# "Flavours of Democracy"



## Kirkhill (7 Feb 2005)

> In all seriousness, " I still think Infanteer as Emperor still sounds like the best option!"



I am sure you get at least one supporter for that motion ;D ;D


----------



## Infanteer (7 Feb 2005)

Imperial Edict:

*"Every Canadian will have a Medical Service Account, their own Crown of sovereignty, and a licence to carry a sidearm (that they must buy on their own, it is not the governments job to make sure everyone has access to a Glock)!!!"*


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Feb 2005)

You just got yourself hired.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Feb 2005)

No government issue Glocks? I'm not voting for you!  ;D


----------



## gunner56 (7 Feb 2005)

I'll vote for him. Just cuz I'd rather have a Para Ordnance P14 LDA. .45 beats 9mm any day, and ya still get hi-capacity along with that classy 1911 look! Cheers


----------



## Zipper (8 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Imperial Edict:
> 
> *"Every Canadian will have a Medical Service Account, their own Crown of sovereignty, and a licence to carry a sidearm (that they must buy on their own, it is not the governments job to make sure everyone has access to a Glock)!!!"*



Oh my. I guess I'll be the odd man out again. 

You just spelled it out above. 

You just made us into Americans. 

No thanks.


----------



## Agamemnon (8 Feb 2005)

Well keep it or not...we have no choice.

Besides...i think the anti monarchy is present here in quebec...
a few years back when the queen cae to quebec city the hole street gave her the finger and mooned her... 


but that was back then...

but the queen qouls never step foot here again anywais..



------------
Pi la criss de salpe dans le message precedant qui me fait chier avec mon orthographe mo lui en crisser une  :threat:


----------



## sigpig (9 Feb 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Oh my. I guess I'll be the odd man out again.
> 
> You just spelled it out above.
> 
> ...



You won't be the only odd person out, I'll agree with your sentiment. Yes Bruce, I'm America bashing again!!!! 

As for the thread, Canada doesn't need the monarchy. It is something that has outlived it's usefulness and is now just a drain on the treasury. How much is spent on the GG, Lieutenants-Governor, their residences and staff? What do they do? Not on paper, or theory, but in reality? Like the current PM or not he/she is the leader of the nation and no appointee should be able to do anything about that.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Feb 2005)

Not that I disagree with you on the current reality, Sigpig, but perhaps the reason so many things have gone off the rails is because the PM acts as the "leader of the nation" without any sort of checks and balances. Despotic Roman Emporers; Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung are extreme examples as to just how far this "leader of the nation" thing can go.

So perhaps a Living Monarch is not appropriate for the times. A symbol like an unworn crown or the Constitution could serve as the embodyment of the values and hopes of all Canadians, but a "Head of State" with a bit of muscle would have the far greater effect of providing a leash on out of control governments.

Anyway, I am much more interested in what you see as the alternatives. A Res Publica Canada perhaps?


----------



## sigpig (9 Feb 2005)

As much as I hate to admit it  ;D - I've come to respect the American system of free votes in the House and Senate where people can vote the way they want without the same kind of fear that Canadian legislators have of party whips. 

Even with Republican control of everything, things aren't a slam dunk here the way they are in Canada for a PM with a majority government. Some Republicans have been critical of some of Bush's proposals for Social Security so he may have to modify them to get them approved through a legislature controlled by his own party. 

In Canada, if the PM wants something done and has a majority in the Commons, that's the way it is. I'm not big on the symbolism side of things so I don't see a need for something 'higher' than the PM. If there could be true parliamentary reform with free votes and getting away from the foolish notion that a government must fall if it losses a vote, maybe Canada could work better.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2005)

But sigpig for that system to work you have to elect a King and call him President.

Or Governor-General.

And then you have to let folks know who he is by giving a Crown to wear, or carry, or a Seal to be carried around with him.  Or her.

Cheers ;D


----------



## Infanteer (9 Feb 2005)

I don't see how I turned us into Americans?

They don't have Medical Service Accounts (they are serviced by private, as opposed to public, large bureaucracies) and they don't have a Soveriegn Crown.  Obviously, the sidearm dig was at government paternalism, but if you think that is an imporatant "Canadian" thing, then fill your (government mandated) boots.


----------



## sigpig (9 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't see how I turned us into Americans?
> 
> They don't have Medical Service Accounts (they are serviced by private, as opposed to public, large bureaucracies)



I didn't realize your MSA's referred to a government plan, I guess I automatically think private when I see such terms from my experience down here. My apologies.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2005)

The main body of "official" opinion in Canada seems to be "The Americans should see how we do things and they will learn something, since we're so much better" (mostly espoused by the CBC, watching their newscasts is often as fun as gong to the dentist). 

I suspect a lot of Americans DO look at what is going on in the GWN, and don't like it. I would like to see a more reciprocal arrangement: we can certainly examine how things work in the United States (both theory and practice) and draw a few lessons from them as well. I try to stay within my arcs, economics allow you to make empirical observations, so comparing things like rates of growth or unemployment really can give you some answers. Like it or not, they have lower taxes, higher economic growth and lower unemployment. 

They also have a stronger sense of nationhood, since they are assimilationist's; not multiculteralists. Having a King probably would not change that. IF we are to thrive as a nation, we need to propagate some sense of civic nationality, since Kirkhill's blood model would not work here (the vast influx of immigrants from around the world would destabilize that model). An apolitical symbol would be a strong way of doing so, binding people to a common symbolic which represents all Canadians (The President, the Constitution and the Flag are the three big ones in the US, American posters can enlighten us on the various ways these symbols are reinforced and manipulated in their daily lives).


----------



## Zipper (10 Feb 2005)

Personally, I rather look to europe. They have higher taxes, higher growth rates, and lower unemployment for the most part. And they look after their own people as a whole.

Yes, they have a strong sense of nationhood, but then it is constantly in their faces down there. They are also a much more selfish people as a whole.

I still agree with Kirkhill (I think). Our Gov is just fine, and the monarchy is fine and will eventually fade away with time like all things. By then, we'll have naturally changed into something different then we are today because of responses to various issues.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Personally, I rather look to europe. They have higher taxes, higher growth rates, and lower unemployment for the most part. And they look after their own people as a whole.
> 
> Yes, they have a strong sense of nationhood, but then it is constantly in their faces down there. They are also a much more selfish people as a whole.
> 
> I still agree with Kirkhill (I think). Our Gov is just fine, and the monarchy is fine and will eventually fade away with time like all things. By then, we'll have naturally changed into something different then we are today because of responses to various issues.



Sorry Zipper but the facts speak otherwise. European countries do indeed have higher taxes. Their unemployment rates are almost double that of the US at 10%, and their rate of economic growth is hovering around the 2% mark. Japan is suffering a similar economic situation, although the proximate causes are a bit different.

If you are reffering to the Americans as being selfish, just look to the Tsunami zone, where the Americans sent more money, manpower and equipment than anyone else (and faster too), even though they are not well liked in that region. The oh so helpful Europeans can be catagorized as well. Italy, a member of the Coallition of the willing in Iraq, sent their "DART" to Siri Lanka within 48 hr. France, the only European nation with a nuclear powered aircraft carrier (a very handy item in a disaster scenario as well, self contained airport, hospital, electrical generating station, water purification supply, etc. etc.) still hasn't made any moves to send their ship into the Pacific.....

Kirkhill is quite correct in that things will change, for the better, we can hope.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Feb 2005)

As a_majoor points out, and as I stated, the blood based thing is a non-starter for an entity with citizens with every blood-line in the world, literally.  At this point in time there is still a sizeable proportion of the population that relates to 3 main groups of blood lines and a mulititude of others

The solution as far as I am concerned is to recognize the contributions that the Natives, the French and the Brits have made to this country, honour those contributions in our symbols and history and then set about creating new symbols that reflect Canada.  

A perfect example, as far as I am concerned are the Queen's Colours carried by every (AFAIK) Canadian Regiment with the Crown on the Maple Leaf.  A great blending of a traditional symbol that honours the past as well as being unmistakably Canadian.

As far as Americans being more selfish than Europeans Zipper, you obviously need to get out and meet more of us Europeans  ;D .   A great deal of my buddies' time used to be spent trying to figure out how to beat the tax-man and secure maximum benefit for themselves - all the while cursing their own government, cursing greedy Americans and trying to finagle as many trips as possible to the US.

By the way some of you may have noticed by now that I seem to tie a whole bunch of people into me as distant relatives.  That's because they are.  I don't know about the rest of the pure-bloods out there. ;D

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2005)

We can solve the blood line problem by ensuring Kirkhill is cloned a few million times. This would give Emporor Infanteer an army to subdue the Universe...... ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Feb 2005)

Dammit, don't give him any ideas.  I have enough kids to look after as it is.  The prospect of millions more dependents is not a comforting one.  Besides one of me is more than I can stand some days.

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2005)

We'll just merge this idea with "National Daycare", then Infanteer can conquer the Universe without saddling you with millions (no, BILLIONS) of dependents ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Infanteer (10 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> We can solve the blood line problem by ensuring Kirkhill is cloned a few million times. This would give Emporor Infanteer an army to subdue the Universe...... ;D



I seen that idea somewhere in a movie once....only I'm going to have 1 million raving Caladonians instead of Jango Fetts - any chance of painting "Slave I" on your car, Kirkhill?


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Feb 2005)

No hope mate - "She who must be obeyed" already has first crack.


----------



## Zipper (11 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Sorry Zipper but the facts speak otherwise. European countries do indeed have higher taxes. Their unemployment rates are almost double that of the US at 10%, and their rate of economic growth is hovering around the 2% mark. Japan is suffering a similar economic situation, although the proximate causes are a bit different.



Actually the unemployment rate in the EU as a whole is sitting at 8.9%. Yes some of the new members are higher, especially the eastern ones, but on the whole they are better off. 

As well, Europe is now the largest economy in the world and far outstrips the US. And will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Even with more holiday time, lower work weeks, and better benefits, the Europeans are on par if not slightly higher then the States in overall efficiency.

However, there are better ways of looking at success. The GDP is probably the worst way. Quality of life per capita measurements make much more sense. In which case the US is down there with many third world countries.



