# Getting the "government" We Deserve



## Wayne Coady (22 Jun 2005)

Canadians have become a nation of cynics where politics is concerned. In the last federal election only about 50% of all eligible voters actually put an â Å“Xâ ? on a ballot. It has become a truism that it is a waste of time to go to the polling station because there really is no difference between political parties. With voter turnout at an all time low, we now have a government which can only truly claim to represent about 20 to 25% of the people. How did this happen?

Well, the first cause of our problem is the approach politicians have taken toward public office. Not too long ago it was not uncommon for two lawyers to form a law partnership, capture the Liberal and Conservative nominations in their riding and then run against each other in their electoral district. That way, the electoral loser would keep the law practice going while the winner went off to serve in the federal or provincial government. This approach to office is distinctly at odds with the often-cited claim by politicians that they have made a sacrifice by going into public service. Most people understand that the only part of the public being served is themselves.

The next cause of voter apathy was the dawning realisation that the only time any politician really pays any attention to ordinary citizens is when an election writ has been dropped. Even that concern evaporates the day after the final results are in. Politicians, once elected, only obey the instructions they are given by their party. They become men who vote like sheep. We believe these sheep are being led to the slaughter by a Judas goat.

When our representatives go to either Ottawa or Halifax, they become non-entities. No less a person than Pierre Trudeau once said about all MP's: "They are non-entities once they are 200 feet away from Parliament Hill." Since 1969, it has become fashionable for Prime Ministers in Ottawa and our Premier in Nova Scotia to maintain a large office staff that makes most of the decisions in the running of our country and our province.

Given these observations about our electoral system and our governments, it is not hard to understand why voters have become apathetic and cynical. We are governed by a back room cabal consisting of un-elected, and very probably unelectable, faceless and mysterious servants of special interests. In Ottawa it is the PMO (Prime Ministers Office) and in Nova Scotia, it is the Premier's Office. These unelected rulers are put in place by the political party holding office. There is no constitutional basis for these offices; they have merely grown up in the last 35 years. 

In 1867, Sir John A. Macdonald ran the country with a PMO consisting of a couple of secretaries. Abraham Lincoln ran the United States during the Civil War with a similar complement of staff. These men ran their countries using their best judgement as their guide. Today, Canada's PMO and America's West Wing are staffed with hundreds of appointed office holders who force the government to act in a manner calculated to retain a firm grasp on power. Unfortunately, being right and being in power is not the same thing. 

There is a proper season for all parties, but a party which is always in office grows stale and worthless. It also tends to select leaders who are easy to manage and manipulate. Inflated salaries, obscene perks and fat pensions ensure rank and file obedience within parties. Appointment to plum jobs after retirement ensure a career-long state of abject obedience in most MP's. We, the voters, end up with a country which is badly run, by people who are incompetent and we do not seem able to rid ourselves of these parasites. This state of affairs is something which was not unforeseen:

Two hundred years ago, James Madison, a man destined to become President of the United States was not in favour of political parties because he saw them as an anti-democratic force based on special interest. He saw only two solutions to avoid the creation of political parties: one was the elimination of freedom and the other was the hope that enlightened statesmen would always head up the government. He felt that eliminating freedom was a cure worse than the disease and that â Å“It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.â ? Given his druthers, Madison would have sought an outright ban on the formation of political parties. 

An Independent Solution 
There is, however, a third way to ensure that ordinary citizens determine what governments do and how they operate. We must select the best, most capable people in our community to run as independent candidates. If enough independent representatives, people free from the constraints imposed by party discipline, win seats in our parliament and our legislature, they can act as a swing vote forcing the party in power to act for all the people. Even if these people lose their election campaigns, the weight of the people backing independent candidates will force candidates who are elected to think twice before voting like a flock of trained sheep. We need candidates who have no party affiliation and will act on our behalf, using their best judgement and the brains God gave them. That way we will enjoy a government, which is right more often than it is wrong, just more often than it is unjust, and capable more often than it is incompetent. 

So, maybe the time has come to reform our whole political structure, starting at how we set up governments. Here in Nova Scotia all one need is $100.00 , five signature from the residents approving the fact that he / she are a resident of that riding and one must be free from having a criminal record and they can be place on the ballot as an independent candidate in our provincial elections. 

Lets not forget that the NWT has a consensus government and that every regional municipal government in Canada is constructed on the same principals. Political parties have a long history of corruption and the party system power base is the few, thus we have been governed by the  â Å“oligarchyâ ? and they have been getting in and staying in power by falsely using the word â Å“ democracyâ ?      

Regards

Wayne Coady 

21 Ashgrove Avenue
Dartmouth N.S.
B2V 1Z2 
(902) 434-9306


----------



## Fry (26 Jun 2005)

The reason that I didn't vote in the last election, was because I didn't think either of the candidates were worthy of my vote. They all had promises which I didn't like. I'm not going to vote someone in that I don't think would do a good job.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (26 Jun 2005)

Fry said:
			
		

> The reason that I didn't vote in the last election, was because I didn't think either of the candidates were worthy of my vote. They all had promises which I didn't like. I'm not going to vote someone in that I don't think would do a good job.



Then you really can't complain about the Goverment then can you?


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jun 2005)

Mr Coady, good post sir.


----------



## Gunnar (26 Jun 2005)

A good post, but I still disagree with you,,,;-)

<rant> The cure for voter apathy isn't the abolition of political parties, because then you'll have one de facto apathy party....But even if it were, wouldn't you need a means of holdling politicians accountable?  How about a recall process, something that has been championed both by the Federal Conservatives and the Reform Party before them?

Of course, you'd have to make clear that that is exactly what you want them to do...that is, refuse to vote for them until they make it a major platform issue....of course, you'd need to overcome voter apathy to get people organised to hold their politicians feet to the fire....

Giving up on voting is the problem....giving up is the exact opposite of what you need to do...what you NEED to do, is vote, annoy your representative, write letters, protest, and generally be in his face so that he understands that YOU elected him, and YOU can take him out...by making sure that the press knows of every single cock-up and broken promise since he was elected....

Still, you problem is still voter apathy....The provincial (Ontario) Liberals broke ALL OF THEIR PROMISES WITHIN THE FIRST WEEK after their election!...and there was no outcry, no complaint....Dalton even broke the law by bringing in taxes he wasn't allowed to and calling it a premium...which would be fine if it were a premium, but the money so gained isn't necessarily being spent on health care!  Further, Martin & co. have been shown to be either crooks, grossly incompetent, or a blend of both....yet Ontario votes Liberal anyway.  Maybe if some of those non-voters out there did something, then we wouldn't be stuck with these bastards.  And then the (non)voters complain...it doesn't matter, they're all the same...of course they're all the same you idiiot!  There hasn't been a different party in power in a generation!  What the hell would you know about **different**???

</rant>


----------



## Infanteer (27 Jun 2005)

I still vote for realigning federalism between indirect representative democracy and direct local democracy.


----------



## Fry (27 Jun 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Then you really can't complain about the Goverment then can you?



Mod or not, I think that post is very stupid. Many have seen that commercial on TV about "if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain." That is crap. Total utter crap. Why?

Just because I don't think that either of the candidates won't do a good job, and I don't vote for either, doesn't mean that I can't complain about the things they do once the election is over. To this day I disagree with many views of Jack Layton, Paul Martin, and Steven Harper. Doesn't mean I can't complain despite the fact I didn't vote for them.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Jun 2005)

No, but we are not talking about Jack Layton, Steven Harper, and Paul Martin (unless they were all running in your riding....)

Vote for a party, vote for the leader, vote for your MP, or use the protest vote for a small party - but don't throw it away and expect us to listen to you bitch about the politicians we elect.


----------



## Fry (27 Jun 2005)

There were no candidates running in my riding that I was satisified with enough to vote for. I'm from a small rural community and I understand what's needed here. Voting for either of the people running wouldn't fulfill what I'm looking for. Actually I thought they would all be bad people to elect. Conservative got elected here, it's been a nightmare. Just as I thought.


----------



## Dogboy (27 Jun 2005)

now days a protest vote is way more importint then it use to be because if a party gets enough votes they can get gov. support money for their next campane.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Jun 2005)

> Mod or not, I think that post is very stupid



Now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black Fry? Are you not on _Recorded_ for stupid posts? Do yourself a favour sunshine and set yourself on recieve only for awhile and you might make it without being Banned.


----------



## Fraser.g (27 Jun 2005)

Fry said:
			
		

> There were no candidates running in my riding that I was satisified with enough to vote for. I'm from a small rural community and I understand what's needed here. Voting for either of the people running wouldn't fulfill what I'm looking for. Actually I thought they would all be bad people to elect. Conservative got elected here, it's been a nightmare. Just as I thought.



If there are no parties, candidates or independents in your area that you feel are worthy to govern then send them that message. Go to the polling station, get in line, register and then spoil your ballot.

This sends the message that you care but do not believe the programs or plans of those who are willing to lead are acceptable to you while telling them that you are not just an arm chair quarterback who has been given the chance to have a say and have declined that offer.


----------



## Reccesoldier (27 Jun 2005)

I'd like to defend Fry here for a moment. I personally do not have a problem with a person who has taken the measure of the Candidates and consciously chosen not to vote. The act of consideration in and of itself is what should be considered here. Why should someone who has weighed the candidates and found them lacking go to the booth just to spoil a ballot? 

It doesn't make sense. Spoiled ballots are written off as mistakes. A statistical reduction in the percentage of eligible voters however is noticed and the people who track such things make a big deal out of it and point to it as "voter apathy" or the decline of our democracy. In essence it is a more effective way of expressing wrong with the system than spoiling a ballot.

If Fry had said that he didn't vote because they are all worthless but had never even put any thought into the decision then the assumption that he had no right to complain would apply. But he has taken the time (apparently) to do what so many who just vote for "the party" or the "same side my family has always voted for" or choose the guy with the best looks, or those that make snap decisions when in the booth do not, and looked at the candidates. I say well done you Fry.


----------



## 2 Cdo (27 Jun 2005)

Ex-Dragoon, as a mod you should be held to a higher standard(sound familiar) than non-moderators. To threaten with banning a person because he disagrees with you sounds an awful lot like dictatorship! Maybe as a mod you should practice what you preach! I think I have brought this up in the past about mods being "above" the standard they demand of others!


----------



## Gunnar (27 Jun 2005)

As Ex-Dragoon IS a moderator, I believe what he was posting was guidance...not threatening to ban him.  Just a helpful reminder that while you can disagree with someone's ideas,  if you're going to call a moderator's post stupid, it is far more believable if you aren't displaying a "recorded warning" flag....

Think of it as a "you're new, and still have much to learn" posting.  Fry has owned up to the posting that got him in hot water the first time, and he's still around.  So he gets the benefit of Ex-Dragoon's experience, and a suggestion that when up to his ass in aligators, he not try to give direction on how best to clear a swamp...at worst, it's a comeback, not a threat.

Besides, if he was likely to be banned for something he had posted, he'd get a clear and direct warning along the lines of:

"One more post like that and I will ban you".

People who take up the profession of arms don't often get points for *subtle* warnings before they discharge their weapons...hence you are not likely to find subtle warnings issued by the mods on Army.ca.  You will find guidance, and the occasional "hey you really ticked me (personally) off" postings, but our moderators don't ban people for disagreeing with them.  They ban them for consistently being knobs.

