're miserly, grinchy, selfish, flawed individuals who never learned to love. But to borrow your "pie" analogy, I don't think that conservatives insist on eating two slices of pie so their neighbour gets none. They're just not committed to being the one to pay for both slices.
I think that the right wing is based on a refusal to consider the existence of a collective good despite evidence that it exists and is essential -- the air we breath is a collective good.Well, nobody pays for the air we breathe. And sidewalks, even though they cost something to build, are still free and also a collective good.
I don't think it's that conservatives "don't believe" in a collective (or public) good. Strictly speaking, a public good (in economics terms) would be something that is both non-excludable (meaning it's there for anyone and everyone) and non-rivalrous (meaning it's value doesn't necessarily diminish when more people use it).
I think conservatives tend to reject the idea that they should pay (or perhaps pay MORE) for something that they feel they don't or won't need (e.g. a safe injection site) and/or something that is rivalrous (e.g. a GAI).
I know it's popular to just assume they're miserly, grinchy, selfish, flawed individuals who never learned to love. But to borrow your "pie" analogy, I don't think that conservatives insist on eating two slices of pie so their neighbour gets none. They're just not committed to being the one to pay for both slices.
I was not calling the pie a public good -- only calling that a non-malignant selfishness.
A public good is a publicly shared benefit. There is no condition to that. If one person does not make as much use that does not change the status of a public good. There are many things that are public goods that we benefit from that Conservatives do not recognize as being a public good -- they think it is an individual benefit only. For example: an educated population is a public good however, Conservatives who may rely on an educated population for interest as well as affordability for income to their business do not see it that way. As is the environment more generally.
Sidewalks are not free -- they cost money and are paid by government and us through taxes. They are a public good.
Why did you use sidewalk rather than street? Would it be that street are more used by people with more money (more likely to drive more) and they are also public goods?
Why did you use sidewalk rather than street? Would it be that street are more used by people with more money (more likely to drive more) and they are also public goods?
No, they're just -- like a fireworks show -- a pretty common example of a public good (again, in the economics sense, as everyone can use them and the value of a sidewalk to one person does not get cut in half if another person also uses it).
It might be useful to try to be clear whether we're referring to a public good in the economics sense (which I was) or the common vernacular, where it can refer to anything we perceive to be good overall.
In the common vernacular, scholarships may be seen as a "public good", as they allow individuals to attend school who otherwise might not be able to. But they're not a public good in economics terms because as more individuals use a scholarship fund, less is available to each.
As far as the pie goes, I think my point still stands that conservatives aren't denying that the pie exists, or that it would be good to have some pie, or that others should also enjoy pie. Again, I think that for the most part they just don't want to be the ones paying for it. You can still feel free to believe that's horrible of them, or shortsighted of them, or whatever, but it's different from "I don't want anyone else to have pie. MY PIE! MY! PIE!!"
How can a rich person own and eat very many pieces of pie without having to pay?
Why did you use sidewalk rather than street? Would it be that street are more used by people with more money (more likely to drive more) and they are also public goods?No, they're just -- like a fireworks show -- a pretty common example of a public good (again, in the economics sense, as everyone can use them and the value of a sidewalk to one person does not get cut in half if another person also uses it).
It might be useful to try to be clear whether we're referring to a public good in the economics sense (which I was) or the common vernacular, where it can refer to anything we perceive to be good overall.
In the common vernacular, scholarships may be seen as a "public good", as they allow individuals to attend school who otherwise might not be able to. But they're not a public good in economics terms because as more individuals use a scholarship fund, less is available to each.
As far as the pie goes, I think my point still stands that conservatives aren't denying that the pie exists, or that it would be good to have some pie, or that others should also enjoy pie. Again, I think that for the most part they just don't want to be the ones paying for it. You can still feel free to believe that's horrible of them, or shortsighted of them, or whatever, but it's different from "I don't want anyone else to have pie. MY PIE! MY! PIE!!"
I am not familiar with your definition of a public good. It seems to me to sound like the economics definition of a common good which is not the same thing. Is it possible that you are confusing the two? Common good refers explicitly to something that cannot decline through use. Public good, at least as far as I have seen does not have this definition. I did not use it in this way.
All common goods are public goods but, as I understand it, not all public goods are common goods.
I am not sure if I am entirely correct for everyone's definition but this is how I meant it in my comments. I rarely refer to the common good as it is a much narrower definition.
Does this help explain my posts on this?
Maybe they are afraid that the Canadians wont like Howdy Doody if they find out what he stands/stood for.