> If you are referring to the Americans as being selfish, just look to the Tsunami zone, where the Americans sent more money, manpower and equipment than anyone else (and faster too), even though they are not well liked in that region. The oh so helpful Europeans can be categorized as well. Italy, a member of the Coallition of the willing in Iraq, sent their "DART" to Siri Lanka within 48 hr. France, the only European nation with a nuclear powered aircraft carrier (a very handy item in a disaster scenario as well, self contained airport, hospital, electrical generating station, water purification supply, etc. etc.) still hasn't made any moves to send their ship into the Pacific.....



No argument that they did a fine job there and should receive very high praise. I guess I should have painted within the lines on that comment as opposed to shot gunning it..

They are selfish in the way they think towards their own people and the world at large. Their way of thinking (going back to Kirkhill's history lesson) is that the individual is the most important. Their whole "American dream" is based upon that self achievement ideal. Thus some make "it", while the vast majority do not. And if you don't make it...      ...to hell with you. Thus they have more/higher slums, poor, homeless, low income earners, crime (violent and otherwise), prison populations, drug abuse, obesity, etc. per capita. And lower personal freedoms, especially after 9/11 then almost all other western nations (combined in some cases).

Meanwhile the higher taxed Europeans have less (and more) of the above and still manage to look after their own as a community, have higher education standards (and paid for), free medical, and still be able to maintain properly equipt militarys. 

Do they bitch and complain? You bet. Not unlike any free society. We're spoiled that way.

I would suggest reading European Dream by Rifkin. Not the only book to read, but a good one none the less.

So no argument as to Kirkhill's statement that things will change. Hopefully for the better. Just in a different direction.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Feb 2005)

If believing in the individual is selfish.......then colour me selfish.


----------



## Zipper (11 Feb 2005)

lol. No Kirkhill. There is nothing wrong with believing in yourself, nor in your individuality. Its when the ideal of the individual and the health thereof is held above that of the group that it is selfish. 

What is that saying? The needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few...


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Feb 2005)

And which individual makes the decision on behalf of the many?


----------



## Zipper (11 Feb 2005)

Your the Poli Sci major. You tell me...


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Feb 2005)

Well, I trust me..... but I'm  too busy with my family to worry about you. ;D


----------



## Zipper (11 Feb 2005)

Nice one... ;D

Well then its a good thing you live in Canada and your taxes ensure that I, and many others are taken care of in your stead.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Feb 2005)

You're welcome


----------



## Torlyn (11 Feb 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> However, there are better ways of looking at success. The GDP is probably the worst way. Quality of life per capita measurements make much more sense. In which case the US is down there with many third world countries.



I gotta ask...  Where on earth did you find any study that says the Americans have a lower quality of life than a third world nation?  I doubt this claim.  If I'm wrong, please show me where I can discover this revelation for myself.

T


----------



## Zipper (11 Feb 2005)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> I gotta ask... Where on earth did you find any study that says the Americans have a lower quality of life than a third world nation? I doubt this claim. If I'm wrong, please show me where I can discover this revelation for myself.



I didn't say lower then a third world nation. I said down there with...

There are many, but one such study would be with the Pembina Institue at http://www.pembina.org/sustainability_mea.asp#

You'll have to contact them to get a copy of such.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> What is that saying? The needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few...



I've seen that quote mentioned in various forms before.

Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism seems to talk about it a bit as well.



			
				Zipper said:
			
		

> I didn't say lower then a third world nation. I said down there with...
> 
> There are many, but one such study would be with the Pembina Institue at http://www.pembina.org/sustainability_mea.asp#
> 
> You'll have to contact them to get a copy of such.



Funny, I've got family split between Vancouver and Seattle (as well as ties in California and Texas) - and going between the two, I don't see much difference.  So either:

1)  Canada is a third-world country

2)  Your statement is out-to-lunch.  Have you ever been in a Third World Country?


----------



## Torlyn (11 Feb 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> I didn't say lower then a third world nation. I said down there with...
> 
> There are many, but one such study would be with the Pembina Institue at http://www.pembina.org/sustainability_mea.asp#



Which particular study?  I emailed them after I couldn't find it last night, and they just responded that they were unaware that they had any such specific study...  Could you perhaps point me in another direction?  Everything on their website is focused on Alberta. Not to be rude, but I'm calling BS on this one.

T


----------



## Pieman (11 Feb 2005)

I never read any of those studies, but generally I don't consider a country to have a low quality of life until this becomes the main mode of transportaion:







Oddly enough, it reminds me of my student days.

Last time I checked they still drive cars in the states.


----------



## Spr.Earl (11 Feb 2005)

Here is one American's point of view of our Monarchy.
I tried to post the whole but it exceeded the max.

Read it,in her oipinion we members of the Commomwealth Rule the World.


http://www.rense.com/general62/britt.htm


----------



## Torlyn (11 Feb 2005)

Dear lord...  I wonder if perhaps she has coathangers hanging from her ceiling, and a tinfoil hat.   :  What a loon!  Aggressive little island...  That sure made me giggle.

I mean, does she honestly believe that all of the commonwealth countries follow Britain's lead in UN voting?  I'm sure Zimbabwe and Kenya do...   :  Oy vey.

T


----------



## Spr.Earl (11 Feb 2005)

A gooder eh Torn. ;D
But just think if we could muster that power as she stated.


----------



## Zipper (11 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Funny, I've got family split between Vancouver and Seattle (as well as ties in California and Texas) - and going between the two, I don't see much difference.   So either:
> 
> 1)   Canada is a third-world country
> 
> 2)   Your statement is out-to-lunch.   Have you ever been in a Third World Country?



1) No and 2) Yes. Seattle is probably one of the best cities in the US. Hard comparison there. Try going to East LA, Phillie, Cleveland, Burnt out Detroit.

Pieman. No argument there. But that is on such an extreme end of the scale. Would you consider Brazil, Argentina, Chile as third world? Barbados? Their all on the list.



			
				Torlyn said:
			
		

> Which particular study? I emailed them after I couldn't find it last night, and they just responded that they were unaware that they had any such specific study... Could you perhaps point me in another direction? Everything on their website is focused on Alberta. Not to be rude, but I'm calling BS on this one.



Ok. After talking to some friends of mine who were there with me for the introduction of this particular method of study. I have been found to have exaggerated what I remember of the presentation. Sorry.

You are correct that the Pembina Inst. mainly concentrates on Alberta. However, when they first thought up this method, they had to do many tests to find out if it was viable and even a correct way of looking at things. They used not only Canada as a whole (finding Alberta near the bottom of the heap), but also compared some countries around the world. The States being one. They found that the US falls well short of many of its western brothers for quality of life of its people "as a whole". Very close to some to what we would consider third world countries. So outside of being a test, it was not an official study.

Now to explain this way of thinking to some.

Most of the time we use the GDP as a method of "health" of a nation. However it only measures economic activity, and not the intangibles that go towards making a better life for people. Thus the amount spent on police, prisons, education, trade, pollution clean-up, and virtually any spending at all goes towards a positive in the GDP. 

These alternative methods (Genuine progress indicators) of looking at "health" of a nation look at things from both a positive and negative point of view per capita. Thus spending on prisons would be a negative, while amount spent on rehbrehabilitationcriminals would be looked at as a positive. The amount spent on envienvironmentalservation a positive, The amount spent to create a envienvironmentalaster site a negative, while the amount spent on cleaning it up a positive. Education spending a positive. Health spending positive. Numbers of people living below the poverty line negative. Etc...

Its long and complicated, but in the end it gives a better general view of how the people of a certain nation are doing AS A WHOLE.

Thus my statement, while being exaggerated, I am sorry for that, is still essentially true.

Here is another study done on the US itself. http://www.rprogress.org/newpubs/2004/gpi_march2004update.pdf

Another: http://www.biodiv.org/doc/2010/the-genuine-progress-indicator-sep02.pdf

And for those who just want to know what is going on with the EU: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/D36/54/ACF15D0.pdf


To Earl: Wow. She has some valid points, but takes them a little far in their useage and power. Oh well. We all have our ways of looking at the world.


----------



## Torlyn (11 Feb 2005)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> A gooder eh Torn. ;D
> But just think if we could muster that power as she stated.



That'd be great...  I'll bet she's one of the few Americans that has a firearm in her house because she *ACTUALLY* thinks she'll have to defend against the King of England.

I also enjoyed the "after we beat the British in 1812".  I wonder where she got that history book from?   

T


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Feb 2005)

By George and gadzooks, she's rumbled us lads.  We'll have to get Tony to sic the Black Ops types at the SAS onto her.

In the name of patience :


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> 1) No and 2) Yes. Seattle is probably one of the best cities in the US. Hard comparison there. Try going to East LA, Phillie, Cleveland, Burnt out Detroit.



The East End of Vancouver and regions of other cities in the Lower Mainland of BC are plagued with Drug problems and rampant theft.   Winnipeg has some pretty bad gang problems.   You talk of squalid living conditions in US urban centers, maybe I should show you some of the Native reserves around my community - the people there have faced (and still do to some extent) the same sort of "paternalism" that Blacks in the US faced.

Give your head a shake.   Just because a certain percentage of the population in the US (or Canada) don't have 1.5 kids, two cars, and a mortgage does not automatically mean that the country is put in the "Third World" category.   The liberal democracy never promised that everyone would have a free ride to prosperity - the only one that promised that this century was Marx and that experiment was a dandy....


----------



## clasper (11 Feb 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> 1) No and 2) Yes. Seattle is probably one of the best cities in the US. Hard comparison there. Try going to East LA, Phillie, Cleveland, Burnt out Detroit.



I've been to east LA and Detroit.  I've also been to Kazakhstan and Russia, and the Americans come out on top in terms of quality of life.  And the former Soviets have many Africans beat by a country mile.  You're out to lunch.


----------



## Torlyn (11 Feb 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Most of the time we use the GDP as a method of "health" of a nation. However it only measures economic activity, and not the intangibles that go towards making a better life for people. Thus the amount spent on police, prisons, education, trade, pollution clean-up, and virtually any spending at all goes towards a positive in the GDP.