It is far in the past, and on different board software, but I had a post deleted here once for being a smart-ass.  I deserved it, I got over it.  I've had long-standing Forces / board members call bullshit on me too...while I still don't agree with some of what they had to say, it has made me more careful to be sure of the ground I'm standing on before I spout off...usually...


----------



## Fry (27 Jun 2005)

Why did I make that comment? Because I thought it was a very bad post. How dare he tell me I don't have the right to complain about political problems in my country, especially when that country is Canada? I have voted in the past, but this past election, I felt no one was worthy for my vote. This doesn't deny my freedom of speech. That post he made kinda ticked me off because to me it seemed somewhat of an attack. I realized I was an a$$ before, and took heed to Trinity's pm's. I trimmed my posts, but still, I don't feel that because he's a mod, that he should be held higher than me.

 I'm not personally attacking Ex-Dragoon, but seriously, there's no reason to threaten me because I complain when someone says I don't have freedom of speech. That's just ludacris.


----------



## dutchie (27 Jun 2005)

Fry: You want to complain? Fine. You have that right, even if you didn't vote. 

However, some may choose to ignore your opinion because you couldn't be bothered to involve yourself in the process of electing the government. Why should anyone care what you think of something, if you didn't care enough at the time to make your voice heard? If you could not vote 'for' someone, why not vote 'against' the worst candidate? Why not vote for some wacked-out fringe party? 

There are options. To say 'it wasn't worth it' I'd imagine is a bit of a slap to people who have to fight (literally) for that right. IMHO it is your duty, not your right, to vote.


----------



## Gunnar (27 Jun 2005)

> That's just ludacris.



Unless it's a rapper, it's "ludicrous".

<my opinion>The common comment is that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain, the idea being that if you can't be bothered to participate in the democratic process, then you have no business critiquing it.   You claim you didn't vote, and that was your democratic right, and therefore you have a right to complain....it's just that for most people, voting is the only democratic thing they will ever do until they shelve it for the next election.   If you carefully looked at each of the candidates, their parties, and their platforms and concientiously chose not to vote, then perhaps there is some hope for you.   But the question remains, what did you do instead?   Did you run?   Encourage someone to run?   Donate to a party that supports your views?

It isn't a duty to vote...but it is a duty to participate in the democratic process.   </my opinion>


----------



## dutchie (27 Jun 2005)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> It isn't a duty to vote...but it is a duty to participate in the democratic process.   </my opinion>



Ok, I can agree with that....


----------



## Julio (27 Jun 2005)

Fry said:
			
		

> There were no candidates running in my riding that I was satisified with enough to vote for. *I'm from a small rural community and I understand what's needed here*. Voting for either of the people running wouldn't fulfill what I'm looking for. Actually I thought they would all be bad people to elect. *Conservative got elected here, it's been a nightmare. Just as I thought.*



I agree with Ex-Dragoon.

You should know that the liberal party is the one supporting rural communities.  Perhaps you didn't really bother to look at what all the parties had to offer...
For example, the liberal party is providing great support with initiatives such as Fednor: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/infednor-fednor.nsf/en/Home
and Eastern Ontario Development Fund : http://www.eodf.org/ just to name a few.

And since conservative were elected _just as you thought_, you could have made a difference by voting for a different party and cant complain about your _nightmare_.

[Edit] Oh sorry, complain all you want with your _freedom of speech_, but really it'll be a worthless speech.

One reason you might not be getting what you want from the parties is because you are part of a segment that doesnt vote.  Offering something to your likes could cost many votes to a party since you wont carry it out.  Why bother then right?  Get involved, get you community involved, get to vote, be heard, make a change.

I dont mean to offend you, but urge you to use your right that so many people died/ are willing to die for.
[/Edit]


----------



## TCBF (27 Jun 2005)

In my opinion, I think we could be looking at a 30 to 50 year period between the time one generation stops voting, and another starts shooting.  When a democracy falls - it falls hard.   Politicians today should not be lining the pockets of their supporters and worrying about their place in history - they should be worrying about how many of their children and grandchildren will end up swinging from lamp posts.

People who say "That can never happen here!"  have their heads up their arses.  Civilization is a very thin veneer.

Tom


----------



## Dogboy (27 Jun 2005)

thats a scary view But I agre fully 
its only a matter of time betwen when people don't cair to vote and when people wonder why there are people in power they don't like.
the Canadian sistom of party politicise dose not work to well at stopping corruption not that any   sistom dose a good job at it. 
eventually people may figer out that you don't need a big gov. to be in charge. but until that hapens we stuck hear 

also I almost did not vote but I did at the end for the NDP so they can get my 5$ or whatever a vote gives to a party (the only good thing the Lib party did is institute gov.funding for campanes, and limit privet donations)


----------



## dutchie (27 Jun 2005)

Dogboy, could you use a spell checker please? I feel like Indiana Jones in some ancient tomb trying to read the hieroglyphics of a long extinct culture. 

'L8tr dood'


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jun 2005)

One reason we get the "Government we deserve" is just a general level of illiteracy. The effects noted in the following article have been *repeated in over 70 nations around the world*, but look what happens when you mention tax cuts in Canada..."OH, THE HORROR: THIS WILL MEAN THE END OF HEALTHCARE (the secession of Quebec, the Maritimes, BC, the end of the Canada Council...you know the drill). If people are so easily taken in by Liberal fear mongering and do not take the time and effort to examine the facts, well, they get what is coming to them.



> *The Rapidly Declining Deficit*
> How's it happening? Look to the tax-rate cuts of 2003.
> 
> By Michael T. Darda
> ...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Jun 2005)

Thank you Gunnar and Julio at least you folks got it.

2 Cdo...the only person I have to answer to on this site is Mr Bobbitt, if you or anyone else has a complaint about my moderating style please contact him.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jun 2005)

Fry said:
			
		

> The reason that I didn't vote in the last election, was because I didn't think either of the candidates were worthy of my vote. They all had promises which I didn't like. I'm not going to vote someone in that I don't think would do a good job.



The one true answer to that is get out and run yourself, or go to work for a candidate/party which does represent your views. There is a price for apathy, and Canadians are paying it.


----------



## danielbouchard (27 Jun 2005)

Fry said:
			
		

> The reason that I didn't vote in the last election, was because I didn't think either of the candidates were worthy of my vote. They all had promises which I didn't like. I'm not going to vote someone in that I don't think would do a good job.



ok, if u don't vote, go to Cuba or a another communist country!!!!

I vote for my values and my family! I vote conservative!


----------



## Acorn (27 Jun 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> 2 Cdo...the only person I have to answer to on this site is Mr Bobbitt, if you or anyone else has a complaint about my moderating style please contact him.



For some reason that comment bugs me. Maybe it's because, in a way, you actually answer to the membership of this site *through* Mike, who is the final arbiter (and if his style goes the way of Caligula, I'm sure the lack of discussion here will be notable - not something I think is likely). I'm not saying you're being dictatorial, though I agree with 2 Cdo that Mods in general are held to a higher standard, whether you know it, like it, or not. We expect a level of impartiality, at least, that is not expected in the rest of us unwashed.

That being said, your first point to Fry was well made: someone on a warning should choose his words more carefully than others - hot buttons like "stupid" have to be used with care.

And finally, I think he has a point. When the specter of an election was looming a month or so ago I was despairing of where I'd put my vote. I still do. I'm not ready to abandon the process quite yet though.

Acorn


----------



## Fry (27 Jun 2005)

Yes, I should choose my words carefully. No, I'm not going to move to Cuba. Some of you, not all, seem to misunderstand me once again. 

I reviewed all of the "promises" of all the candidates in my riding, and this time none of them seemed to be what I wanted to vote for, therefore I didn't vote. I have voted in the past because there were members that I figured were worthy enough for my vote.


Ex-Dragoon, I have no problems with your moderating style. I just didn't like the fact that you figured I forfeited my freedom of speech when the candidates in my riding weren't to my liking. 

No, I won't run in my riding, because I wouldn't make a good politician, and it's not something I wish to make a career of. 

I also didn't like the fact that I was threatened to be banned, despite ex-dragoon's comment. I really appreciate this board and the people on it. It has helped me learn many things about the forces and myself already, and I've only been on here about a month.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2005)

Fry said:
			
		

> I reviewed all of the "promises" of all the candidates in my riding, and this time none of them seemed to be what I wanted to vote for, therefore I didn't vote. I have voted in the past because there were members that I figured were worthy enough for my vote.
> 
> Ex-Dragoon, I have no problems with your moderating style. I just didn't like the fact that you figured I forfeited my freedom of speech when the candidates in my riding weren't to my liking.
> 
> No, I won't run in my riding, because I wouldn't make a good politician, and it's not something I wish to make a career of.



If you don't like what is being offered, and won't run (or work for a political party) and don't vote, then how, pray tell, do you propose to change things? Given you have eliminated the first three choices, the only options left (historically) is to leave the country or to engage in armed revolution. 

If you find our opinions fairly hard edged, it is because most of us are serving or former service members, and we have a pretty direct approach to things. If you want change, *get out there and change things*. I may not agree with what you are doing, but will certainly respect the fact that you are out there doing something.


----------



## Fry (28 Jun 2005)

I'm waiting for an election to be called because there will be a couple of new members in my riding. No, I wouldn't make a good politician, so even trying to run would be pointless. 

So you mean to tell me, if Liberal A has a promise such as " All people with yellow houses will have to pay an $2000 a year, and COnservative B says "All people with green houses pay 2000bucks a year extra" , NDP C says "All people with purple houses pay 2000 a year" and independant says All houses pay 10,000 extra tax a year to the government.

For example if my house is green, My grandparents house is yellow, and my great grand parents house is purple. Some of you are saying that Vote! Vote at least someone. Either way, someone I care about, including myself, will get the shaft. I don't want to be part of the process that helps bring that crap in. Therefore I seen no candidates worthy of my vote. I stayed home. 

If we have better politicians running, then they'd get more votes. You don't get votes because you're a politican belonging to a certain party.

My approach was direct enough. No good? No vote. Simple as that.


----------



## Dogboy (28 Jun 2005)

danielbouchard said:
			
		

> ok, if u don't vote, go to Cuba or a another communist country!!!!
> 
> I vote for my values and my family! I vote conservative!



Its narrow mindid view like that that scare me.
like voting will really change anything.
Conservative liberal the all seam the same to me 
I don't thing voting is the only political thing you can do, IMHO its the least political thing you can do.

PS I always use the spellcheck


----------



## Fry (28 Jun 2005)

Dogboy said:
			
		

> Its narrow mindid view like that that scare me.
> like voting will really change anything.
> Conservative liberal the all seam the same to me
> I don't thing voting is the only political thing you can do, IMHO its the least political thing you can do.
> ...



yeah that was a kinda weird post... your spellcheck must be taking a break or somethin, lol...


----------



## Danjanou (28 Jun 2005)

Part of my job these days entails meeting people who came here because where they were before they often never had the option of voting for anyone good bad or indifferent, and/or if they did vote and not for the right guy they usually paid for it with the door kicked in at zero dark thirty and got dragged off into the night to never be seen again.

I've also visited many of those places over the years, and seen first hand the results and why they left, at least those that were able to. Incidentally they do have regular â Å“democraticâ ? elections in Cuba, there's just one name on the ballot.

Trust me they are not apathetic.

One of the things I am proud of is that only once in my life have I failed to not vote in Federal, Provincial and/or Municipal elections since I was old enough to do so. That one time BTW I was out of the country and missed both advance and regular polls (ironically it was when Ontario elected Bob Rae and the NDP so you can all blame me).