I am not familiar with your definition of a public good. It seems to me to sound like the economics definition of a common good which is not the same thing. Is it possible that you are confusing the two? Common good refers explicitly to something that cannot decline through use. Public good, at least as far as I have seen does not have this definition.
Other way 'round.
A public good is non-excludable (nobody can reasonably be prevented from enjoying it) and non-rivalrous (it doesn't diminish as more people enjoy it).
A common good is also non-excludable (nobody can reasonably be prevented from enjoying it) but is rivalrous (it does diminish as more people enjoy it).
I rarely refer to the common good as it is a much narrower definition.
Both "the public good" and "the common good" in regular speech basically just refer to anything we believe to be in our collective interest.
We might, for example, say that opening more YMCAs would be beneficial to "the public good" or "the common good" if it gets more people exercising and getting healthier, and yet the YMCA would be both excludable (you must be a member) and rivalrous (there are only a finite number of stationary bikes, basketball hoops, etc.). FWIW, I'm not attempting to defeat your points through cheap semantics here, but as we can see, these terms can get a little loosey-goosey.
Anyway, my most salient point was that I don't think conservatives are just grinches who don't want others to enjoy things, so much as they just don't want to pay for those things if they don't use them at all, or pay more for them if they do use them.
No Con comment on this yet.
A plan that includes $154 million in federal government funding for the Manitoba Metis Federation is just the beginning of a transformational process advancing reconciliation between Canada and the Métis people, MMF president David Chartrand says.
"It's changed the very essence of the Métis. We've always been looking through the window, never invited into the room, provincially or federally. But now we're right inside the room and having a chance to make a difference for our people," he said.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/metis-self-government-plan-1.483...
Alternately we could refer to the right wing movement in its extreme as "malignant selfishness." At its extreme it involves self harm.
Is it only a malignant pathology politically if it involves self harm? If it is unfair but sustainable is it an illness or garden variety greed?
Fortunately for the left, there are no left wing policies that are selfish and/or self-harmful. Thusly, there is no need to examine within.
No, truly left policies are by definition to support the public good and are not selfish but nice try Cody.
We can debate how viable and wise left policies are but if they are left they are by definition not selfish as they are not about individual wealth but the whole group which is the opposite of selfish.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make, though.
Your position is that left-wing policies are motivated from a place of goodwill (even when not viable/wise, in your words), while right-wing policies are motivated from a place of malice. This isn't a productive perspective.
You're taking the childlike position that there's a clearly defined "good" vs "evil" and that all partisans agree which side is which, but some knowingly choose evil out of greed.
Now, I'm not saying I agree with right wing policies. But to say that the fundamental difference or disagreement between left and right wing policies is at it's core about selfishness is either naive or disingenuous.
If you want to grow the support for your side, you need to see the people you're trying to win over not as selfish or malicious, but as well-meaning but misguided, and engage with them as such.
You've literally referred to those on the right as "malignantly selfish" to the point of self-harm, and are suggesting that they are pathologic and ill. You're literally examining them like they're aliens from Mars or some strange species of insect. "Oh, how curious, they believe studies that show children are better off being raised with two parents and therefore want to promote that as an ideal? What bizarre priorities!"
My point is that for the right, as with the left, policy positions are genuinely held as the best solutions for complicated problems. That doesn't make them correct, but it also doesn't make them malignant and pathological, and your tendency to always assume the worst motives for the other team and the best for your own is transparent, embarrassing, and alienating.
Alternately we could refer to the right wing movement in its extreme as "malignant selfishness." At its extreme it involves self harm.
Is it only a malignant pathology politically if it involves self harm? If it is unfair but sustainable is it an illness or garden variety greed?
Fortunately for the left, there are no left wing policies that are selfish and/or self-harmful. Thusly, there is no need to examine within.
No, truly left policies are by definition to support the public good and are not selfish but nice try Cody.
We can debate how viable and wise left policies are but if they are left they are by definition not selfish as they are not about individual wealth but the whole group which is the opposite of selfish.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make, though.
Your position is that left-wing policies are motivated from a place of goodwill (even when not viable/wise, in your words), while right-wing policies are motivated from a place of malice. This isn't a productive perspective.
You're taking the childlike position that there's a clearly defined "good" vs "evil" and that all partisans agree which side is which, but some knowingly choose evil out of greed.
Now, I'm not saying I agree with right wing policies. But to say that the fundamental difference or disagreement between left and right wing policies is at it's core about selfishness is either naive or disingenuous.
If you want to grow the support for your side, you need to see the people you're trying to win over not as selfish or malicious, but as well-meaning but misguided, and engage with them as such.