Time to tear a hole...

As for the "theory" of GPI, it's flawed.  It attempts to examine the health of a nation using western values, which makes it completely useless when relating between 1st and third world nations.  Included (besides GDP) it brings in to account "the value of time spent on housework, parenting, volunteer...consumer durables (cars, dishwashers, etc) services of highways & streets"  as things that improve well-being on a cost-per-unit ratio..  Then it SUBTRACTS defence expenditures (things like maintaining household comfor, in the face of declines in quality of life due to such factors as crime, auto accidents, or pollution) social costs (divorce, crime, etc) depreciation of environmental assets (mainly non-renewable resources).

And how is this information gathered?  By the looks of it, self-reporting.  Now, how many people in the third world actually pay ANY attention to any of the subtractors listed by the GPI?  I don't think that family that Pieman showed us a picture of is really concerned with their household comfort.    As well, the worth of crime is going to be drastically different.  Breaking a wheel on the wheelbarrow will probably cost less to fix than a B&E on a house...

Anyway, after reading most of the articles that you forwarded, it seems to me that the GPI is a faulty method of gathering the "truth" behind the well-being of nations.  I'm not saying that the GDP is the be all end all, but the GPI is certainly has a methodology that does not lend itself to comparason with non-1st world nations.  IMO, of course.

T


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2005)

Checkmate.


----------



## Zipper (11 Feb 2005)

Sigh...

There is no perfect way of looking at any of the factors involved. Nor is there any way of saying that we do not have many problems of our own (reserves, crime, slums in east Vancouver, etc.). 

What I am saying is that PER CAPITA, we and in many cases European countries (not all, Ie. Spain, Poland, Greece, etc) are better off AS A WHOLE then the US. And that the way the US focus's on itself through its social programs (or lack there of), and its foreign policy (protectionist) are not a way that Canada should be looking at changing itself into if (and when) we ever decided to get rid of the Monarchy. 

As well, I was also referring to the fact that even with their higher taxes to support their social programs, they are able to support larger and better equipped military's.

I forget, but I believe I was responding to someone saying something about the US form of republic and how we should look at it. Going back to Kirkhill's very well written lessons. Canada has chosen to try and beat a path in between the two opposing systems. I said I would rather chose
to look at the European model instead.

Thus it all ties back into the topic at hand.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Feb 2005)

The best way to compare drasticly different economies is the so called Purchasing Pairety Index (PPI). This looks at a basket of goods and asks "how long would a worker have to work to pay for these goods". A simple version of the test used to be run in the Economist magazine, using a bottle of beer, or a McDonald's "Big Mac" meal.

In many third world nations, a loan of $20 USD allows a person to buy a bycycle and gives them the mobility to get to a better job, or take up a travelling salesman's life. Think how much it costs you to get a new vehicle for a real PPI comparison.....

I am short of time tonight, but try googling PPI or Purchasing Pairety Index and see what comes out.


----------



## Pieman (11 Feb 2005)

> Now, how many people in the third world actually pay ANY attention to any of the subtractors listed by the GPI?   I don't think that family that Pieman showed us a picture of is really concerned with their household comfort.



Wealth is a relative thing isn't it? In another perspective that Wheelbarrel guy is doing pretty good. He can cruise around with it,   and apparently manages to pick up girls. Try doing that with a wheelbarrel in this society.   

Sorry...now I am distracting from this interesting debate...please continue.


----------



## Zipper (11 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The best way to compare drastically different economies is the so called Purchasing Pairety Index (PPI). This looks at a basket of goods and asks "how long would a worker have to work to pay for these goods". A simple version of the test used to be run in the Economist magazine, using a bottle of beer, or a McDonald's "Big Mac" meal.
> 
> In many third world nations, a loan of $20 USD allows a person to buy a bicycle and gives them the mobility to get to a better job, or take up a travelling salesman's life. Think how much it costs you to get a new vehicle for a real PPI comparison.....
> 
> I am short of time tonight, but try googling PPI or Purchasing Pairety Index and see what comes out.



Agreed. And they were a fairly good(if dry) read. 

However.

Its not just economics that drive the world. There is no argument that the US is the single biggest economy (as a single country) in the world, with Europe as the largest economy (multi-country) overall. 

If you wanted to go by just that, you could say many of the middle eastern countries are very well off, as is China. Unfortunately only a small segment of the population is thus. And the rest are in virtual slavery. You have to take the social well being of a country as well as economics into account to come close to an idea of how well (or bad) that country is doing. 

That is why Canada is at (near) the top of the list of best countries of the world. Now if we could just get that military problem taken care of...


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Feb 2005)

> If you wanted to go by just that, you could say many of the middle eastern countries are very well off, as is China. Unfortunately only a small segment of the population is thus. And the rest are in virtual slavery. You have to take the social well being of a country as well as economics into account to come close to an idea of how well (or bad) that country is doing.



Which brings us back to democracy, individual freedom and the free market economy.  There are failures but the individual is at liberty to succeed.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> There are failures but the individual is at liberty to succeed.



Precisely.  In the Soviet Union, you were screwed from the start.  At least in the West, despite not having the levelest of playing fields across the board, one has an equal opportunity of either making something of themselves or being a deadbeat-loser.

Anyways, what does this have to do with the Queen?  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Feb 2005)

> Anyways, what does this have to do with the Queen?



Elementary Infanteer.  The Queen - living symbol of the Nation that brought you the system that created the opportunity to succeed gloriously, or fall flat on your arse and try again. ;D

Patently clear.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Elementary Infanteer. The Queen - living symbol of the Nation that brought you the system that created the opportunity to succeed gloriously, or fall flat on your arse and try again. ;D



The Queen is Greek?  (and no - the Duke of E. doesn't count)


----------



## Zipper (12 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Which brings us back to democracy, individual freedom and the free market economy.   There are failures but the individual is at liberty to succeed.



Oh god. Well we could get into the discussion that those three things do not nnecessarilygo hand in hand. Considering the considerable differences in styles of democracy that are present from our past discussions, as well as the pros and cons of a free market run amok

Ah, this could just drag on and on.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Feb 2005)

Good grief.  Here are some OECD stats:

Unemployment: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/13/18595359.pdf (page down to graph for easy interpretation; note France and Germany's contribution)

GDP stats:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/4/33727936.pdf (gross)
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/5/34244925.xls (per capita)
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/12/29859992.xls (growth trends)
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/40/29867116.xls (components, 2003)

Productivity stats:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/14/29861140.xls


----------



## a_majoor (12 Feb 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Oh god. Well we could get into the discussion that those three things do not necessarily go hand in hand. Considering the considerable differences in styles of democracy that are present from our past discussions, as well as the pros and cons of a free market run amok



The historical evidence suggests the three DO go hand in hand, and it is also logical that they do so. Property rights are the *practical expression* of your political rights. If you cannot make use of your property as you see fit (free market), then your personal freedom is infringed. Democracy is the *political expression* of individual liberty, in fact, it can be seen as being in the market for ideas of how common problems will be solved. If you are free to own and benefit from the use of property, and choose the solutions to common problems, then you are a free individual living in a democratic free market society.

When there are disconnects, the only way things still work is by exploiting the discontinuities. During the reign of Louis XIV, the limited amount of communications "bandwidth" prevented him from clamping down on everyone, so some free market activity was possible. On the other hand, selling vegetables wasn't going to upset the social and political order, so he didn't care. People who made millions in the fur trade (this is the origin of the word "millionaire") WERE a threat, and were either co-opted into the ruling elite, strong armed to the colonies (we have a very nice estate for you to manage in New France, monsieur), or done away with (Yes, secret police existed then as well). Ideas like "internal passports" are very old as well, but some exceptions were made for merchants, religious orders or soldiers (join and see the world had a_ real_ meaning then).

Even today, we see China experimenting with market reform, but not political reform. It _seems_ to work for the incurious, but China is riven with many problems and internal dissent, and may implode the way the USSR did, or explode, maybe the way Imperial Japan did in the 1930s and 40s. Criminal gangs fill a lot of the cracks in the system, since they are free to use the property they expropriate as they see fit, and often choose common solutions to common problems of territory, police, and so on, but are mostly parasitical.



> *The trouble with liberals*
> By Ross Terrill  |  February 12, 2005
> 
> DEMOCRACY IS FRIEND to the common man and authoritarianism is a crutch for millionaires with a villa in Italy -- right? Maybe no longer. Lady Liberty has acquired a new dancing partner. Politics in both Europe and the United States have unhitched the left from its trusted partner, democracy. American liberals now often spurn blue collar opinion that is democracy's fuel. They mostly reject global idealism that is liberty's post-communism vocation. This has allowed a Republican president to make democracy his cause. On the dance floor of the 21st century, the right embraces Lady Liberty.
> ...


----------



## Zipper (13 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The historical evidence suggests the three DO go hand in hand, and it is also logical that they do so. Property rights are the *practical expression* of your political rights. If you cannot make use of your property as you see fit (free market), then your personal freedom is infringed. Democracy is the *political expression* of individual liberty, in fact, it can be seen as being in the market for ideas of how common problems will be solved. If you are free to own and benefit from the use of property, and choose the solutions to common problems, then you are a free individual living in a democratic free market society.



Then it might be an interesting note that you have no constitutional right to own property.

As for China. You bet. That is one place that is going to have to change its ways eventually. It will be interesting to see what the people come up with.



> Liberals' attachment to a notion of "international community" also dilutes democratic principles. If the UN chief says our actions in Iraq are illegal, he must be correct, intuits the left, and the American majority must be wrong.



However, the American majority is just that. The majority in America. NOT the world. Thus for them to make a decision outside their own shores shows a lack of respect for the democracy of other nations.



> "The Democrats are the minority party in Congress, " said Senator Edward Kennedy, "but we speak for a majority of the American people." Don't the winners of an election have a better -- if imperfect -- right to speak for a majority of the American people than the losers? Not so to a left whose eyes bulge with self-entitlement and whose pale hand is estranged from physical labor.



Agreed. The majority has won the right to make the decisions. However the losers still have the right to complain about it.