During that time I have often known that my vote is not going to the winning candidate/party 
(I live in a downtown Toronto riding dominated by Liberals Federally and Provincially), and at other times I have deliberately spoiled my ballet realising that all the choices open were equally bad.  

Either way I did not feel it was a waste of my time and effort, The fact is I got off the couch and went out and voted.. It was something I had/have to do.

Anyone who doesn't no matter how they may try and justify it is part of the problem, not the solution.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2005)

Finally something sensible on the subject. Spoiled votes are looked at and recorded. Eventually, maybe, when hell freezes over, they will outnumber a popular candidate's vote. Then the politician's will realize it's not voter apathy, but voter dissatisfaction with the way things are being run. But it will never happen if you can't get your lazy ass off the couch...because no one deserves my vote. How will they know unless you show them. Right now they depend on apathetic people and old ladies living in some past political utopia to stay in power. Make no mistake, they neither care, or want you, to come to the polls. You decrease their chances of another four years at the pig trough. I've always said, and not that I'm advocating it, but our politicians won't take the voter seriously and act in our interest until one of them gets assassinated by some regular Joe who's lost everything to the system.


----------



## Danjanou (28 Jun 2005)

Anyone ever see the Richard Pryor movie Brewster's Millions. Part of it involves him running for mayor of NYC against two equally corrupt and dishonest candidates. He gets his name on the ballot and then campaigns on the slogan â Å“none of the aboveâ ? refering to all three candidates. 

As recceguy says no votes cast/spoiled are really wasted. Enough of them and eventually even those in the hallowed halls of Disneyland on the Rideau may get the message and actually listen to us poor peons down in the muck.


----------



## Dogboy (29 Jun 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Finally something sensible on the subject. Spoiled votes are looked at and recorded. Eventually, maybe, when heck freezes over, they will outnumber a popular candidate's vote. Then the politician's will realize it's not voter apathy, but voter dissatisfaction with the way things are being run. But it will never happen if you can't get your lazy *** off the couch...because no one deserves my vote. How will they know unless you show them. Right now they depend on apathetic people and old ladies living in some past political utopia to stay in power. Make no mistake, they neither care, or want you, to come to the polls. You decrease their chances of another four years at the pig trough. I've always said, and not that I'm advocating it, but our politicians won't take the voter seriously and act in our interest until one of them gets assassinated by some regular Joe who's lost everything to the system.



Iv never thought of spoiled votes like that before. 
but it dose make sense 
what are your views on ballot eaters then?


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jun 2005)

The repeated comments about not voting or spoiling the ballot are really getting under the Infantry Sgt part of my constitution. I really would like to line these clowns up at attention and give them a very pre SHARP high speed high volume one way conversation re: being whiners and layabouts.

Now that is out of the way, there still is that little matter of _*WHAT ARE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT*_!!! Anyone one who refuses to vote, or passive/aggressively spoils a ballot are not taking any action to change things, and cop outs like "I  wouldn't make a good politician" are just that; cop outs.

I am probably the least charismatic, glad handing type of person out here, and I am determined to stand on my hind legs and give the city politicians and the voters the most astounding show possible in the next civic elections through the simple mechanism of "telling them what has to be said" as opposed to "what they want to hear". ( London area members feel free to PM me.)

Do I think  will be elected? Who knows. Maybe I will get two votes, or maybe I will put a huge scare in the local establishment, or maybe I will find myself sitting in the mayors seat and wondering how the hell I will be able to make these campaign promises happen. 

Or maybe I should just stay at home watching CSI.

Which choice do you, dear reader, think will create the conditions for change?


----------



## Fry (29 Jun 2005)

I have picked some sense out of all of this... Spoiling my ballot would have probably been better than not voting at all, but I stilll don't think it's fair to say that you HAVE to vote for someone... even if you don't like what they propose to do if elected in government. That's bull.

And, no, I'm not a lazy a$$, I don't sit down and watch "CSI" all day/night. I work 12-16 hours a day.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Jun 2005)

Dogboy said:
			
		

> Its narrow mindid view like that that scare me.





> PS I always use the spellcheck



Liar.

Read through your posts.   If you are going to type like a 10 year old, I am going to assume you are and thus violating Board Policy.


----------



## Fry (29 Jun 2005)

Took the words from my mouth. I got nothing against ya Dogboy, but either you're lying about spellcheck, or it's broken... It's a bit hard to read your posts when words are incorrectly spelled.


----------



## Gunnar (29 Jun 2005)

Aye all ways use the spell cheque two.   Seams too me that sum of the miss steaks are in you sage.

Y'know?


----------



## Dogboy (29 Jun 2005)

learning disability. Iv had to deal with it for years you can deal with it for a min.

and I'm of the view I pay taxes and I reseve gov. cervices then I have the right to give my opinion 
the only people who cant Tell the gov. what to do are the ones who don't live hear.


----------



## Fry (29 Jun 2005)

Man, I don't have anything against you or anything but honestly, it's a real chore to read your posts and try to figure them out. Yes it's only a few spelling errors, but if you're not sure on a word,  head to www.dictionary.com or somethin and check it out.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jun 2005)

http://mhintze.tripod.com/school/HST498F-2_democracy_in_athens.htm



> DEMOCRACY IN ATHENS
> 
> Michael Hintze
> History 498 F
> ...



Some ideas we might consider to prevent debacles like the Liberal overthrow of the constitution.


----------



## PeterLT (30 Jun 2005)

What a great exchange of ideas, some eloquent some not so.

All I can do is speak for me, sitting here on Vancouver Island. And if sounds like a rant, well then just humour me. As a Westerner (25 years now) born in Quebec and raised in the US, Canadian politics has always been somewhat of a peculiar thing to me. Here we have a system where the whole is essentially governed by one province. Heck, here out west, apart from meagre local representation, our vote means nothing since any decisions are essentially made in Ontario. Our resources are tapped by the east for their benefit and we have little or no say in how things are run. As I recall in gradeschool in Syracuse, N.Y., that is called taxation without (fair) representation. We are treated as "rednecks", "racists", "backwards" or worst by those who apparently know better than we. People who we elect as representing our views are ridiculed as being "scary", or having a "hidden" agenda or even worse.

Much of all this is levied by a government that has been caught openly stealing large amounts of taxpayer money on more than one occasion. A government that flagrantly disregards at a whim what might be regarded as basic parliamentary principles in a free society and will stoop to any and all means just to preserve the tenet that they are the "natural ruling party". And when anyone points it out or suggests there might be an alternative, they are slandered to the point of the obscene.

That anyone would (or could) support such a thing is beyond me. So I suppose that in my humble opinion; in answer to the topic of the string, I think that certainly, (at least) Ontario has the Federal government it deserves.

I think that in years to come I will always remember this Canada Day as a turning point for me. It's the point in my life where I really doubt if this entity we now know as "Canada" can survive as it is. In fact I think that perhaps it shouldn't. It's just too unfair to far too many and is too heavily influenced by special interest groups pandered to by the corrupt.

Well, just the ranting of someone who probably doesn't know what he's talking about........talk amongst yourselves....


----------



## Infanteer (30 Jun 2005)

Athens is lauded for its system of governance - one of my Classics professors said that Athens had the greatest press-writer in history because it claimed to be unique and extraordinary when, with a closer examination of the Constitutions of some of the 700 _poleis_ of Greece, it is apparent that the Athenian experiment was not quite as unique as some think.


----------



## Wayne Coady (30 Jun 2005)

I never suggested that we not vote, I suggested that we stop supporting political parties. My reasons for not supporting parties has been well documented in Canadian history, they all lie , cheat and steal from us and the person we think we elect, once elected must follow party line. 

Thus we get a bunch of sheep proping up an   oligarchy . It is my opinion that political parties are used as vehicles by the few to achieve their own benefits and POWER. It is also my opinion that we need to reform how we do politics here in Canada and I offer up the possibilities of looking towards a Consensus democratic government, it is time to put more control in the hands of the constituents, where it belongs and not with less than 2% of the voting population and remember only 2% of the voting Canadian population belong to political parties.   
Take a look at this information, read and research   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_democracy  .
 Vote, just do not vote for a party candidate.


----------



## Reccesoldier (30 Jun 2005)

Political parties can be very useful. For a lot of people they define the political spectrum within a state. They also make it possible for low and middle income persons to be able to run for office by shouldering much of the cost of an election campaign. Now, I am not denying that we seem to be saddled with corruption because of the party system but I believe that getting rid of the party is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I've posted this before (not sure if it was on this forum though) but here it is, from my own musings for a political party platform:

_*The Democratic Contract:*  The party is resolved to institute a system whereby Canadians are given the opportunity to vote on and select through their majority the policies and projects the government will pursue.  The document will take the form of a legally binding contract between the people of Canada (witnessed by the Governor General) and the Government of the Dominion of Canada outlining the people's direction to the government. The contract will consist of two classes of guidance, Mandatory and Directive. 

Mandate: This guidance will outline policies that the government must implement in compliance with the established wishes of the majority within four years in office. Should the Government act contrary to the peoples mandate at any time, the Governor General will have the ability to dissolve Parliament on behalf of the people. Similarly should it be determined by the Supreme Court that a government, upon completion of four years of its term, has not pursued the completion of a mandate in good faith then the Governor General can initiate the same action.  

Directive: A directive will establish, in general terms, those policies that should be pursued as a matter of course in the day to day operation of the government. They are secondary tasks for government and or general guidelines for the conduct of the government. Failure to follow or complete a directive will have no effect upon the continuance of government but can be used by the people to determine compliance with their general wishes._

I believe this contractual type of democracy would ensure that 
1. The people would be forced to pay more attention to policy thus delivering us from the political popularity game that our elections have become
2. Eliminate the ability of the party in power to make bold faced lies to the people
3. Reduce the purely partisan bickering which wastes so much time in the HoC

It would be necessary to either have two separate elections (one on which the policies are established and one (a month later?) where the MP's are elected) or a single ballot where the policies are decided and the MP elected.

I personaly prefer the first option, this would enable the parties and the MP's to form their action plan on the agenda decreed by the people and make their point for the implimentation of it.

Reccesoldier in the open! On your own time... fire!  :dontpanic:


----------



## Wayne Coady (30 Jun 2005)

The three main parties in this province are Liberal, Progressive Conservative and New Democrat. These parties pick and prepare the candidates and when the election rolls around, these parties help finance and promote their candidates. Financing has traditionally come from those in the business community or unions who are anything but altruists. They expect something in return for their investments of cash, and past performances by the two parties that have formed governments have never let their investors down. 
Any party that has achieved a majority government in Nova Scotia has financed projects for business with thinly disguised loans from taxpayer-fed coffers. Grants that are supposedly available to anybody invariably make their way to party supporters of the government of the day much more easily and frequently than to those who supported the other side. In the middle is the poor (literally and figuratively) taxpayer who is always on the hook for the bad loans and financial ineptitude of those who manage to take care of their own first. 
How often have we all heard the term "backroom boys"? 
They do exist and they are the people who really determine a government's direction and policies, not the electorate. These are the people with the money, and we know the old equation: money equals power. 
Only as an afterthought does the voter come into play. 
Parties are not about to change, and anyone who thinks they can make long-term changes from within a party's structure will find themselves involved in an exercise in futility. 
The only alternative to government by party is government by consensus, whose members are independent in thought and motivated by their own sense of decency and desire for a government that is fiscally and morally responsible to the people for its actions, and not to the party. 
For example the Elections Act of Nova Scotia is constituted to allow for any person to run as an independent candidate in this province. Five signatures on your nomination papers and $100 can qualify you as a candidate, assuming you don't have a criminal record. Judging by the quality of government and leadership we have had thus far from the parties that have hijacked us in the past, it's high time we all started to think outside of the box as a means to elect governments that are responsible and responsive to the people who elect them. 