You've literally referred to those on the right as "malignantly selfish" to the point of self-harm, and are suggesting that they are pathologic and ill. You're literally examining them like they're aliens from Mars or some strange species of insect. "Oh, how curious, they believe studies that show children are better off being raised with two parents and therefore want to promote that as an ideal? What bizarre priorities!"
My point is that for the right, as with the left, policy positions are genuinely held as the best solutions for complicated problems. That doesn't make them correct, but it also doesn't make them malignant and pathological, and your tendency to always assume the worst motives for the other team and the best for your own is transparent, embarrassing, and alienating.
By the way with the part of calling me child like -- screw off.
No No No
First of all to say the policies are malignant selfishness does not mean ALL voters have malice, or that they are not misguided. You have been here a while to ahve heard me MANY times express that people are conned into voting against their interests.
And when it comes to the architects of these policies I stand by my words that they are malignant selfish without ANY fear that these people who create these policies are at any risk of suddenly growing compassion.
As for the architects of these right wing policies that I believe amount to self harm, that opinion also stays. Humanity is destroying the planet adn even if that were not the case socially we are not sustainable either. Nope, things are going to get bad becuase of the greed of these people and I do not pretend that they did not know what they were doing: they sacrificed the long term viability of our specieis to make a short term buck. Yes I think that is a group mental disorder that amounts to the ultimate in self-harm.
I am open to those who supported them as a mistake. I am not open to any excuses from the architects of these policies that they did not know what they were doing.
Neoliberals took over conservatives but they are not conservatives. They are radicals that realized they could distort and exploit conservative beliefs and principles to suit their ends. The left has helped neoliberals a lot even if it has been inadvertent. The left has been successfully framed as intolerantly idealistic and economically reckless. Well-meaning teenagers that think they have all the answers and never grew up or worse, people who want to consume what they haven't earned and are unwilling to earn.
Many conservatives give generously as individuals and some through their churches. They want to choose where their charitable dollars go rather than having it done through government.
Working/middle class Canadians share frustration in life affordability and work/life balance and blame the establishment. There has been a loss of confidence in public institutions and politics on both the right and left. They just see opposing solutions to the loss of confidence.
Conservatism and xenophobia and racism overlap because to be conservative means wanting things to stay the same. Follow tradition. It would be silly to argue that Canada would survive unlimited immigration. Within a couple of years at most Canada would no longer exist in any semblance of today's form. You can't have 100 million people move to Canada and have the same country. So, there has to be a line somewhere. "The left" totally shuts that discussion down calling it racist. Trudeau accused a woman of racism for asking about the federal governments commitment to pay for the refugees coming in at the Quebec border. She didn't ask him to stop them. She asked him to pick up the bill. That isn't racist. Many migrants leave Quebec within a year or two of arrival. That might be Quebec's fault but it remains true that it represents a significant expense for Quebec to support migrants for a couple of years.
All these terms, left, right, neoliberal, are required in political discussion because they encapsulate a philosophy of sorts that apply to the political class and followers. Putting the public into those boxes is like racism. It's assuming a whole set of characteristics and beliefs apply to a person that votes in a particular way or holds some opinions that fit in to one of the boxes.
Tory MP drinks and serves around drinks at a Parliamentary Meeting.
Take a guess at the speed at which a new thread would have popped up about Trudeau if it was a Liberal MP doing this.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/10/31/tory-mp-garnett-genuis-defends-...
Tory MP drinks and serves around drinks at a Parliamentary Meeting.
Take a guess at the speed at which a new thread would have popped up about Trudeau if it was a Liberal MP doing this.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/10/31/tory-mp-garnett-genuis-defends-...
In a surprise, the MP is not Michelle Rempel.
Ontario Proud was founded by Jeff Ballingall, a digitally savvy former Harper-era Conservative staffer and erstwhile employee of the short-lived Sun News Network.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-proud-federal-third-party...
So a "non partisan" group that worked for defeating Wynne and victory of PC in Ontario is going to bring its "non partisanship" to the federal level and work against Trudeau for a Con win.
Now Cons have a team that can raise and spend money on their behalf without accountability.
Must be music to the ears of people who prefer Sneer over Trudeau.
Brought to you by the Harper School of Electoral Fraud.
Cons being Cons.
The article says this "renews concerns" about a possible roundabout of campaign-financing laws, but doesn't really demonstrate that this is happening with Proud Canada. (Apparently, there have also been "concerns" about environmental groups doing the same thing, presumably against the Conservatives.)
Until something scandalous emerges here, all it really amounts to is "Political gr0ups try to defeat parties they're against."
The article says this "renews concerns" about a possible roundabout of campaign-financing laws, but doesn't really demonstrate that this is happening with Proud Canada. (Apparently, there have also been "concerns" about environmental groups doing the same thing, presumably against the Conservatives.)