> In foreign policy, Kerry has not approved a major projection of American military power abroad since Vietnam. The Democratic Party seems against President Bush's words: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."



Thus they are breaking every International law that they themselves helped write by forming the UN and helping in creating its charters. The UN is not a perfect place. Far from it. Its so bloated its about to blow. However the basic rules behind it charter are still as important today as they were 60 years ago.

Democracy is the best form of Government we have at this time. Its not perfect either, but oh well.

I wonder what would be written by the left about the right if they were on the winning side for two elections? Interesting...

Now here is a question...

Is the US actually a Democracy? Or is it an Oligarchy? Considering it has only two parties to choose from time and time again, and there politics is in reality not all that different from one another...        ...interesting.

And with that being said. Was Canada really a democracy under Chretien? Or was it a democratically elected dictatorship with all the power in the PM's office? Also interesting...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2005)

> Then it might be an interesting note that you have no constitutional right to own property.



I am well aware of that fact. Fortunately, the Canadian government allows property ownership _de facto_, if not _de jure_, at least for now. While a National Socialist takeover isn't in the cards any time soon, I do worry about the incremental reductions in our property rights (and if anyone decides to actually do something about the Kyoto Accords, it won't be incremental anymore). Luckily for me, my wife and I have family in the US, so the green card is our "ace in the hole".



> However, the American majority is just that. The majority in America. NOT the world. Thus for them to make a decision outside their own shores shows a lack of respect for the democracy of other nations.



I don't recall that Ba'athist Iraq or Taliban Afghanistan were considered democracies. Harbouring, aiding and abbeting the Jihadis are acts of war against the United States of America, so it isn't surprising that the majority of Americans votes to go to war and crush them like cockroaches. Like I said, they aren't invading fellow democracies, even ones like France or Canada which are openly hostile to US policy goals.



> Thus they are breaking every International law



Law, in the human sense, presupposes the ability to enforce it with a police and an impartial judiciary. (_Laws like Gravity tend to be self enforcing_) We have a great deal of difficulty getting that done here inside our own nation. Would you want: 
a) moral degenerates who rape and sexually exploit children running loose in your country to enforce international law, or;
b) madmen armed with nuclear weapons?

BTW, *a* is the current UN "Peacekeeping" force operating in the Congo, and *b* is what Lybia was working towards while chairing the UN International human rights committee, prior to OIF and their sudden disavowal to WMD programs.

Since self interest is the common defining factor of ALL HUMAN HISTORY, it is hard to see how the ICC or any other appointed body won't be filled with people eager to grind their own axes, either in person, or as proxies for their sponsoring states. Hardly impartial. I at least am thankful the current hegemon is friendly and commercial, rather than living in some alternative universe where an autocratic Imperial power like China is the hegemon.


----------



## Zipper (13 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I don't recall that Ba'athist Iraq or Taliban Afghanistan were considered democracies. Harbouring, aiding and abbeting the Jihadis are acts of war against the United States of America, so it isn't surprising that the majority of Americans votes to go to war and crush them like cockroaches. Like I said, they aren't invading fellow democracies, even ones like France or Canada which are openly hostile to US policy goals.



Since when did the UN Charter or any International law for that matter take into account only the rights of democracies? Are they then above the law for the sake of supposed self determination? Or are they as guilty as those they attack in that they impose their views upon others? Democracy is a formation of the people. Those who willing want it. Democracy is not made or formed (imposed) by other democracies.



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Law, in the human sense, presupposes the ability to enforce it with a police and an impartial judiciary. (_Laws like Gravity tend to be self enforcing_) We have a great deal of difficulty getting that done here inside our own nation.



Impartial judiciary? Since when has the judicial system (especially in the States) been impartial? There as much a instrument of politics as anything. How is the invasion of another country seen as impartial? The detaining of people in a gulag style prison with no rights seen as impartial? and who are they to impose their "laws" upon people who did not elect them? 

Its bad enough here with our courts turning over issues on the basis of non-constitutional on a whim it seems. At least they got it right for once in bouncing the same sex issue back to the politicians.



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Would you want:
> a) moral degenerates who rape and sexually exploit children running loose in your country to enforce international law, or;
> b) madmen armed with nuclear weapons?
> 
> ...



No argument there. Many of the UN "peacekeeping" forces from certain nations have been worse then the regimes in place, and very much hired thugs. 

The current Hegemony is friendly and commercial with us, yes. But do they not also have their own "axe to grind" in the killing and destruction of entire nation states and their innocent citizens? I'm sure you've read Anne Coltour and her diatribes of converting all to Christianity (by the sword and otherwise)? As scary as any thought of a Chinese Hegemony I am sure.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Feb 2005)

Quote,
 Democracy is a formation of the people. Those who willing want it. Democracy is not made or formed (imposed) by other democracies.

....so even under the threat of death 58% of Iraqi's voted............so I say , PARDON?


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Feb 2005)

>The needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few

Not necessarily.


----------



## jrhume (14 Feb 2005)

Who decides those 'needs'?

Jim


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Feb 2005)

I'm guessing Zipper does.

Or maybe he will let me decide his needs.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Feb 2005)

Sounds like the whole gun-control debate is being played out here as well, but on a different level.

For some reason, a few people/ideologies like to argue that there should be no delination between the public and private spheres.   No thank you.


----------



## dutchie (14 Feb 2005)

I just saw this thread, so my applogies for jumping in late and bringing up the 'EU' thing.

One thing that I noticed that was't hashed out was the difference between 'Europe' (or specific European countries), and the EU. 

Some EU countries have historically had strong economies (Holland comes to mind). To lump these countries in with the Italy's, Czech Republic's, et all is a little misleading. The EU, and the Euro particularly, were VERY unpopular in the stronger nations. They were great for the fledging economies of the EU, such as Italy (a historically 'apatheitc' workforce) and Spain, but not so great for Holland, Germany, Belgium, etc.

Also, when looking at Germany's GDP/Economy figures, one should bear in mind that they are still recouperating from the amalgamation of the East (Communist) and West (Capitalist) systems. 50 years of Ivan telling you to 'not work too hard' is tough to break. 

I can see where Zipper was coming from in some of his points - some European countries have some innovative and very succesful ways of combining good social 'safety nets' and sound economic strategies. 

But he's right out of 'er in saying the US has a lower standard of living than, well, almost anyone (ok, maybe Luxumbourg or Monaco). He's right to say there is a bigger gap between rich and poor, but that's not a mystery, and it's also the way the US has built itself up to such lofty hights.

If he thinks, or anyone else for that matter, that Canada has insulated itself from the crime, poverty, and violence indicative of a US inner-city, I suggest he take a strole along the Downtown East Side, around Main & Hastings, or 'Pain & Wasting' as it's commonly refered to as. This area of Vancouver has seen a lot of HIV/Hep C, drug, rape, murder, prostitution, and all manner of undesireable activity and persons. In fact, at one point in the 90's, it had the highest rate of major crime (murder, rape, assault, etc) than any other area in North America, per capita of course. So this lovely Lotus-land has it's skeletons, even without the 'overly-capitalist' system (sarcasm) of the US.


----------



## Zipper (14 Feb 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> I can see where Zipper was coming from in some of his points - some European countries have some innovative and very successful ways of combining good social safety net's and sound economic strategies.
> 
> Thank you. That is exactly what I am trying to point out. Yes it is not universal to all the EU, although they are moving in that direction.
> 
> ...



Your right again. There is no way we or any country in the EU are insulated to crime poverty, etc...     ...not yet anyway. What I am saying is about the gap as you mentioned, and the fact that per capita (why do I have to keep repeating that?) the US has many more problems with crime, poverty, violence, etc...
All these things can be tied directly to their policies/methodology's/way of thinking. The fact that Bush just announced some of his budget ideas that cut more social spending (after talking ad naseum about medicare), upped the defense spending, and is still going into the red again just goes to show you.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> For some reason, a few people/ideologies like to argue that there should be no delination between the public and private spheres.  No thank you.



Your correct there should be a difference. Its just what that difference is (where to draw the line) I prefer to have the responsibility's of taking care of all our people in the purview of the Government. Why? Because it has been proven to be more encompassing and cheaper in the long run. Is it perfect? Not a chance. But the private alternative is a lot worse. 



			
				Old Guy said:
			
		

> Who decides those 'needs'?





			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I'm guessing Zipper does.
> 
> Or maybe he will let me decide his needs.



The Government does, which in the long run means that WE do. That whole idea of Mob rule Kirkhill? The whole basis behind our Government. Or do we have to go back to your whole poli sci lesson again?



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few
> 
> Not necessarily.



Agreed. But the many's (majority) responsibility under our law (constitution) is to see to the needs of the few which in turn is looking after ourselves. Thus the rich (the few) pay more taxes to look after the poor (far to many). Hence why we have federal transfer payments. Like above...      ...is it perfect? Not a chance. But is it better then the alternative? You bet.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Feb 2005)

> Quote from: Kirkhill on Yesterday at 17:42:28
> I'm guessing Zipper does.
> 
> Or maybe he will let me decide his needs.
> ...



Fair comment Zipper.  An unthinking response on my part.


----------



## jrhume (15 Feb 2005)

No thanks.  I do not want the government deciding what my 'needs' are.

I can do that on my own.

Jim


----------



## rw4th (15 Feb 2005)

I do think the US political model is better then ours. Their system of checks and balances is superior to ours primarily due to the fact they have a much clearer separation of the legislative and executive branches of the government. As a result they are able maintain a much clearer left/right balance in legislation and laws. In Canada the executive pretty much controls the legislative resulting in complete loss of balance.

The European (and Canadian) models are thinly veiled socialism, and while in theory I can appreciate the value of socialistic ideals, history has proven over and over that socialism does not work. It inevitably leads to total wealth redistribution and a totalitarian society where the government and the moral elite micromanage the lives of the individual to benefit the whole (sounds familiar?). 

While this may sound cool on Star Trek, I'm, not interested in living the USSR mark 2.