Reccesoldier,I think this discussion is one that all Canadians should be having and  I appreciate your civilized discussion, but never the less the party system which consist of less than 2% of the voting population holds to much power over the other 98% of the voting population , not to mention those who have lost interest in voting too.  
Wayne Coady lives in Dartmouth. E-mail: wcoady@accesswave.ca


----------



## Fry (30 Jun 2005)

Wayne Coady said:
			
		

> The three main parties in this province are Liberal, Progressive Conservative and New Democrat. Only as an afterthought does the voter come into play.



Incorrect there Mr. Coady, it's "Conservative" Not Progressive Conservative. That changed a little while ago.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Jun 2005)

He's talking about Nova Scotia.


----------



## Wayne Coady (30 Jun 2005)

Fry said:
			
		

> Incorrect there Mr. Coady, it's "Conservative" Not Progressive Conservative. That changed a little while ago.



Please is that the best you can do, never the less they are all still political parties and that is what this is about. In Canada we have four main parties, the ConServatives, Liberal, New Democratic and the Bloc , all have lied , stolen and cheated on we the voters. Those who benefited from the party system are the few who have used the party structure to high-jack what was once the peoples "government" , but now has been turned into nothing more than a well oiled criminal machine. 

The only ProGressive ConServative left is David Orchard any way. But I still say that Canada needs to reform the way we elect and the way the elected get away with abusing their power and breaching our trust. We need to build in more accountability and give the Auditor General's Department more power to act as the tax payers head controller. Remember its your money , so you should want the "government" to spend it wisely, shouldn't you?

Think about this FRY, a political party has been elected to govern, they waste the taxpayer infrastructure dollars on thing like the Ad Scam or pull a Mulroney on us. The party gets away with the tax payers loot and pass the blame off as being fault of  "government" , now FRY isn't "government " suppose to be we the people?  

Yes who ever came up with this party concept, sure knew how to pull the wool over the voters eyes didn't they ? When will we ever learn?


----------



## Dogboy (1 Jul 2005)

its stuff like this that makes me think a Anarchy stile sistom would work better 
no one in charge no one to be corrupted


----------



## Wayne Coady (1 Jul 2005)

Dogboy said:
			
		

> its stuff like this that makes me think a Anarchy stile sistom would work better
> no one in charge no one to be corrupted



No we do not want A lack of civil order or peace, this is no what I am asking us to debate. I am asking that Canadians look towards reforming how we pick our elected representatives, this is something we do not do now. Candidates are chosen by a political party and that candidate is promoted by the party , thus the candidate must follow   party line. 

I am suggesting that we make the candidate accountable to the constituency population he or she wishes to represent. The platform which will be carried forward to Ottawa or the provincial legislature must be that of the constituency , not some self serving political party. Proportional representation and recall are two elements discussed so far as ways to reform, but as long as we leave the power and control of our elected candidates in the hands of a political parties, we will not achieve accountability in government.

Switzerland   is a good template for us here in Canada to look at, but then again if we are looking to consensus government , then we only have to look at how our regional municipal governments work, they are closer to the people. If a cities such as Toronto, Montreal or Victoria with their large populations can work on consensus, then why not provinces and yes even a county? 

Right now what we have in Ottawa are political parties being forced to work together for the good of all Canadians and as soon as they stop fighting like school yard children and really start getting down to business the better off we all will be. The only thing that is wrong with the way they are doing business is they are shackled by the parties mandate, where as it should be the peoples mandate.

Canada has been split up by these parties into regions and as our western friend states all the power seems to be in the hands of those living in Ontario, please this is not a slap at the citizens of that fine province either, but we must consider why this is. Political parties have divided Canada in so many ways, they did this for their own selfish reasons and this must change as well. I been across Canada and up North, we have the fines piece of real estate on the planet, with the great citizens, but we have a corrupt political system and we can do better. 

Well you all have a great day with your families and think about what you or more to the point we can do to take back our "government" and improve politics in Canada, making it even a better country than it all ready is. God bless those in our military I    every one of you.


----------



## Fry (1 Jul 2005)

Anarchy isn't the answer, and anarchy isn't what many think it is. I'd bet the majority of young people (MTV Generation) Think of anarachy as no rules, and people rocking out with their tunes as long as they want. Don't get me wrong, I love my tunes, but anarchy definately isn't the answer.


----------



## Wayne Coady (1 Jul 2005)

Fry said:
			
		

> I'd bet the majority of young people (MTV Generation) Think of anarachy as no rules, and people rocking out with their tunes as long as they want. Don't get me wrong, I love my tunes, but anarchy definately isn't the answer.



Well most of the youth I know understand more about the political picture here in Canada than you give them credit for. Lets not forget that the demographics are changing fast and it will be the youth who will carry this country into the future. The youth understand what political parties are used for and by whom, they are looking way ahead and understand economic and environmental issues much better than we did in our day, we are of the industrial age, and the youth of to day see how industry has taken a toll on the environment, thus they are prepared to improve, step into new clean projects.

We have an educated youth, more have crossed the threshold of higher learning   and have grown up connected to the world, thanks to the computer and internet. Imagine,here we are in a discussion on politics in Canada and we have never met, this would not have been possible before and if it had, maybe we "Canada" would be in a much better place politically. 

The baby boomer's on the other hand are becoming more upset at the way our politicians are playing with their lives and have been through out their working life, but were to busy to notice, they now are retired or retiring and have the time to pay attention. 

Remember it was the political parties who played off the youth against the aging and they used the debt as their weapon. They told the youth it was the baby boomer's who created the debt and that it would be them, our grand children who would have to pay it off, well now both are seeing just who mismanaged the tax dollars and the latest ad scandal which the Liberal Party created provided the proof. But then again all parties have been doing the same thing with "your" / "our " taxes haven't they?   
No FRY, our youth deserve more credit than that, I sure they understand what anarchy is and I am sure they do not want that for Canada.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Jul 2005)

Dogboy said:
			
		

> its stuff like this that makes me think a Anarchy stile sistom would work better
> no one in charge no one to be corrupted


Let me see if I get this...  You are, or want to be, in the army.  The army is only maintained by strict order and discipline, in fact, the antithesis of anarchy.  Here's how anarchy works:  "Nice jacket, Dogboy...I think I'll take it... No?" BANG!  "Thanks."

Kat


----------



## 48Highlander (1 Jul 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Let me see if I get this...   You are, or want to be, in the army.   The army is only maintained by strict order and discipline, in fact, the antithesis of anarchy.   Here's how anarchy works:   "Nice jacket, Dogboy...I think I'll take it... No?" BANG!   "Thanks."
> 
> Kat



Actually, no, that's not anarchy, that's a form of tyrany.  Ruling through force and intimidation.  Anarchy is actualy, in theory, an ideal system.  The problem is that just like communism, it only works in theory.  Whenever a state of anarchy has existed in the past, it has without fail been replaced by another polytical system within a very short time period.  Usualy either tribalism or tyrany.


----------



## Wayne Coady (1 Jul 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Let me see if I get this...   You are, or want to be, in the army.   The army is only maintained by strict order and discipline, in fact, the antithesis of anarchy.   Here's how anarchy works:   "Nice jacket, Dogboy...I think I'll take it... No?" BANG!   "Thanks."
> 
> Kat



Kat you understand , this is pretty much how it works now, the party says, it your land , I want it and they take it with out the bang " so far". I want a " government" that works for all , not the few. This is why we need to look at political reform, we need to bring down the bully , before he does us our "government " as his gun. Accountability is the magic word. 

You guys all have a good day, I am off to New Brunswick to spend Canada Day evening with my sister. 

Highlander: The noun anarchy has one meaning a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Jul 2005)

My point, in less than eloquent prose, was that anarchy means anyone, at any time, can take or do anything they want without accountability.  Tyranny involves a high state of order that uses unnecessary force to maintain it.  Our southern neighbours favourite buzzword for Monarchy a few centuries ago, was "Tyranny", if I read all the pamphlets correctly..... :-\


----------



## Fry (1 Jul 2005)

if it ain't broke, don't fix it. the democracy we have now is doing just fine compared to tyranny or anarchy... Yes the proper definition of both are different but neither in the real world, would work. Sure we don't agree with everything our government does, but it could be much, much worse.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jul 2005)

Happy Dominion Day everyone....



> DavidWarrenOnline
> ESSAYS ON OUR TIMES
> 
> SUNDAY SPECTATOR
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jul 2005)

Fry said:
			
		

> if it ain't broke, don't fix it. the democracy we have now is doing just fine compared to tyranny or anarchy... Yes the proper definition of both are different but neither in the real world, would work. Sure we don't agree with everything our government does, but it could be much, much worse.




How naive of you. You really think this is a democracy? Why, because you have a vote? Your vote means almost nothing with our first past the post system. We live in a elected dictatorship, where the will of the elected representatives is suppressed by the unelected in the PM's Office, through the party whip. A PM who wields more power within this country than POTUS does in his. We have a Supreme Court that makes laws, not upholds them. A partisan Senate that bends to the will of the governing party that gave them the seat. We have moved from a first world country, to somewhere between a second and third world, selling off our natural resources and technology, under the table, to China through Power Corporation. The same corporation that has had their hand in the making and breaking of every major politician in this country for the last twenty years. We hold no worldwide influence, no power and have no means anymore to exert either. We rape our have provinces to support the have nots, then tell them their opinion matters to naught. We have a province that holds the rest of the country for ransom at every opportunity, then plead with them for understanding. We have elected representatives(?) who's job it is to vote the will of their constituents, but are only worried about their pension. Short of an all out revolution, please explain to me how much worse it can get.


----------



## Dogboy (2 Jul 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Let me see if I get this...   You are, or want to be, in the army.   The army is only maintained by strict order and discipline, in fact, the antithesis of anarchy.   Here's how anarchy works:   "Nice jacket, Dogboy...I think I'll take it... No?" BANG!   "Thanks."
> 
> Kat



it's views like that, that show no one Knows real Political Anarchy, its got nothing to do with gang warfare and riots and crap like that.
its got everything to do with people working together and helping eachother, and standing up for themselves 
try http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
for a good intro on what true Anarchy is.


----------



## 48Highlander (2 Jul 2005)

Also,  beleiving in anarchy as a polytical system (which I don't, but anyway) and being in the army aren't as contradictory as they may seem.  We live in a democracy and profess to uphold it's ideals, yet we certainly don't practice democracy within the military.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Jul 2005)

Definition
anarchy   [Show phonetics]
noun 
lack of organization and control, especially in society because of an absence or failure of government:
What we are witnessing is the country's slow slide into anarchy.
The country has been in a state of anarchy since the inconclusive election.
If the pay deal isn't settled amicably there'll be anarchy in the factories.

anarchic   [Show phonetics]
adjective
Milligan's anarchic humour has always had the power to offend as well as entertain.

(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)


----------



## Fry (2 Jul 2005)

There will be problems in all types of government. This isn't the perfect world, so we won't have the "ideal definitions" of any type of government.  Like I said before, and I will say it again, we could have it much, much worse.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jul 2005)

I'd prefer to hope against hope and consider that we could have it much, much better.