Until something scandalous emerges here, all it really amounts to is "Political gr0ups try to defeat parties they're against."
With one side with a lot more money than the other and one side with more of the media. In both cases the same side but not to worry... ?
Well, for one thing, gadar mentioned "electoral fraud" in his post, evidence of which is in short supply in the featured article.
And furthermore, if I'm reading his post correctly, his big concern is some pro-Conservative groups going after the federal Liberals. Do the Conservatives really have so much more money and media than the Liberals?
And furthermore, if I'm reading his post correctly, his big concern is some pro-Conservative groups going after the federal Liberals. Do the Conservatives really have so much more money and media than the Liberals?
Yes.
Well, for one thing, gadar mentioned "electoral fraud" in his post, evidence of which is in short supply in the featured article.
Electoral frau is an issue becuase there is less accountibilty and regulation possible in third parties. For one, an organization can come and defraud and go much more easily than a party. If you want dirty tricks, then get them done at arms length and you do not have to wear the costs even as you reap the benefits. This can be third party attempts to intimidate or suppress the vote or third party misinformation, or third parties raising and spending money. You cannot legally sanction a party just becuase it had a benefit from the activity -- you have to prove they were part of it. What if they are not?
By allowing third parties to work unfettered then you effectively allow many of the rules to be broken as enforcement is a different thing altogether.
There are attacks on labour money at the same time as there is a loosening of this kind of PAC money. A small group of heavy doners can tilt elections just as effectively through a third party than through a party. It becomes a battle of money that of course those with more will win. It is much more difficult for thrid parties on the left to put together this kind of money since it requires mass organizing of small donations rather than large donations. The two are not equivalent which is why there are donation limits on parties. Put this at arms length where enforcement and sanction is no longer practical and you ahve massive ability to produce electoral fraud.
The type of fraud Gadar was speaking of I think involves gerrymandering and weakening the system to allow fraud as much as outright direct example. The Conservatives have not been shy about going after rules not only to advantage themselves but to make the system more vulnerable to fraud they can benefit from -- even if they are not directly making that happen.
Look to the US and you can see you in the name of fraud prevention any ability to fight from the left is attacked while the system is opened up to fraud from the right.
You can expect with third party organization that Canada will see a from of electoral finance money laundering as money will go from one source to another so the real source is not visible in the end. Third party organizations make this possible. It will be great for the right wing in the US to be able to buy elecitons in Canada much cheaper than they have to pay at home. Since they have huge economic presence in Canada, the motive is there and only needed the means.
Well, for one thing, gadar mentioned "electoral fraud" in his post, evidence of which is in short supply in the featured article.
And furthermore, if I'm reading his post correctly, his big concern is some pro-Conservative groups going after the federal Liberals. Do the Conservatives really have so much more money and media than the Liberals?
My concern is not some pro Conservative groups going after the federal Liberals.
My concern is a defacto arm of a political party claiming to be non partisan and pulling a fraud on public by doing so. If their end goal is electing a Con govt. they should not claim to be non partisan and stop trying to con people. That was the fraud I was talking about. These kind of stunt were perfected by The Harper Cons with their in and out schemes and other instances of electoral fraud. And the guy running this scheme is a former Harper staffer.
If there was a group which was rasing money for the specific purpose of electing an NDP or a Liberal govt and still claiming to be non partisan, they would be indulging in fraud as well.
Gazebo Tony sharing pictures of his caucus.
Andy Pandy didn't answer question on whether Clement can run under the Con banner. Meanwhile Sneer demands that Fancy Socks should answer each and every question.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/clement-scheer-explicit-photos-1.4895295
Cons are slime (this is a general statement, and has nothing to do with the story)
Hard to see Scheer staying on as leader if Trudeau gets re-elected. All depends on how the next election goes I suppose.
First Nations chiefs boo Scheer for not saying how he’s different from Harper
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer says First Nations chiefs will have to wait until his platform is released to see how he differs from former prime minister Stephen Harper.
Hundreds of chiefs in Ottawa for the Assembly of First Nations Special Chiefs Assembly booed him in response.
During a question-and-answer session with the opposition leader, chiefs asked Scheer how he plans to rebuild trust with Indigenous people in Canada, saying Harper lost that trust.
Scheer, responding to two similar questions, says he’s going to have to ask for a little bit of patience, until the Conservatives have a 2019 election platform ready.
Scheer says there will be clear ways that his approach will be different.
He says in the last election the Conservatives did not gain support from a large majority of First Nations communities and people and he wants to fix that.