----------



## Zipper (16 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Fair comment Zipper.   An unthinking response on my part.



lol...I don't believe it. I could never think of you ever making an unthinking response. To intelligent for that. :-*



			
				rw4th said:
			
		

> I do think the US political model is better then ours. Their system of checks and balances is superior to ours primarily due to the fact they have a much clearer separation of the legislative and executive branches of the government. As a result they are able maintain a much clearer left/right balance in legislation and laws. In Canada the executive pretty much controls the legislative resulting in complete loss of balance.
> 
> The European (and Canadian) models are thinly veiled socialism, and while in theory I can appreciate the value of socialistic ideals, history has proven over and over that socialism does not work. It inevitably leads to total wealth redistribution and a totalitarian society where the government and the moral elite micromanage the lives of the individual to benefit the whole (sounds familiar?).
> 
> While this may sound cool on Star Trek, I'm, not interested in living the USSR mark 2.



I think I may let you Kirkhill go into an explanation on that. I don't have a deep enough knowledge of Poli Sci to do so for that first part.

However the 2nd paragraph I will comment on. The only thing that history has proven as far as socialism is concerned, is that the USSR and all its communist look alikes ARE NOT socialism. They have hijacked that term (as have the US and others) and painted it under the colours of communism. True socialism unchecked can very well lead to totalitarianism. In other words, it is hard for human nature to remain muted and for one guy not to want to have more power then the next.

Canada and Europe's forms of semi-socialism (democratic socialism) are much more realistic in that they are "trying" to look out for the little guy. They don't always manage it, but at least their trying. As for Star Trek and their form of government (the Federation). Good question? I'm not really sure what it is, or how it is maintained. They never delve to deeply into that.

I think you need to go back and read Kirkhill's multi message lessons on the origions of the different forms of government.


----------



## rw4th (16 Feb 2005)

> The only thing that history has proven as far as socialism is concerned is that the USSR and all its communist look alikes ARE NOT socialism. They have hijacked that term (as have the US and others) and painted it under the colours of communism.



I keep hearing that argument from every socialist leaning person and web site I come in contact with. Usually accompanied by something like â Å“they got it wrong, proper socialism wouldn't be like thatâ ?. Of course, that is utter bullcrap. The USSR, Cuba, and other socialist government all started out with ideals of equality and a â Å“socialist paradiseâ ?. They did not get it wrong: what happened is the only possible conclusion of unchecked socialism. The problem, and the reason that socialism will always fail is simple: people. The socialistic ideal cannot support itself unless everybody â Å“chips inâ ? so to speak and subverts his/her desires for the benefit of the majority. In reality, this of course does not happen and the socialist paradise quickly becomes what the USSR and Cuba have become. Humans will seek power and advantage over others, it's in our nature. Forced wealth redistribution (through high taxation, etc) results in people seeking their power elsewhere, like government office. I think you can figure out what follows.

I am not confusing socialism and communism but rather saying that both go hand in hand. I believe that unless we do something about our slow socialist drift, it will result in an almost totalitarian communist/socialist clone within a few generations. 



> Canada and Europe's forms of semi-socialism (democratic socialism) are much more realistic in that they are "trying" to look out for the little guy. They don't always manage it, but at least their trying.



I find the current Canadian and European approach more insidious then any "socialist revolution". The rights of the individual are being slowly eroded in favor of the majority right before are eyes and most people do not recognize what is happening. 

What you need to realize is that the rights of the â Å“little guyâ ? have to ultimately be more important then those of the whole, and that any other model has always, and will always, ultimately lead to a totalitarian state. 




> I think I may let you Kirkhill go into an explanation on that. I don't have a deep enough knowledge of Poli Sci to do so for that first part.



Here's a link with an overview of what I'm talking about. It contrasts our Parliamentary system and the Presidential system in terms of increasing voter turn out. Not exactly the point I am trying to make, but the explanation of government structure is adequate and my point that the US system of checks and balances is more democratic (and therefore better IMO) is also explained.

 http://www.geekrants.com/articles/parliamentary.html


----------



## Torlyn (16 Feb 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> I keep hearing that argument from every socialist leaning person and web site I come in contact with. Usually accompanied by something like â Å“they got it wrong, proper socialism wouldn't be like thatâ ?. Of course, that is utter bullcrap. The USSR, Cuba, and other socialist government all started out with ideals of equality and a â Å“socialist paradiseâ ?. They did not get it wrong: what happened is the only possible conclusion of unchecked socialism.



Edit - I shouldn't post after I drink.  Will clarify with coherent thought sometime tomorrow.  Probably in the afternoon, given the 1/2 priced pints at the pub.  God Bless the Driving Alternative.   ;D

T


----------



## pbi (16 Feb 2005)

> The rights of the individual are being slowly eroded in favor of the majority right before are eyes and most people do not recognize what is happening.



How do contrast this with some of the legislation we have recently passed (or are considering) in Canada that protects the rights of minorities such as Francophones, homosexuals, the elderly, handicapped, or members of visible minorities, or the Charter of Human Rights, or the Privacy Act? What about the comment that we frequently hear these days that in Canada today all people care about (including in the military...) are their individual rights rather than their duties? What about the concern that society is deteriorating because people only care about themselves and not about the greater good? Could you explain what individuals are losing their "rights" to the power of the majority?

Don't leap to the easy conclusion that I am championing the things I have just listed-that is a reflex that is all too common. I'd like to see more explanation of how you reach your position.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Feb 2005)

250 years ago 4 Scotsmen name of Smith, Hume, Kames and Hutcheson drank an awful lot of French claret and used an awful lot of ink debating these self-same issues.  Frenchmen, Germans, Englishmen were all having the same discussions.  It seems the argument continues.

The tensions that are being discussed here were discussed then.  With a similar lack of resolution.

However the discussions influenced decisions that resulted in different countries following different paths.  And we are still debating if we are on the right path.

The tensions will continue, the debate will continue and the interests of the many, the interests of the few and the interests of the individual will always be in tension.

I don't see many right answers beyond my own preference for a pragmatic view that protects the individual and recognizes no absolutes in this world - beyond that I choose not to venture.

There is always tomorrow and tomorrow we will have to deal with the unintended consequences of decisions taken yesterday.

I agree with S_Baker.  While comparisons of systems of government make for interesting discussions - by sticking the tag Canadian vs American democracy on a thread it invites inflammatory comment and unnecessarily clouds debate.

Just a note here to the board.

I wrote what I wrote in response to a position on the Monarchy and the wish (not need) to retain the Monarchy as a symbol of some of the good things that came to Canada under the auspices of the Crown.  The Scots connection was just to point out that the discussions that were happening all over Europe were largely implemented in Canada by Scotsmen, with all their insights and prejudices born of their history.

I did not intend this to become a contest between styles of government.

I have just noticed that this thread is indicated as having been started by myself and by implication that I was involved in choosing the thread title.  Neither statement is true.

If it is felt that this thread serves some purpose and shouldn't be locked then I request that the Staff change the title of the thread to something less contentious, or else eliminate my name as being the promulgator of this thread.

As an alternate title how about something innocuous like Comparative Governance?

Cheers.


----------



## rw4th (16 Feb 2005)

I think I can bring some of what I said back into focus and on topic:



> Kirkhill wrote:
> wrote what I wrote in response to a position on the Monarchy and the wish (not need) to retain the Monarchy as a symbol of some of the good things that came to Canada under the auspices of the Crown.



I'll return back to my point of Executive/Legislative balance. In our government's structure, the Executive is supposed to be headed up by the monarch (or Governor General in our case) and he/she is supposed to have powers somewhat similar to the US President. What we actually have now, thanks to PET, is a situation where the Governor General's roles has become all but symbolic resulting in the PM heading up both the Executive and Legislative branches (hence my comment on the Executive controlling the Legislative).

I can only see 2 ways to resolve this imbalance: re-instate the Monarchy's power (and hence the Governor General's) or dump the Monarchy altogether in favor of a Presidential system like the US.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Feb 2005)

The most popular choice seems to be various ideas of restoring the powers (through accoutability to the electorate) of the Governor Generals.  The traditional powers of the Governor General may prove to be less messy (if used properly) then going to a Republic.


----------



## rw4th (16 Feb 2005)

> The most popular choice seems to be various ideas of restoring the powers (through accoutability to the electorate) of the Governor Generals.


And how would you acheive that? Having an elected GC would kind of make a defacto Republic would it not?


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Feb 2005)

rw4th:



> I can only see 2 ways to resolve this imbalance: re-instate the Monarchy's power (and hence the Governor General's) or dump the Monarchy altogether in favor of a Presidential system like the US.



Actually I agree with you on the diagnosis - re-instate the balance.   But I think your prescriptions (Monarch - or even GG - or President) are essentially one prescription.   All you are essentially deciding is what to call the head of the Executive Branch and how it should be found (Heredity, Appointment or Election).

A side bar consideration is whether the Head of the Executive should also be Head of State.

For my money I like the notion of the Head of State with limited duties being amalgamated with a Chief Executive with the current de jure circumscribed powers. I also like the notion of retaining the title Governor-General and having her/him either elected by general ballot or even by some sort of electoral college.

Ya beat me again Infanteer 

And yes rw4th, it would be a quasi-republic.  But we would still be honouring our past.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Feb 2005)

I think reinstating the Governor Generals powers would not lead us to an American style Legislative/Executive split, but more like a European style where the President and the Prime Minister (Chancellor) share powers (France, Germany I believe).

As I've asserted before, I'm not the one to give the GG too much power - I'd prefer them to play the role of "Elder Statesmen" with constitutional recourse if the mucky-muck in Parliament gets out of hand (Like it has with sponsership, HRD, etc).


----------



## Zipper (16 Feb 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> I keep hearing that argument from every socialist leaning person and web site I come in contact with. Usually accompanied by something like â Å“they got it wrong, proper socialism wouldn't be like thatâ ?. Of course, that is utter bullcrap. The USSR, Cuba, and other socialist government all started out with ideals of equality and a â Å“socialist paradiseâ ?. They did not get it wrong: what happened is the only possible conclusion of unchecked socialism. The problem, and the reason that socialism will always fail is simple: people. The socialistic ideal cannot support itself unless everybody â Å“chips inâ ? so to speak and subverts his/her desires for the benefit of the majority. In reality, this of course does not happen and the socialist paradise quickly becomes what the USSR and Cuba have become. Humans will seek power and advantage over others, it's in our nature. Forced wealth redistribution (through high taxation, etc) results in people seeking their power elsewhere, like government office. I think you can figure out what follows.
> 
> I am not confusing socialism and communism but rather saying that both go hand in hand. I believe that unless we do something about our slow socialist drift, it will result in an almost totalitarian communist/socialist clone within a few generations.
> 
> ...