----------



## ArmyRick (2 Jul 2005)

Some interesting stuff here,...
Do you remember the line from forest gump
"his back is as crooked as a politician.."


----------



## 48Highlander (2 Jul 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Definition
> anarchy     [Show phonetics]
> noun
> lack of organization and control, especially in society because of an absence or failure of government:
> ...




Maybe the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary is written for the "special" students?  I don't know, here's the definition I have though:



> an ·ar ·chy    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (nr-k)
> n. pl. an ·ar ·chies
> Absence of any form of political authority.
> Political disorder and confusion.
> Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.




"absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard of purpose", eh?  I was thinking maybe that sounded like the liberal party, but they DO have a common purpose - staying in power.  It sure does remind me of the Canadian electorate though.

Anyway, whatever definition you use, you can't reduce a political system into a one sentence definition.  Look up communism in the dictionary, then compare it to the Communist Manifesto.  Look up democracy, then compare it to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the American Declaration of Independance and Bill of Rights.


----------



## Fry (3 Jul 2005)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Some interesting stuff here,...
> Do you remember the line from forest gump
> "his back is as crooked as a politician.."



not 100% sure on this, but wasn't his back crooked as a question mark? I don't recall the politician bit, and I've watched it a considerable amount of times, but I could be incorrect.


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Jul 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Maybe the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary is written for the "special" students?  I don't know, here's the definition I have though:



I wouldn't have expected anything else...


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Jul 2005)

Like this one better?
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>

Merriam-Webster online: or this;

anarchy

  "¢ noun 1 a state of disorder due to lack of government or control. 2 a society founded on the principles of anarchism.

  - ORIGIN Greek anarkhia, from an- 'without' + arkhos 'chief, ruler'.

Oxford English Dictionary


----------



## 48Highlander (3 Jul 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Like this one better?
> Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
> ...



Yep, that's much better.   Anarchy as a system isn't neccesarily a lack of government, it's only a lack of politicians    Idealy, Anarchy is a form of self-government where people govern their own behaviour based on the standards of society.   They are free to do what they wish, sure, and as long as it doesn't harm anyone else they can do it, however they also know that if their actions are intentionaly harmful to others, someone else will deal with them in short order.   Socialy acceptable behaviour would be enforced by vigilantism.   That's simplifying things a LOT, and as I said, it's not a workable system for human society anyway (at least, not yet), however, there's a lot more to it than just "chaos" and "lack of order" as your initial definition suggested.   I don't want to sound condescending, but you should seriously read up on it a bit, it's an interesting concept.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jul 2005)

> 1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government



While reading up on anarchy is interesting, I suggest you also read a bit of history as well. The Russian Civil War and the Spanish Civil War produced a number of anarchist movements, which either disintigrated into state "b", or quickly went to the wall since groups which "were" organized around a central principle were far more efficient. (The fact that the guiding principles were "Bolshevikism" and "National Socialism" in these two examples is in no way an endorsement for these principles).

If we want to move from "utopian" to practical, Libertarianism stresses the minimal role of government, while in the real world, American Republican governments espousing "Millenial capitalism"  have about the best real record based on actual results (GDP, per capita income etc.)


----------



## Fry (4 Jul 2005)

The "idea" of communism would work too, if it was followed properly, but it's not. Anarchy will never work in the real world.


----------



## Reccesoldier (4 Jul 2005)

Fry said:
			
		

> The "idea" of communism would work too, if it was followed properly, but it's not. Anarchy will never work in the real world.



The "Ideal" of communism is a fable, a bedtime story for statists with totalitarian dreams. I believe it can and never will be realized. In order to construct a communist state you have to have complete and utter control. Any such control must be exercised by someone, the Communist ideology did not do away with classes it created a new ruling class, the apparatchik which replaced the Bourgeoisie. Therefore I put Communism in the same class, and light as Anarchism. It will never work in the real world.


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 Jul 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> I don't want to sound condescending, but you should seriously read up on it a bit, it's an interesting concept.


Why not? You're very good at it....


----------



## Island Ryhno (4 Jul 2005)

Uggh, all the anarchy talk brings me back to first year Poly Sci, I had to actually read freakin' space novels about anarchist government. (Shudder) I think voting is something you should do, sort of the lesser of 3 evils choice. That being said, I've participated in the voting process in two provinces, Alberta and Newfoundland & Labrador. There are some very noticeable differences in the process. In the Alberta there was no intimate knowledge of the candidate by the large majority of the population and hence I voted for the political party that most closely represented my values. In Newfoundland & Labrador, the people seem to vote more for the person than the party, the reason being that our communities and cities are so small that practically everything is known about each candidate. Indeed in many small communities here in Newfoundland the political movers and shakers are the same people who went to your daughters wedding or your grandfathers funeral. You had probably spent most of your life growing up together. I found that both provinces have large differences in their political savvy.


----------



## Fry (4 Jul 2005)

Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. Read it... interesting indeed.


----------



## 48Highlander (4 Jul 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Why not? You're very good at it....



Thanks   Most of the time I'm not trying to be.  I still respect the opinions and experience of the majority of the members here, even when I'm certain they're wrong


----------



## Wayne Coady (5 Jul 2005)

There is an undercurrent of thought among Canadians who, as they observe and examine how the present political system operates in this country, have concluded we must regain control of our government. This is a government that, at all levels, has increasingly become populated by professionals who have joined the political parties that have usurped what once was government for and by the people. 

The professionals I refer to are the lawyers and doctors who have joined the professional politicians whose aim is to establish tenure for themselves and, in some instances, their progeny. The motivating force behind these dynasties has to be the money, power and perks that accrue as one becomes entrenched within the system. 

Unfortunately for he rest of us, our governments have become out of touch and unresponsive to the real needs of the people. 

These â Å“professionalâ ? politicians have assessed their own worth   through so called independent advisors( usually ex-politicians or those closely involved with political parties ) and pay themselves very well indeed ~ compared to most of the working people who are expected to foot the bill. 
And why not ?  Lawyers come from a profession that has been granted the right to police its members ( Barrister's Society ) and similar privileges are extended to inoculate medical doctors from censure by any means other than the College of Physicians and Surgeons. 

All very tidy and protective. Even the most blatant examples of abuse by erring members of these professions have gone unpunished ~ or, with the proverbial â Å“slap on the wristâ ?. 

Those of you here who would disagree that the public perception is wrong are, yet again, demonstrating just how â Å“out of touchâ ? you really are. I would remind you that the former tenants in  the Palace of Versailles and the royals of Czarist Russia held similar attitudes many years ago and reaped the whirlwind when their subjects ceased to believe or be intimidated by the myth.

In this country(Canada) today, the myth is promulgated and perpetuated that there is good government .

Good for whom?   Mostly for the professionals and their professional societies that have been granted the right to administer their own law as it pertains to their profession. Who granted that right?   Answer: Government, through legislative action by its members. Who are those members? Many come from the membership rolls of the very same societies who benefit from  their protective legislation . Proving again that, in some instances, â Å“incest IS bestâ ?.

Further, professionals are largely responsible for these â Å“governmentsâ ?  and should be well-paid ( at a commensurate level )for their input. This in a country that has in excess of  Billion dollars in debt and an infrastructure that is on a downward spiral because of politicians and governments whose vision was restricted by politics and the inability to see beyond the tip of their nose. 

No wonder governments in this country have been chastised for operating in SECRECY !  When you continually grow debt, provide poorly considered legislation and only a reactive response in crises, I guess you really don't want the world ( and certainly, the electorate ) to know just how poorly equipped you REALLY are at governing.

The highly deserving and august professionals I refer to are, ostensibly, theâ ? cream of the cropâ ? ~ lawyers and doctors trained to the nth degree in the intricacies of your professions but without , one must suspect, of never having been exposed to the nuances of morals, ethics and, particularly, empathy as they made their way through university. 

The public perception, I'm sure , is that all of you professionals should be more than capable of shouldering the responsibilities inherent in government ~ but they have unfailingly demonstrated the opposite time and again by the results. 
They are probably one of the best illustrations of that old saw, â Å“ The Ark was built by an amateur but, .... the TITANIC was built by professionals !â ?

This country slowly  goes under as the rest of us continue to endure under the bad faith legislation you â Å“ professional politicians â Å“ have enacted in their half-hearted attempt to justify the raises they eagerly take for themselves as often as possible.

Considering all the training these professionals have undergone, I can't believe any of them would stoop so low as to cheat on those courses you took that culminated in your being granted degrees. 

That said, I can only conclude that the bad faith legislation they were either a party to or tacitly endorse today, is not the result of a mistake or any error in judgement. No ~ this legislation was maliciously calculated to confuse and confound we citizens ~  who have been forced to rely on the "government".

I can only hope that when the next election is called, that we are all wise enough to not support or vote for a candidate who represents a political party.


----------



## atticus (5 Jul 2005)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> The "Ideal" of communism is a fable, a bedtime story for statists with totalitarian dreams. I believe it can and never will be realized. In order to construct a communist state you have to have complete and utter control. Any such control must be exercised by someone, the Communist ideology did not do away with classes it created a new ruling class, the apparatchik which replaced the Bourgeoisie. Therefore I put Communism in the same class, and light as Anarchism. It will never work in the real world.



Acually its quite true that if the world was perfect and no man had greed communism would probably work. Its doubtful that it would ever work as it should though. If you look at China it's somewhat working (though whats with the free markets spotted all over? I guess they figured out free markets make more money than one with a heavy collar on it).


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Jul 2005)

Wayne Coady said:
			
		

> There is an undercurrent of thought among Canadians who, as they observe and examine how the present political system operates in this country, have concluded we must regain control of our government. This is a government that, at all levels, has increasingly become populated by professionals who have joined the political parties that have usurped what once was government for and by the people.
> 
> The professionals I refer to are the lawyers and doctors who have joined the professional politicians whose aim is to establish tenure for themselves and, in some instances, their progeny. The motivating force behind these dynasties has to be the money, power and perks that accrue as one becomes entrenched within the system.
> 
> ...




As a lawyer, I must say that I respect and support your right to freedom of political thought, political speech and expression. Hell, for $200 an hour I'll even make sure nobody interferes with you while you are doing it. That's my good natured side.

Rant on:

My off tempered side wants to grab you by the shoulders and in a purely literary sense throw you roughly to the ground. I won't kick you in the balls because you probably don't have any, so I'll simply hold my foot to your neck.  

I started to respond to your post on a point by point basis, but your irrational loathing, hatred and contempt for lawyers and doctors are obviously masking what must surely be an outstanding example of a neurotic, psychopathic, tripe spewing idiot. I bet when somebody finally belts you in the mouth, the first thing you will do after your privilged doctor patches you up is call a lawyer to sue the person who finally couldn't stand to hear you anymore. After that, you will probably call the police to enforce one of those awful criminal code laws put in place by the state to protect only the priviliged. Unless of course they all band together in a conspiracy to oppress you even further. 

Rant off.

Have a nice day Mr. Coady, and be sure to call a lawyer when your world comes crumbling down.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jul 2005)

For a number of years, the City of London has been vying for the new Shriner's Children's Hospital, a bid that was finally quashed today by the Shriner's voting to keep it in Montreal.

I am actually relieved, since the City and the Province of Ontario were promising to fork over thousands if not  millions of tax dollars, *money to entice a wealthy private interest group*. It was revealed at the last minute that the local politicians had planned in secret to add yet another $300,000 to the pot in order to sway the vote at the Shriner's convention in Baltimore.