How are the rights of the individual being eroded? You have to remember that the right of the indivdual can go only as far as society allows. So the rights of the little guy have to be equal, not more important then everyone else.

As for rights being eroded...              ...we can alway take a look at the "patriot act" in the name of "security" as an example. Hello Orwell!

Kirkhill: I agree. We (I) have taken this topic to far down the road where the opposing arguments are directly across from one another. Both systems are to far apart for anything but strife to happen.

As for the monarchy (the origional topic) being able to work again, or not. I think I may agree with Infanteer here (GASP) about the "Chancellor" idea may work. Of course I know very little about this form of democracy, but I'm sure you'll explain it. 

Now, would Canada as always take many of these systems and try to take the road in between (as we always do?) them and end up making our own messy form?


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Feb 2005)

> Both systems are to far apart for anything but strife to happen.



No they are not.  The perceptions are too far apart.

The structures are not noticeably different.  The points of debate are not noticeably different.  The differences lie in the directions the INDIVIDUALS that lead their countries take the debates and the decisions that result.

Those directions and those decisions are taken in support of policy promulgated by the leaders, often precisely to split popular opinion and create a faction that will support the Leader in the execution of policy.

And that it true for every country, state, province, town-council, boardroom and tea party.

Somebody was just commenting a few days ago about the interminable debate about re-organizing NDHQ.  This is the same debate largely, within certain limits, many systems will get you to the same place.  All of them can be used effectively and all of them ineffectively.

Differences in national policy do not greatly reflect differences in national polity.  Differences between states reflect differences between the leadership and the leadership is made up of individuals.

Cheers Zipper.

And Infanteer - retitle this thread or I will have to consider letting folks know the truth about you ;D


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2005)

The socialist conundrum has come to haunt us. Socialism essentially assumes we will sacrifice our own wants and needs to "The Greater Good", without being specific as to how this will be achieved. In National Socialism, the "Will" of the "Race" was to be expressed by "One extraordinary person, the 'Leader' (spell check doesn't like German, I guess)". The Communists chose economic class rather than racial origin as their mantra, and told us a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" would decide. Dictators being dictators, they have by far the greatest mass murder record in history (Hitler is the best known, but Stalin is credited with 20 million, Mao could be responsible for 40 million, the Khmer Rouge with 3 million, Saddam Hussein for about a million........)

Being less attracted to grandiose rhetoric, modern socialists do not have a single overriding class or race, but still insist on "group rights" for various groups which have been collectively "victimized".(It is interesting to see the reaction when people refuse to behave as part of a group. Secretary of State Dr. Rice is an excellent example of this). Although we speak the language of individual rights, notice how quickly your personal rights can be trumped by a "group", for example hiring quotas could displace you from getting a job despite your qualifications to do the same; or your property could be expropriated. (Some groups do not even exist as real or corporate humans; the environment is also treated as having a "right" to trump your rights).

The end result is a mish mash of often conflicting rules and regulations designed to advance the "rights" of certain groups, and with the mandate of "gay marriage", there is no longer much of a pretense to enacting laws by the legislature; far easier to do things by judicial fiat. It is interesting to note that the American Democrats are marshalling almost all of their energies in nominating and appointing judges; or opposing those that Republicans nominate. This is because they are well aware that judicial fiat is one of the few ways their program of radical Liberalism can be imposed. (I am not confident the Democrats can continue to exist in their present form. Their program is propagandized by people like Micheal Moore, and they have vast financial resources behind them. Moderates who are or were Democrats might either become "Reagan Democrats" (i.e. vote Republican regardless; attempt to regain control of the party; or fold their tents and found a new "centrist" party).

The American experiment is still the best example of "how to do it". The areas of government control are limited by the constitution, so only in exceptional circumstances will the Government decide what is best. True, the explosive growth in government since the 1960s tends to overshadow this ideal, but the results are unmistakable, America is the first choice of refugees and immigrants, it has the highest GDP, fastest growing economy, lowest unemployment and is the least aggressive hegemon in history.


----------



## pbi (17 Feb 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I have lived in both USA/Canada, Europe, Korea, and Japan.
> 
> *I have lived in both Canada and the US*.
> 
> ...



[
Cheers


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (17 Feb 2005)

Canada is a British political system but influenced by the United States (the same could be said for our Army).   The British parliamentary system has served us well, although we do have to deal with greater regional issues.   

I see some calls to "restore the balance" but I believe that our Parliamentary system has always had the fusion of the legislative with a de facto executive.   Real political power has always been wielded by the PM.   The GG has been largely symbolic for some time.   The Supreme Court has actually increased its relative powers in the last twenty years.   Canada has been more concerned with Peace, Order and Good Government than with Checks and Balances and worrying about some mythical tyrant that's going to take over.

Comparisons with the US are always fascinating, but we must remember that there is at least one rather fundamental difference between the two countries.   The US has an "underlying consensus" that means that despite political differences Americans have a more "unified" sense of national self.   Canada does not and never has.   We should bear in mind, however, that the US had a Civil War that ironed out some of the bigger wrinkles in the underlying consensus.   I lived in the US for six months, have many friends there and am an admirer of our Southern neighbour (and the bit to the NorthWest too).   That being said my stubborn Scots ancestry takes great pride in our way of life. 

Canadian politics will always be somewhat different that American politics due to this reason.   We have some strange arrangements that look weird in writing but in practice Canadian governance is focused on keeping the country together despite the lack of an underlying consensus.   Ours is a day to day negotiation where practice means much more than theory and the present interpretation of spirit means more than the letter.

As for socialism we do have a greater leaning in that direction but I'd still put us to the right of Europe.   On the plus side we have universal health care.   On the minus side we have unemployment and higher taxes.   We can get away with it, however, by living next to an economic powerhouse and providing raw inputs into that machine.   Again, its both good and bad but we are never going to get away from it.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## a_majoor (17 Feb 2005)

Amplifying 2Bravo's point a bit:



> *Social Security & the Family*
> The case President Bush should be making.
> 
> By Richard Vigilante
> ...


----------



## Zipper (17 Feb 2005)

Ok Kirkhill, I'll agree with you again...      ...sheesh this is getting to be a regular scary occurrence. 



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> The socialist conundrum has come to haunt us. Socialism essentially assumes we will sacrifice our own wants and needs to "The Greater Good", without being specific as to how this will be achieved. In National Socialism, the "Will" of the "Race" was to be expressed by "One extraordinary person, the 'Leader' (spell check doesn't like German, I guess)". The Communists chose economic class rather than racial origin as their mantra, and told us a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" would decide. Dictators being dictators, they have by far the greatest mass murder record in history (Hitler is the best known, but Stalin is credited with 20 million, Mao could be responsible for 40 million, the Khmer Rouge with 3 million, Saddam Hussein for about a million........)



Isn't it amazing how close the two extremes of thinking (communist and fascists) are so very alike?



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Being less attracted to grandiose rhetoric, modern socialists do not have a single overriding class or race, but still insist on "group rights" for various groups which have been collectively "victimized".(It is interesting to see the reaction when people refuse to behave as part of a group. Secretary of State Dr. Rice is an excellent example of this). Although we speak the language of individual rights, notice how quickly your personal rights can be trumped by a "group", for example hiring quotas could displace you from getting a job despite your qualifications to do the same; or your property could be expropriated. (Some groups do not even exist as real or corporate humans; the environment is also treated as having a "right" to trump your rights).



Although the argument would then be...         ...is the individuals personal rights be more important then society as a whole? Not that I agree with hiring quota's over personal ability, but it does call into question then why in America that "national security" overrides all individual rights? Because the people believe it does...



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> The American experiment is still the best example of "how to do it". The areas of government control are limited by the constitution, so only in exceptional circumstances will the Government decide what is best. True, the explosive growth in government since the 1960s tends to overshadow this ideal, but the results are unmistakable, America is the first choice of refugees and immigrants, it has the highest GDP, fastest growing economy, lowest unemployment and is the least aggressive hegemon in history.



Did you add this in here just to get me going? Or do you actually believe it? The least aggressive? Hmmm...      ...you mean that they are not overtly empire building? But to believe that their policies have not either directly, or in-directly lead to more deaths around the world either in conflicts, or in plain suffering then many of the Dictators or Empires of the past and present is rather naive. Its just that they don't keep count of such things in their body counts.

As well Majoor. Good articles. However. I wonder how he came to the conclusion that the economic health of the nation is that strong when they have a bigger debt then any time in history?

LOL

Yep, here we go again...

Sorry Kirkhill.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Feb 2005)

*We can be a republic of freeholders. We can't all be rich, but we can all have independent means. We can have not only high personal incomes but family wealth as well. And where your treasure is, there will your heart lie.*

Okay, split off the tax debate.   Back to "Democratic Flavour" and the idea of Jeffersonian ideals, here is a quote that always sticks to my mind that may be worth looking at:

_The elementary republics of the wards, the county republics, the State republics, and the republic of the Union, would form a gradation of authorities, standing each on the basis of the law ... Where every man is a sharer in the direction of his ward-republic, or of some of the higher ones, and feels that he is a participator in the government of affairs, not merely on an election one day in the year but on every day; when there shall not be a man in the State who will not be a member of one of its councils, great or small, he will let his heart be torn out of his body sooner than his power be wrested from hum by a Caesar or a Bonaparte.

Thomas Jefferson_

In the debates of forming a democratic republic, Hamiltonian Federal Union by Representatives won out over Jeffersonian Direct Rule by "freeholders" - considering that the US would soon transform from a colonial/mercantile economic backwater into an Industrial Age powerhouse, it is probably for the better that, as the article my A Majoor points out, that Jefferson's ideals were abandoned.

Canada to was formed around the notion of (Con)federal union by representatives and a binary split in power between Central and Provincial government powers - curiously enough, today the intent of the Founding Fathers (strong states, weak federal government) and of the Framers of Confederation (strong federal government, weak provinces) has experienced a juxtaposition, but _ce la vie_.   Anyways, Canada, like the US, built its government for an Industrial Era where the state was pre-eminent and communication and transportation was relatively slow.

With the Information Age, we are clearly in a different condition with regards to time and space.   The notion as government as the paternal overseer is gradually fading away as people find outlets in Civil Society (NGO's, interest groups) to represent their political interests.   Communication is instantaneous and information about something in Calgary can be received by people as it happens, regardless of whether they are in Ottawa, Halifax, Vancouver, or Calgary itself.

Does this Information Age society leave avenues for altering the "flavour of democracy" by reducing some of the "Hamiltonian" aspects of (Con)federal Representation in return for allowing a degree of Jeffersonian independent freeholders, able to use their sovereign franchise in a more direct relation to their own governance?


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Feb 2005)

For those willing to do a little reading, here are a couple of essays which might illuminate a few of the ideas being tossed around:

http://www.friesian.com/quiz.htm

http://www.friesian.com/rights.htm


----------



## Zipper (18 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> [Does this Information Age society leave avenues for altering the "flavour of democracy" by reducing some of the "Hamiltonian" aspects of (Con)federal Representation in return for allowing a degree of Jeffersonian independent freeholders, able to use their sovereign franchise in a more direct relation to their own governance?



Thats a very good question Inf. I'm interested to see how you would expand that to take into account a population of our size, or even that of the States.

Brad: Your first link doesn't work. But the 2nd one was good reading. Although I agree with some of the ideals of Commuitarism, it goes to far into an absolute. Some good ideas. But to take that far would (as it stated) be totalitarism. 

The other side of the coin that it was speaking of. That being that the judicial system is strictly for punishment is also very scary. Which is why I do not agree with the US form of law. Not thrilled with ours mind you, but oh well. As it has been proven with the crime rate, punishment does nothing to cut crime (death penalty not withstanding). And to leave it totally to individual choice to commit a crime or not, regardless of circumstances, is basically tantamount to flushing a human being down the toilet. We as a community DO have a choice to intercede and possibly prevent that person from even having to make that choice.

As well. With the idea that communitarism leads to a police state because that is the only way a State can maintain order, and that the US is based on individualism. Then why is it that the States have more police forces, more jails, more camera's to monitor the population, more fear, more information gathering on the individual, and more controls based on national security then any other western nation?

Confusing isn't it?


----------



## a_majoor (18 Feb 2005)

As has been pointed out, a lot of the assumptions which went into designing the forms of government we have were overtaken by events; the Congress of the United States exerts far more power over the individual than the Founding Fathers ever expected or envisioned, and the strong centre, weak provinces formula of the Fathers of Confederation is also wildly out of sync with their expectations.

Switzerland is often held up as an example for democratic reform. Citizens can propose legislation through direct referendums (organized at the citizen level, not at the whim of the government), which the government must then consider. Citizens can be directly engaged with the issues of the day, and if enough of them are excited about the idea of a gun registry or "gay marriage" (to use two Canadian examples), then they can organize, raise a petition and put issues on the table for legislation, rather than having to accept something is law by judicial fiat or because the PMO thinks it is a good way to get votes. This is probably what Infanteer is alluding to; the means of getting citizens constructively involved with the issues, and feeling they can take positive action.

There still need to be checks and balances, if our systems are drifting into Oligarchies, a broadly based "Democracy" based on direct citizen participation may tend to drift towards "mob rule", with clever demegogues setting the agenda and whipping up a mob frenzy for support (as the ancient Athenians found to their cost).


----------



## rw4th (18 Feb 2005)

> And to leave it totally to individual choice to commit a crime or not, regardless of circumstances, is basically tantamount to flushing a human being down the toilet. We as a community DO have a choice to intercede and possibly prevent that person from even having to make that choice.



Ans how would you go about this?


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2005)

> There still need to be checks and balances, if our systems are drifting into Oligarchies, a broadly based "Democracy" based on direct citizen participation may tend to drift towards "mob rule", with clever demegogues setting the agenda and whipping up a mob frenzy for support (as the ancient Athenians found to their cost).



A couple of days ago I made the observation in response to Zipper that at the structural level there really isn't a lot to differentiate one country's government from the other.  Virtually every country has a Head of State, a Head of Government, a Cabinet, a bureaucracy, a legislature (single or multi-chambered - In Canada I think we could argue that the Privy Council could actually constitute a 3rd chamber along with the Senate and the Commons), a judiciary, police, military.......

The differences are in the rules.  Rules of eligibility and rules of operation.

Now to Hockey.

Hockey is a game.  It is governed by rules.  After a while all teams figure out how to use the rules to their best advantage.  The either succeed themselves or watch others and learn how they do it and copy success.  After a while everybody is playing the game the same way and factors outside those regulated on the ice take over.  Bigger players render the ice smaller making the game more defensive for example.  Those that can afford to hire the biggest players tend to have the least goals against.  The exceptional little man that can score goals becomes increasingly valuable.

Likewise, for many, politics is a game played in the same vein.  The parties learn how to use the rules to their advantage.  Those that learn fastest end up dominating the game.

Revolutions occur when people wish to change the dominant group and can't see how to do that within the rules.  But they are traditionally destructive, destabilizing and usually don't end up achieving their goal becaus most supporters find they have just changed one oligarchy for another.

Is there a way to institutionalize "radical" rule changes from time to time so as to reset the oligarchies?  And still do this within the bounds of tradition and maintain continuity?

Are there political equivalents to erasing the red line, widening the rink and increasing the size of the net?


----------



## a_majoor (18 Feb 2005)

We may be seeing it happening now, with the evolution of Internet technology. 

Most kingdoms, empires and states were constrained by the communications technology of the day. You can even see this here in North America, the states and provinvces on the east coast were defined by "hard" geographic boundaries and the size of the areas that could be connected by men riding on horses. Even the "Canadas" were defined by geography and horsemanship, the modern provinces of Ontario and Quebec are largely shaped they way they are due to the inclusion of "Rupert's Land" into Canada. "Rupert's land" itself was defined mostly by the system of rivers used to maintain the fur trade. As we go further west, the sizes of the provinces and states change due to the introduction of railroads and telegraphs, allowing larger areas to be controlled from the centre, so to speak.

The internet is a vast Increase in the communications bandwidth, which "could" result in a nightmarish "1984" scenario, since Big Brother really will have the ability to observe you 24/7. Luckily for us, the Internet is a two way system, which allows us to observe Big Brother, as well as simply side stepping him when he gets in the way.

My take on this is in well connected civic societies, this will lead to interest groups being able to find each other, and then to assemble resources, and finally to start and manage projects which governments cannot or will not do. Given the vast numbers of possible interest groups, and the fact that in nations practicing "Civic Nationalism" people will tend to be in overlapping groups (i.e. the other day I stumbled across a series of linked sites, all devoted to conservative government, but one run by an evangelical black woman, and one by a gay man. In this case, politics was the intersection of their interests). In less well connected societies, or ones dominated by "blood" in Kirkhill's examples, this may lead to negative consequences if the resource and project management is used for agressive purposes (fewer overlaps mean fewer cross connections).

Resource and project management in the West could lead to the creation of new entities, such as city states (perhaps bearing nominal allegiance to the country they are sited in), free floating structures in the oceans or space which are beyond even the notional control of the parent nations, or the creation and membership supernational organizations like the various guilds and orders of the middle ages.

The final nudge will be the demographic changes noted in the other thread, European nation states are actually heading for extinction at current demographic rates. It will be interesting to see who moves into the ruind of Italy or Germany, and how they will treat the ruins (That collesium is in the way of the new mosque. Bulldoze it!)


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Feb 2005)

Punishment certainly decreases crime rates; at least, the Americans are blaming increased incarceration rates for corresponding crime rate reductions.   When the habitual criminals are behind bars they can't commit crimes.   That at least is straightforward.   If in BC we actually lock away the people committing the vast majority of auto thefts as they pop up to claim the title, auto theft will decrease.

>Then why is it that the States have more police forces, more jails, more camera's to monitor the population, more fear, more information gathering on the individual, and more controls based on national security then any other western nation?

When I hear or see the phrase "police state", I think "Nazi Germany" or "Stalinist Russia" or "crappy little South American dictatorship", not "a country with a lot of police".   As for the rest, I haven't seen data to prove or disprove any of it.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2005)

> Resource and project management in the West could lead to the creation of new entities, such as city states (perhaps bearing nominal allegiance to the country they are sited in), free floating structures in the oceans or space which are beyond even the notional control of the parent nations, or the creation and membership supernational organizations like the various guilds and orders of the middle ages.



I am coming to the view that the "City" is actually the natural order of things.  The "Country" is a fiction.

The City is defined by a hard, geographic reality.  Every bit as real as a river, mountain, lake, ocean or glacier.  It creates it's own climate and imposes strictures on movement of all that approach it.  People must bend to the City as much as they create the City.  On the other hand we can argue that we can melt glaciers, level mountains and divert rivers. The City is "facts on the ground" as they Palestinian - Israeli issue demonstrates.

The Country is defined by the amorphous concept of a border.  Subject to whim and constantly redefined according to interpretation.

Within the City the people are constantly forced into communication with each other and thus speak the same language.  They inter-marry and thus share the same blood.  They are a Nation.

A Country is an agglomeration of Cities.  It may also have independent pastoralists, tribes and nomads within its borders.  As does Iraq.  These individual entities all have their own individual characters and define themselves inwards by blood and language.  It is a collection of many Nations.

The challenge for anyone trying to create a Nation-State, or even an Empire, (same thing with better spin) is to convince all of the several Nations within the area of influence that they claim that they are all related and can share a common destiny.

The convincing can come at the point of a sword, at the threat of divine intervention or as response to a perceived natural external threat.  Attempts are made to find commonality and iron out differences.  Often this has meant imposing a belief system and a common language.  These strategies have been variously successful but never complete.