We managed to avoid a tax hit, but the revelation of City Council secretly spending more tax dollars is just an indication of how far the rot is spreading. Hasn't ADSCAM taught us anything? (I suppose not, after all, Shawinigate, the Gun Registry, the Billion Dollar Boondoggle, Flagscam, Paul Martin's Private Doctor etc. etc. haven't taught us anything, so why should this?).

I plan to add this little tid bit in my campaign.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jul 2005)

> This is a government that, at all levels, has increasingly become populated by professionals who have joined the political parties that have usurped what once was government for and by the people.



Ever hear of the Family Compact and the _Chateau Clique_?   I'm trying to figure out when this usurpation happened, but I can't.

Maybe you are confusing "for and by the people" with the United States - but then again, it was liberated by slave owning aristocrats.

Cheers,
Infanteer the Cynic


----------



## Wayne Coady (6 Jul 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> As a lawyer, I must say that I respect and support your right to freedom of political thought, political speech and expression. heck, for $200 an hour I'll even make sure nobody interferes with you while you are doing it. That's my good natured side.
> 
> Rant on:
> 
> ...



Well talking about balls whiskey 601, and who has them,remember I post in my real name and as for you being a lawyer if the boot fits then put it on. 
All one need to do is look at the number of lawyers who have sat in the Prime Minister seat in Ottawa, to understand why it is that this country is so messed up. I wonder how much of "our" tax dollars goes into the pockets of the legal community? 
Here in Nova Scotia I have had a Lawyer or a doctor as my Priemier for 48 of the 57 years I been on this earth, and they sure as heck haven't been doing such a good job or we be in better shape. 

Just look at this ad scandal, it was set up my a former lawyer, Jean Chetian and the cost to discover that we the taxpayer were screwed by a llawyeris well over 80 million and guess who is pocketing those dollars, you got it lawyers 
Then the 'government' will go to court to get back the millions that were stolen and the legal cost will once again out weigh the loss, you got it, the lawyers get to pocket even more of our tax dollars.   
So, my friend I say if a lawyer runs in the next election, he can run , but we will be fools to vote for him or her. 
Wayne Coady Dartmouth Nova Scotia,902-434-9306 here are my balls where are yours. 

I really think it is time to cut back on   the white collar professionals in politics, we need a little more down to earth thinkers heading up our country. Lawyer we all know make money on arguments and thus when they get any where near being in position of drafting legislation, we all end up in an argument and we all know who benefits from that don't we? 
Now we those of us who trained at Base Gagetown are faced with this agent orange/ purple /white and just how many of those Prime Minister and Premiers of the day were Lawyers who let this happen? 

I can go on and on about lawyers but then again we all know how low on the rector scale of life they are. So, lets not let the legal community high-jack our "government" from us in the next election, lets send them packing.


----------



## 2 Cdo (6 Jul 2005)

Wayne couldn't have said it better. ;D


----------



## Wayne Coady (6 Jul 2005)

atticus said:
			
		

> Acually its quite true that if the world was perfect and no man had greed communism would probably work. Its doubtful that it would ever work as it should though. If you look at China it's somewhat working (though whats with the free markets spotted all over? I guess they figured out free markets make more money than one with a heavy collar on it).


Atticus: Where have you seen signs of a freemarket system here in Canada or China? When you see larger corporation lobbying "government" to put in place legislation / regulations that only they can do business under and forcing the small mom and pop business out, surely this is not what you call a "freemarket model ". No Atticus, here in Canada we do not have a freemarket system, we do not live in a true democracy, we live in a society controlled by the few and that my friend is an "OLICHACHY" .


----------



## TCBF (6 Jul 2005)

Whiskey 601 wrote:

"I started to respond to your post on a point by point basis, but your irrational loathing, hatred and contempt for lawyers and doctors are obviously masking what must surely be an outstanding example of a neurotic, psychopathic, tripe spewing idiot. I bet when somebody finally belts you in the mouth, the first thing you will do after your privileged doctor patches you up is call a lawyer to sue the person who finally couldn't stand to hear you anymore. After that, you will probably call the police to enforce one of those awful criminal code laws put in place by the state to protect only the privileged. Unless of course they all band together in a conspiracy to oppress you even further. 

Rant off."

- Actually, Whiskey 601, the only irrational loathing here is in your posts.  You appear to be attacking the messenger - rather than his message.   A semi-literate track-thug like myself can occasionally be expected to do such a thing, but  I would assume our various and sundry law societies frown on you doing it.  He gave you a politely worded critique that you could have leisurely disassembled if you had chosen to do so.  You chose instead to attack him - a universal admission of defeat in a discussion.  In effect, you proved his point.  Many so-called professionals are incapable of controlling our government because they are incapable of controlling themselves.  Had you posted the above in a Cadet Forum, Mr. Burrows may well have deposited a European traffic sign by your name.

Oh well, better here than in a courtroom - or a bar - I suppose.  You do have an opportunity to calm down and speak up for your profession.  This site is chock-a block full of mal-educated soldiers patiently standing up for the profession of arms in a public forum, you can do so for the profession of law, if you so wish.

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jul 2005)

Actually, I think it is fair to say that Representative Democracy is an Oligarchy - with one key difference; the US Declaration of Independence points it out with:

_"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the *consent* of the governed."_

Notice the emphasis - there was no hijacking.   Mr Coady is correct to point out that a disparate number of our politicians have been Lawyers from Quebec (the last 4 Prime Minsters were), but the only reason this is a fact is because we, the _vox populi_, gave them the consent to govern.

So, the long term answer, IMHO, is more direct democracy (I like the idea of the Athenian Lot) - the short term answer is probably for Mr Coady to quit harping at an entire class of people (remember, painting with a broad brush isn't a good thing - not all soldiers are baby-killers) and to get involved with politics, saving us from the scourge of white-collar obfuscation.... ^-^


----------



## paracowboy (6 Jul 2005)

I'll toss my hat into Mr Coady's corner as well. I agree with a lot of his post.


----------



## atticus (6 Jul 2005)

Wayne Coady said:
			
		

> Atticus: Where have you seen signs of a freemarket system here in Canada or China? When you see larger corporation lobbying "government" to put in place legislation / regulations that only they can do business under and forcing the small mom and pop business out, surely this is not what you call a "freemarket model ". No Atticus, here in Canada we do not have a freemarket system, we do not live in a true democracy, we live in a society controlled by the few and that my friend is an "OLICHACHY" .



Hmm, maybe I used the wrong word. If you look at China (my example) it has markets with very little restraints set on them (there are a few but I can only think of Hong Kong and Beijing). You do make a good point.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jul 2005)

Actually, Atticus, there are a lot of restraints set upon the Chinese markets, the most powerful one being the fact that the Government is in control of the capital resources of the state. Enough "leakage" occurs to allow some "mom and pop" type business and the inevitable black market; but virtually every business entity that you encounter in China is owned or effectively controlled by the State.

Canada has more wiggle room; people can access capital and establish their own business, but obtrusive taxation and regulation make it difficult for a Canadian Bill Gates to succeed, and as noted, lots of large Canadian business entities have the ability to lobby the government and get access to bonanzas of money (our tax dollars, of course) or exemptions from taxes and regulations that hobble their competitors (Canadian Steamship Lines, for example, pays no Canadian taxes because their corporate headquarters was in a place which was [mysteriously  ] exemped from Canadian tax regulations. The fact the then owner was also the Minister of Finance (and now PM) is _*only a coincidence*_.....

Killing off corporate welfare would remove the dead hand of the state from the economy and raise our standard of living; the oligarches don't accept that since it means *their* standard of living and perques would no longer be reserved for them alone.


----------



## Wayne Coady (6 Jul 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Actually, I think it is fair to say that Representative Democracy is an Oligarchy - with one key difference; the US Declaration of Independence points it out with:
> 
> _"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the *consent* of the governed."_
> 
> ...



So when a person states an opinion or proposes reforming the way we have been electing  "government" you tag it as harping? Now if we were to go with your idea Athrerian Lot "government" we would end up with an assembly of all and only male citizens voting on decisions directly, thus leaving out our female citizens, surely you did not mean  that and if you did, then I harping. Imagine, a bunch of white modern day male lawyers making all of the decision, dam that is what we almost have now, isn't it ? 

Athrerian "government was between the 4th and 6th century BC, I would like to see a more advance thinking  "government" .


----------



## 48Highlander (6 Jul 2005)

Wayne Coady said:
			
		

> So when a person states an opinion or proposes reforming the way we have been electing   "government" you tag it as harping? Now if we were to go with your idea Athrerian Lot "government" we would end up with an assembly of all and only male citizens voting on decisions directly, thus leaving out our female citizens, surely you did not mean   that and if you did, then I harping. Imagine, a bunch of white modern day male lawyers making all of the decision, dam that is what we almost have now, isn't it ?
> 
> Athrerian "government was between the 4th and 6th century BC, I would like to see a more advance thinking   "government" .



You're harping by implying that all lawyers are corrupt, horrible people, who should not be allowed to run for government.   No, you never stated it in those terms, but you implied it.   If you can't see what's wrong with that, well, I dunno how to explain it to ya.   Maybe this:   the problem isn't that all lawyers are corrupt - it's that too many of our politicians are.


----------



## Wayne Coady (6 Jul 2005)

Maybe to many of our politicans are lawyers and I never said all lawyers were corrupt, I said they self govern and when anyone group has that kind of power you better watch out. I also said that those lawyers who have sat in the big chiefs seat, ( meaning Prime Minister)   in Ottawa, well their record speaks for its self doesn't it? 

All one needs to do is look back at the political history of Canada and look at the Prime Minister at the time. Lawyers who have served in "government" have a heck of a poor record when it comes to honesty or accountability. If you have been following the Gomery Inquiry you will have seen an army of lawyers and if you were to look at the law firms they are from , you will see that these firms either contracted to "government" or have one of the firms partners employed with the "government". Gomery's daughter is employed with the same firm Mulroney is with and we all remember Mulroney surely, don't we. 
No, we have a bunch of lawyers investigating some of their very own peers and at the end of the day, Gomery (lawyer ) cannot pass judgment on any of the crooks. 

It is my bet that if one of those lawyers were to fall, then   they all involved would fall too and we know that they are not going to let that happen. But in the mean time, every lawyer involved in the Gomery Inquiry is getting a very big pay check, which we get to pay. 

Here in Nova Scotia there are two big law firms and they have been the 'government" for the past 25 years, they write legislation for "government" they have a partner on every Board or Agency of "government", and they get 80% of the "governments" work. In other words they know the business of every single taxpaying citizen, because they have positioned themselves. 

These firms are involved in the registration of companies with the Joint Stock of Companies, they are so involved they even have their hands on the registry of wills. Should I trust a bunch of men who have been given legislative powers to self govern   and when you think about it, it was these same men that drafted this special legislation up? Imagine if the heck Angles were to have the same power given to them, they would then be able to do as the legal   community does, look out for their own.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jul 2005)

Wayne Coady said:
			
		

> So when a person states an opinion or proposes reforming the way we have been electing   "government" you tag it as harping?



No, when you tag an entire profession/class/race/nationality of people and accuse them of something, then it is harping.  As I said, painting with a broad brush won't get you far here - trying to blame lawyers for all of Canada's woe's is pretty vague, try finding some specific incidents to back your claim up.



> Now if we were to go with your idea Athrerian Lot "government" we would end up with an assembly of all and only male citizens voting on decisions directly, thus leaving out our female citizens, surely you did not mean   that and if you did, then I harping. Imagine, a bunch of white modern day male lawyers making all of the decision, dam that is what we almost have now, isn't it?



Wow, way to read into that - here, let me help you out:

*lot
n. 
1. An object used in making a determination or choice at random: casting lots. 

2. The use of objects in making a determination or choice at random: chosen by lot.*

The Athenians, to break up social power blocs, divided the people into tribes and then further subdivided them according to region.  The lot was used to randomly assign civic positions to different citizens or tribes.

It would be interesting to see how direct democracy, which was executed by short-term positions that were elected by groups selected by a random lot would work in taking much away from the oligarchical tendencies of Representative Democracy.  Thomas Jefferson discussed this sort of notion as well with his concept of "wards".



> Athrerian "government was between the 4th and 6th century BC, I would like to see a more advance thinking   "government" .



Well, we're sitting here in the 21st century bitching about how everything sucks, so looking back at the human experience may help in finding something new.


----------



## Wayne Coady (7 Jul 2005)

Political parties are artificially created adversarial divisions that hold nothing good for Canada in this Twenty-first century. That's why most people can see no real differences when they apply their rational minds to examining parties. Political parties came about, and continue to exist, because many of our governments (at all levels) are places of employment for lawyers. Lawyers, as a class, are no strangers to the adversarial way of arguing things. 
This is the basis of every court settlement. And lawyers can swing to either side of any issue and defend it vehemently ---- if there is a sufficient reward. This same concept has been carried into our provincial "government"--- and they call it "democracy". LIKE HELL !

Parties today are a detriment to the growth of all of us. The electorate is limited in who it gets to vote for because of party politics and we ( Remember ?, "we're all in this together" ) all lose out because we are not always getting the best people in government because of this party affiliation or that. 

Nor do we get good government because many of the decisions taken are predicated on whether the interests of the party, its adherents and financial supporters are met ... not those of the people who are only expected to pay for the results. The billion dollars in debt that this present government likes to throw in our faces - whenever we complain about shortfalls in education and health care spending, is not our doing. 

Yet , we get saddled with the increased taxes to pay for the end result that exists because Tory and Liberal governments in the past took care of themselves and their friends at our expense. They also pay themselves very well. What do we get in return ? A bunch of monkeys in a zoo who pass legislation with a level of intellect that equals their collective decorum in the Canadian House of Commons.

If you consider this harping then, I am harping ! But never the less, we need to reform our present election system. If we need to go back in time Before Christ like you suggest to assist in rebuilding a political structure then so be it, but it needs to be done. 

I do understand what Athenians Lot politics is all about and if you feel that it is something we should look at, then I welcome your point of view. I one the other hand too have reflected on our political past and it is my opinion that we have to many lawyers involved in the bowels of "government" . Our the past 10 years here in the Western World we have seen white collar crime go to it highest point and when you look at the large number of investors who have been had by these crooks, it should make people very nervous that these were the same people who bought off our political parties with investors stolen money. 

Now when you look at this white collar crime in the investment community and toss in Canada's latest Sponsorship Ad Program, please keep in mind that behind every contract signed there was a lawyer to insure that all the "T" were crossed and all the "I's" were dotted. As the old saying goes behind every good man there is a good woman and behind ENRON, TOYKO, WASTE MANAGEMENT, WORLD COM or AD SCAM , there was a good lawyer. HARPING ...... HARPING....


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2005)

Slow down there, fellow. Your anger at the rot we see all around us may be justified, but it is also blinding you to where some of the problems lie.

A. Political parties have existed for centuries, and before them were various groupings all based around common interests. Athenian democracy was swayed to a large extent by the "Navy gang", large numbers of professional oarsmen who manned the fleet and were responsible for both the security of Athens and projecting power into the Aegean. (Oarsmen as slaves were not common until the 1400's)There were also landowners, Hoplites, Aristocrats and artisans who had divergent interests from the Navy gang. The Athenian practice of selecting executive positions by random drawings (by lot) was an attempt to prevent or at least reduce the possibility of one large group dominating the governing process. Even if there were a thousand oarsmen in the assembly to cast a vote, it wasn't always the oarsmen who were in the executive positions of the Eklessia or Boule.

If you could abolish political parties today, tomorrow morning I would be finding people with common interests to combine forces. This is really what a political party is.

B. "The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers" (King Henry the Sixth, IV, ii 86); "Woe unto you Lawyers" (Luke 11:52). Dislike of lawyers goes back a long way (Luke wrote in late Roman times, Shakespear in the 1500's). This may be driven by envy, as well as the loosing party in a dispute will blame the lawyer as the agent of his/her misfortune. Lawyers are people, and thus subject to the same forces and emotions we all are. The fact that some people who go into politics fall victim to temptation and greed is simply a human failing. This *might* happen to you or I if the curcumstances are correct.

C. The root cause (courtesy of Wikipedia):

"Another interesting insight from the Athenian democracy comes from the law that excluded from decisions of war those citizens that had property close to the city's wall *on the basis that they had a personal interest in the outcome of such debates * because the practice of an invading army was at the time to destroy the land outside the walls. *Clearly, the first democrats understood politics as a process in the interests of the entire demos where private interests had no place. * This contrasts with current understanding that the pursuit of private or sector/professional/financial interests are an integral part of the political process. A good example of the contempt the first democrats felt for those who did not participate in politics can be found in the modern word* 'idiot' * that finds its origins in the ancient Greek word Ã¡Â¼Â°Î'ÎÂ¹Ã¡Â½Â½Ïâ€žÎÂ·Ïâ€š (idiÃ…?tÃ„â€œs) *meaning a private person, a person who is not actively interested in politics*; such characters were talked about with contempt and the word acquired eventually its modern meaning."

Clearly the Liberals and their friends preffer you and I to remain "private persons, not actively interested in politics". Low voter turnout and the lack of response to blatant outrages like Adscam must seem like dreams come true for Mr Dithers and Co. I want you all to mark your calendar the day the Gomery report comes out. Anyone willing to bet there WILL be an election called 30 days after the date of the report? Anyone willing to bet there will be a huge outpouring of popular protest if the "promise" of an election is ignored?

That, my friends, is the real reason we get the "Government" we deserve; not enough people come out and take action any more. Passive/aggressive spoiling of the ballot doesn't help matters, and saying there is no party that represents you is nonsense, you can find a big tent party that supports some of your views (or similar views, i.e. Conservatives and Libertarians), join a smaller party (the Marxist -Leninist party really needs your help), or run yourself (maybe a lot of people will agree with your views). Don't end up as an "Idiot".


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jul 2005)

Those lawyers sure are a bad lot.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050707/JUSTICE07/TPNational/?query=legal+legend 


> Legal legend goes back to serving Quebec 's poor
> *Retired judges, lawyers, donate time to guide people through system*
> 
> BY KIRK MAKIN
> ...



Shame on them for refusing to conform to the stereotypes of the envious majority.  Next thing you know they will want to serve by lending their skill and knowledge to the nation by serving in parliament and drafting laws - those pesky things through which we govern ourselves and which, if they are not crafted by competent legal scholars, can do more harm than good.


----------



## Wayne Coady (7 Jul 2005)

Well I did note that,their services range from explaining where to find a lawyer, to drafting a will, to helping fill out forms for small claims court, to explaining how the family-court system works. 

The only thing they will not do is offer specific legal advice.

Now isn't that wonderful of them , you can get a will kit anywhere. One might say they are trying to restuct their image, but they have a long way to go baby. As an injured worker how the legal community treats them? Injured workers, damaged soldiers who were banged up serving this country or were poisoned by chemicals used in tests programs, will starve to death or die before their claims are settled. What about all of children who were molested by our great church leaders, the first to eat off the settlements were the lawyers. 
No they have along way to go to improve their image in this country.


----------



## TCBF (7 Jul 2005)

"and drafting laws â â€œ those pesky things through which we govern ourselves and which, if they are not crafted by competent legal scholars, can do more harm than good.'

- You meam like C-68, The Firearms Act?  Or some of our anti - terrorist legislation?  Or the Criminal Youth Justice Act?  

We are paying top dollar for a sub standard product.  One wonders if SOME lawyers go into politics because they are a waste of rations in the legal profession.   Mr. Allen Rock stating that self defense was not a legitimate use of firearms and was not allowed, comes to mind.  Case law, anyone?

All of the major illegal decisions made at ENRON had lawyers in the room.  None have been or will be charged.  

I like the lawyers I have dealt with and paid for.  I believe I was well served.  But if we have to admit to - and have our profession dragged through the mud over - the Clayton Matchees in OUR midst, then Lawyers can be a bit less protective of their own sociopaths. 

Tom


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (7 Jul 2005)

> As the lawyer woke up after surgery, he said: "Why are all the blinds drawn?"
> 
> The doctor answered: "There's a big fire across the street, and we didn't want you to think the operation was a failure."



Yuk, yuk!  I'm here all week!  Hello? ... ahem ... {tap, tap} ... is this thing on?  ... {tap, tap} ...  :-[


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jul 2005)

Ok, quit being clowns - seriously:

All bad policy involves lawyers, thus all lawyers are bad?

WTF kind of logic is that?

I took this thread seriously, but now I don't.

BZ to Art Majoor for the illuminating post.


----------



## TCBF (7 Jul 2005)

"Ok, quit being clowns - seriously:

All bad policy involves lawyers, thus all lawyers are bad?

WTF kind of logic is that?

I took this thread seriously, but now I don't.

BZ to Art Majoor for the illuminating post."

- Seriously, very few lawyers are bad.   But, like bad soldiers, very few is too many.   If we, in the military profession, are expected to cull the herd, police our own, lay on down on our backs   and pull our dresses over our heads when the country reacts with shock and horror and demands reforms, and keep a thick skin through it all while reassuring ourselves that we aren't all rascist, prisoner killing sociopaths, then we should expect, no, in fact DEMAND, that other professions regulate themselves and eat their young like we do.

Nothing more, nothing less. 

I don't like a painting of Clayton Matchee in the new War Museum.   Lawyers don't like people pointing out the crimes of a few lawyers.   Welcome to the club, at least Lawyers get paid better than soldiers.   SUCK IT UP.

Tom


----------



## Wayne Coady (7 Jul 2005)

I am serious, very serious about political reform. 
We must stop the practice of allowing these political parties of having exclusive domain over us all and our collective finances in the guise of "government". This is not democracy by any stretch. Think about this ~ are you satisfied with the Young Offender's Act ? Again, I'm sure many of you can think of other examples of legislation that has been foisted upon you without any consultation or input from the electorate. There are those in all parties who have as much as said that the majority of the electorate ( US) are not capable of determining how our lives should be administered. 
Only THEY have been given this divine right. Imagine~ here, in the twenty-first century, we are expected to live under governments and laws that haven't progressed much beyond the seventeenth century in which they were first conceived. 

We have all been sold a "bill of goods" that none of us should be prepared to accept. The only people who will tell you there's nothing wrong with the system are those who profit most from the way it is constituted~ the same people who run the political parties and manipulate the public purse to their own ends.
Again, a throwback to the very class-ridden societies that existed in England for the past three or four centuries ~ where you had a snobbish aristocracy at the top who expected everyone below them to pay for their high salaries and even higher life styles ~ very much as our political establishment does today.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (7 Jul 2005)

Just as a Surgeon has a tendency to see surgery as the best course of corrective action for a health problems, Lawyers tend to see "more laws" as the solution to society's ills (particularly as it applies to them).  What we wind-up with is a system of unnecessary, self-serving, often half-baked and sometimes contradictory laws intended to make our society a better place, according to them.  When lawyers apply their legal expertise to the economy, the inevitable result is disasterous.

What we really need is a clear, concise Constitution and attached Bill of Rights, that cannot be rendered irrelevant on the whims of the law-makers (i.e., "Notwithstanding").


_"Law is mind without reason."_ -- Aristotle

_"The more corrupt the State, the more numerous the laws"_ -- Cornelius Tacitus (c. 55-117 A.D.)

_"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."_ -- P.J. O'Rourke

And, WRT the party system: _"Look at the tyranny of party - at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty - a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes - and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction; and forgetting or ignoring that their fathers and the churches shouted the same blasphemies a generation earlier when they were closing their doors against the hunted slave, beating his handful of humane defenders with Bible texts and billies, and pocketing the insults and licking the shoes of his Southern master."_ -- Mark Twain


----------



## Gunnar (7 Jul 2005)

Das Buros immer steht.

People who make laws always seem to think that just one more law will fix everything.  They don't realize that when you take the bare minimum set of laws that are required for a functioning society, add so-called social justice, change the laws for interest groups and the development of technology...it's as if (to refer to the metaphor about sausage and the law) you have sausage stuffing all over the place, and you can't tell where the sausage begins or ends...all you know is that you're covered in goo, and you don't like it.

When I grew up, School Trustees were part-time positions...these people all had real jobs.  Now School Trustees close schools so that they can keep their high, full-time salaries.  They just had to have one more meeting and pass one more resolution on one more important issue to justify their existence...and all the rules and regs cost us more and more and more...and nothing works.  This is a microcosm of bureaucracy in action...


----------



## Wayne Coady (7 Jul 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Just as a Surgeon has a tendency to see surgery as the best course of corrective action for a health problems, Lawyers tend to see "more laws" as the solution to society's ills (particularly as it applies to them).   What we wind-up with is a system of unnecessary, self-serving, often half-baked and sometimes contradictory laws intended to make our society a better place, according to them.   When lawyers apply their legal expertise to the economy, the inevitable result is didisastrous



You are so right on ( John_Galt ) with your comparison between surgeons and lawyers, keeping the both of them in mind, this is why I feel that they have been provided with to much legislative powers to self-govern and self regulate through the College of Physicians and Surgeons  or the Barristers Society  .They are accountable only to their governing body and it is my opinion they have to much power, therefore should stay clear of "government" . 
But over the past few years I have noticed that they are positioning themselves within "government" to insure they benefit from their position of trust when we vote for them. 

Teachers are another example when they get elected to government or just elected, they look out for their professional organization, which is the Union. So, we have or are losing our   "government " to special interest groups and it is we who pay the price. 

Here in Nova Scotia the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union has organized two of the most vile government agencies know to this province, they are the Workers Compensation Board and Community Services, both of these vile agencies are forever being called into question for their abuse of power and breach of trust. And not one Lawyer in Nova Scotia has the guts to go after either one, because if they do, they will never eat again or get any "government" work. 

The only way as I see it possible to correct this problem is to stop supporting political parties. The NDP point at the Liberal and Conservative as being the parties of big business, while the NDP have their head shoved up the back side of the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union. 

Tell me how can we in the public ever expect to get a "government" that will work for us?


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Jul 2005)

Your question illustrates the problem: everyone wants a government that "works for him".  All this leads to is factionalism, with the faction in power ramming its ideas down everyone's throats.

The proper solution is to have a government that does as little work as possible for anyone, and for people to "work for themselves".


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jul 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The proper solution is to have a government that does as little work as possible for anyone, and for people to "work for themselves".



There is the kicker....


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Jul 2005)

I know.  We could start with government pruned down to defence and security, and law and order.

Then someone would have a Bright Progressive Idea.  And, you know, forming associations and founding institutions and raising funds is just so much work, and the government is right there with a police force and armed forces to back it up, and golden bureaucratic sinecures are so much more attractive than actually working and worrying from day to day about keeping the operation going, and after all your people are so much smarter and better intentioned than other people anyways...


----------



## Wayne Coady (7 Jul 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Your question illustrates the problem: everyone wants a government that "works for him".   All this leads to is factionalism, with the faction in power ramming its ideas down everyone's throats.
> 
> The proper solution is to have a government that does as little work as possible for anyone, and for people to "work for themselves".



You are correct to a point, what we have now is a party structured system that works for the few, while the rest of us are forced to work within a regulated tax system, which the few in the political parties control. In other words what appears to be a socially structured system, is really a system being leached on by a bunch of want to be socialites .

For years this country      has maintained on of the best health care systems and it worked, but now thanks to the mismanagement of the public infrastructure dollars it is in pretty rough shape. The question is why were "your and our tax dollars wasted on worthless projects, done in the name of "government" by some self serving political party? Could it be that these parties realize that if they drain the or waste the infrastructure funds, it make it easier to turn over a perfectly good system to their friend? 

Here in Nova Scotia we are forever questioning the state of our health care system, but no body seems to care were a 25 million dollar over run went or where all of the original 20 million went, when the "government" was setting up their health registry Ittotal the tax payers lost 45 million dollars on a useless registry while someone made a killing, Nova Scotian'sare being stacked up in Hospital hallways waiting for services. 

But then again, those elected party representatives need to pay back those who financed their election campaigns don't they ? 

 It was wasted and they only put 14 centers on-line leaving 30 without. Not one political party called for an investigation or an inquiry looking into this dead end project. Just think about how many doctors / nurses or MRI machines and operators that would have purchased. These are the people who benefit from the party system . 

We are to far into this to get rid of "government" but we must find away to keep check on those party bureaucrats, that have been well placed to make sure the party systems works for the few.   Government should be able to manage our health, road, education, police, military structure with our tax dollars.

Get rid of many of these regulations that only serve the best interest of the few. I would say that we could get by with a much smaller "government / bureaucracy " , one that   projects a true democracy .


----------



## Acorn (7 Jul 2005)

Mr. Coady, I see from you lots of complaint, but very little in the form of concrete solutions ("get rid of the lawyers" is hardly a concrete solution). What form of democracy would you like to see? How would it work?

Acorn


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (7 Jul 2005)

Wayne Coady said:
			
		

> For years this country    has maintained on of the best health care systems and it worked, but now thanks to the mismanagement of the public infrastructure dollars it is in pretty rough shape. The question is



With respect to the healthcare system, _the question is_ why did we put all of our eggs into a basket that any 1st-year economics student could have told you was doomed to failure from the very beginning?  And why do we continue to make excuses for it?


----------



## Wayne Coady (7 Jul 2005)

Not making any excuses for it. When a private clinic makes a statement that they can provide a faster service without harming the public system, I have to question where is that clinic getting his physician from? 

Using their example that the public system is broken because their is a shortage of doctors, one can only conclude that the doctor shortage would be reflected at that private clinic also. If we go along with the remarks that the public system is broke because of the lack of tax dollars being put into it, and then we learn that the private clinic is doing procedures once done in the public system and being paid out of the public coffers. 
So, where did all of the doctors and money come from to support the private clinic? No, I cannot buy into this fable any longer. I will agree cost are going up and we did not produce doctors as fast as we produce lawyers. Imagine if we were turning out doctors and nurses as fast as our universities turn out lawyers. 

Here in Nova Scotia those same doctors who are crying about the doctor shortage are the very ones opening up these private clinics. 

Here is how I see it, if there are going to be private clinics then I say let them be and the doctors who wish to leave the public system to work for the private then OK too, but one out they cannot come back into the public system or work both sides of the street and all public health care dollars stay in the public system. I have lived in the USA and I have felt the pain of the private health care system first hand.


----------



## Acorn (7 Jul 2005)

Solutions Mr. Coady?

Acorn


----------



## Wayne Coady (7 Jul 2005)

Put all public health care tax dollars into the system. Bring back our nursing schools,we had over 22 nursing school close since the 60's.http://www.msvu.ca/library/archives/nhdp/schools.htm

 Lets start giving tax incentives that would grow our physician medical training program. You see our so called elected did not protect the infrastructure programs in place years back, they closed our nursing schools and cut back at the medical schools. 
Now look at the mess they have us in, and you know what they say when you question our political masters? They say that was not our fault, we were not in "government", bull! The situation we find ourselves in to day are the result of only two governing parties and it is all because of their policies. This is why we cannot afford to hang onto this old corrupt party system. 

We have right now foreign doctors in Canada driving taxis or doing janitor work, why, because the College of Physicians and Surgeons who regulate the medical act and license doctors do not want to share a good thing, in other words they benefit from the shortage which they control. Solution: take away some of the Colleges powers and hire these qualified foreign doctors who are now in Canada. 

Article: Why Is Canada Shutting Out Foreign Doctors
http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2004/08/doctors.html  
I provided you with a little helpful reading


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Jul 2005)

Actually, getting rid of a number of lawyers could be very concrete.  Any guesses as to how far we could downsize the legal profession before people start complaining of a shortage of lawyers?


----------



## Wayne Coady (8 Jul 2005)

Brad I have no idea, but it was mentioned to me that Canada has the highest number of lawyers per capita and there are more and more every year. I couuld care less about how many lawyers this country  has, all I want to see is few to none elected into "government".


----------



## TCBF (8 Jul 2005)

As soon as someone - maybe you or me - could not get legal aide.   

Tom


----------



## Wayne Coady (8 Jul 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> As soon as someone - maybe you or me - could not get legal aide.
> 
> Tom


 What does getting or not getting legal aid have to do with getting good government? I know of rich people who get legal aid and the HST rebate. While other get walked over. No we have to get rid of political parties, bring in a consensus "government , free from party corruption. 
You  all have a great day, I am going hiking.


----------



## TCBF (10 Jul 2005)

"Any guesses as to how far we could downsize the legal profession before people start complaining of a shortage of lawyers?" - Brad Salllows

"As soon as someone - maybe you or me - could not get legal aide. " - Tom


i did not quote Mr. Sallows as I thought I was posting quickly.  I was not, your post was first, and so mine was out of context.  The logical order is above.

Tom


----------



## 48Highlander (15 Jul 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I know.   We could start with government pruned down to defence and security, and law and order.
> 
> Then someone would have a Bright Progressive Idea.   And, you know, forming associations and founding institutions and raising funds is just so much work, and the government is right there with a police force and armed forces to back it up, and golden bureaucratic sinecures are so much more attractive than actually working and worrying from day to day about keeping the operation going, and after all your people are so much smarter and better intentioned than other people anyways...



The US tried that.  At first, the federal government was founded primarily for defence from external threats and as a forum for the seperate states to deal with eachother.  The federal government was strictly forbidden from doing a lot of the things it does now.  The problem is that the more power a government gets, the more they want.  The more laws they create, the easier it becomes to justify new ones.  The more they raise taxes and get away with it, the easier it seems to be to bring them up another percentage point.  This isn't something specific to Canada, it's something that's been (as far as I can tell) true throughout human history.  The main reasons the americans aren't as bad as us is that they originaly gave their government a lot less power than we gave ours, and that they don't have the socialist mentality which seems to rule canada.  Even so, their federal government continues to gain more power, and socialist policies continu to gain favour amongst the populace.  So in the end, they just have a lot of catching up to do before they get as bad as we are


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Jul 2005)

Yep.  They started out with a strong constitution, but states' powers and individuals' freedoms have been subject to considerable interpretation, redefinition, and erosion since.  I don't know how close to unanimity you'd have to make the amending formula of a constitution to protect it from that sort of encroachment.


----------