Those of you who have served in Afghanistan or Yugoslavia will probably have noticed something that I learned when I was five years old going up to Scotland to visit my Grandparents.  I was constantly amazed and amused by the way that they could pick out fellow Scots based on their accents.  Not just class based but geography - Lowlander from Highlander and Islander, North East from Southwest, Ayrshire from the neighbouring county of Lanarkshire,  Ayr from Irvine, Annbank from Peebles.  Based on these speech clues then they would attribute religion, education, attitudes, culture, even friend or foe (historically).  

Over the millenia the people have held many beliefs, have given allegiance to many overlords, but at the end they still define themselves by geography and blood. By their City, or town, or village.  For nomads I think we might talk about mobile villages - blood with no fixed geographic centre but certainly a sense of geography pertaining to pastures.

So when you say that the City - State is on the rise I don't think the City - State ever went away.  Nation-States could be seen as just a kinder, gentler attempt by City-States to hold dominion, to establish an Empire, over their surrounding terrain and to secure the resource base they need to survive.  

Kind of goes back to the Enlightened Self-Interested view of the world.  Better to give a little and keep the natives happy than have to incur the costs of keeping them suppressed in perpetuity.

From that, Canada started as a colony with no City-States in evidence.  Cities grew up within the colony.  Now the Cities are acting as cities always have - they are a draw on people and resources and thus are a threat to smaller communities and hinterlands.

At this point in the past, once the hinterlands started to feel threatened they did things like hauling down flags and declaring themselves independent of the centre.  The center responded either benevolently or malevolently with the tools available to reassert control.

The army was one of those tools.  The church another. The school yet another.  Sometimes the three together.

But at bottom the over-riding need was to have people bonded by a belief that was stronger than their blood-bond.

As noted this sometimes was effective and long-lasting, but never permanent.

The internet plays into this dynamic, as you suggest.  But maybe not so much in creating new societies and beliefs as validating that those with different beliefs are not alone and therefore not "lunatic fringe elements" that a dominant belief system can steam-roller.

That makes the business of Empire or Nation-State building that much harder and perhaps it does make it impossible.  In that case the end result would be the demise of borders and the return to discrete communities.  

But unlike communities of the past these would not be isolated.  They would be in communication with each other, both physically and electronically, and as everyone from Adam Smith to Marshall McLuhan and Alvin Toffler have pointed out - communication levels differences.  You might tend towards the "global village" where people are geographically isolated sufficiently to be able to honour their culture and traditions without being perceived as threats or perceiving threats.  At the same time they are sufficiently of a common mind that they are less subject to being stampeded to a course of action by demagoguery.  That sounds totally pollyannaish. :-\

In the meantime, before the "Second Coming" we will have to deal with the chaos that will result as borders are reorganized and erased and people struggle their way through existing belief base conflicts convinced in the rightness of their own position.  And that isn't going to be tidy.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Feb 2005)

Your historical analysis was very interesting, and I agree with almost all off it, except for the cities being the "permanent" expression of political groupings.

Cities arose late in human history, (we spent tens of thousands of years being hunter-gatherers), and even after the Neolithic revolution and the rise of agriculture, it still took a long time for cities to come into their own. Victor Davis Hanson, in a fairly brilliant inversion of the usual paradigms of Classical Greek culture points out the obvious fact that the vast majority of the population in any culture in history is rural and agrarian. (Only at the end of the 19th century did that trend finally end in the west). The _Polis_ originally existed for the support of the farming community, being the site of the _Agora_ and _Eklassia_, only later becoming both dominant and parasitic of the surrounding community.

Cities do seem "self contained", and are certainly easier to protect than, say, open range land (civic militias carved out areas of civil liberty during the middle ages because they *could* defy the duke or king), but they are not, which is the weak point of any argument on the dominance of cities. Raw materials, food, information and people flow into cities, to be manipulated and converted into valuable goods and services. Just as in the middle ages, cities today can still be besieged and starved into submission. Even free floating ocean or space cities will not be fully free from these ties.

Given the known weakness of cities and vulnerabilities to various forms of attack, the cities of the future may become much smaller, and the intense interaction between critical masses of people which power the economies of cities will take place through both electronic media and roving "guilds" (for want of a better word) of consultants and service professionals. Thinking back to my previous post, "post national" entities might exist such as the "City State" of Chicago, which exert economic influence and control over a wide swath of the mid west, but pay taxes to the United States Government to take advantage of the physical protection offered by the armed forces and BMD shield. 

As the Chinese like to say "may you live in interesting times". Interesting indeed...


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2005)

I take your point on permanent - poor expression perhaps.  Not to suggest they always have been but rather to suggest that once they are, Carthage notwithstanding (or is that Carthage not standing?), they are very difficult things to erase.

And the larger the population the harder it is both physically and politically.

I agree on your point about the rise of the cities but I could suggest that cities arose out of two primary entities - the successful farm - as at Jericho and Catal Huyuk - or the successful waypoint - as at Tbilisi which sits astride the pass that connects the Black Sea to the Caspian.  Then success breeds success, they grow like topsy, attract envious neighbours and need to prepare to defend their property.
This sense of security further attracts others willing to trade a bit of freedom for three squares and a bit of peace.

I wasn't suggesting that Cities were self-contained.  Far from it.  I was actually suggesting that though they are discrete - have clearly defined boundaries that may or may not be defended - their constantly growing population results in competition for resources and people.  First with the people that fill the spaces between, the hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists and the settled tribes in small hamlets and farms, but ultimately with other cities expanding outwards across the same space between.  This results in conflict between equals and general war as opposed to absorption.

The end result of that is either destruction and victory, absorption, or accomodation.  In the event of accomodation borders are described and the Empires of the competing cities are recognized until the thirst for resources puts new pressure on the cities and accomodation is no longer possible.  

Cities are highly vulnerable to loss of resources.  Agreed fully.

Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver need their hinterlands to keep them supplied.  But if they aren't treating their hinterlands with care and consideration - not returning as good as they get - what is in it for the hinterlands.  Who can survive better in the event of a general falling out?  The city dweller, the farmer or the nomad?

On the other hand it would take a massive amount of political will to let things get to that pass.

It would take a lesser amount of effort to see Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, and maybe Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Halifax, declared as separate coequal entities with the provinces.

The cities themselves already are different from their hinterlands and from each other.  They all represent separate polities and the Federal Government is trying - unsuccessfully I think - to find a way to convince the residents within its boundaries that they all share something - anything - in common.  They can't use religion. They have failed on political ideology.  They are trying values - through Medicare, Day Care, Education and Pensions - but they are losing out on things like same sex marriage, gun control, capital punishment, immigration,....... So for every thing they find in common they find something else that divides.

I am not convinced that the centre can hold.  And not just in Canada, the US and Europe, China and Russia.  The one effect everyone can observe with respect to the rise of Supranational Agencies like the EU and the UN is the breakdown of old, large States/Empires into smaller ones as the smaller ones feel less threatened.  

So now we have 192? countries at the UN instead of 40 something in 1949?  The USSR splits and Russia and the Caucasus splits further as each little valley seeks to carve out a separate existence?  Iraq is at least three, maybe 18 separate states? Yugoslavia. East Timor. Aceh. Eritrea.  Scotland and Wales?  Upstate New York from New York City?

I generally perceive a move backwards towards the smaller geographic entity with tight knit family ties and a reorganization of boundaries, but at the same time I think that roads, trains, planes, ships, phones, the internet all will create a more open?, uniform? - I don't know what word I am looking for - world view.

Ach, I'm getting myself confused now....

Over to you.


----------



## Zipper (19 Feb 2005)

Wow...

I think I'll ignore my ravings of before and try to even come close to having some input on this Sci-fi discussion. This is VERY interesting. This is getting quite Cyber-punkish.

Here goes...

I think I would like to argue the fact of city's becoming "states" unto themselves for the vary fact of the supply chain discussion going on in the last few posts.

Unless you do go with Majoor's idea of smaller cities, the city as we know today would not be able to survive within their current hinterlands. The demands for food alone are far to great to be able to supply say Toronto with its immediate area of influence. The population would have to fall considerably in order for it to do so.

Which is why there is so much trade that comes from various "nation-states" as we know them today. Japan itself would never survive with its current population and only does because of massive importing of food and goods.

So I ask. How feasible is this idea of autonomous cities that only look to their "nation" for things like military protection?

I do agree though that, within Canada at least, the city is becoming a much more self-contained powerful entity and will in my mind eventually eclipse that of the need for provincial levels of government. They in essence will take over for that body politic.


----------



## Zipper (19 Feb 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> Ans how would you go about this?



Sorry have to go into this, as I also have a question to pose.

That is the reason for social programs. You know. Feed the poor, get them off the street, clean them up (drug rehab), teach them to take care of themselves and contribute to society by getting a job and trying to lead a "normal" life.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Punishment certainly decreases crime rates; at least, the Americans are blaming increased incarceration rates for corresponding crime rate reductions.  When the habitual criminals are behind bars they can't commit crimes.  That at least is straightforward.  If in BC we actually lock away the people committing the vast majority of auto thefts as they pop up to claim the title, auto theft will decrease.



So your going to lock up and throw away the key for "everyone" that commits a crime? And how are you going to pay for that? The US has more people in jail then all the other western nations combined (something over 2 million). Have they solved the crime issue?

I agree that a certain percentage of criminals who are deemed likely to commit another crime should be kept there. But the vast majority of criminals are either one time commiters (flare of anger, drunk and hit someone, etc.) or people who have a substance abuse problem that if treated properly and given the tools to get a job, just may do so. With proper programs in place, you can at least attempt to save some of them.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Then why is it that the States have more police forces, more jails, more camera's to monitor the population, more fear, more information gathering on the individual, and more controls based on national security then any other western nation?
> 
> When I hear or see the phrase "police state", I think "Nazi Germany" or "Stalinist Russia" or "crappy little South American dictatorship", not "a country with a lot of police".  As for the rest, I haven't seen data to prove or disprove any of it.



Then I guess your "view" needs to be expanded a wee bit. I'm sure one of our Poli Sci profs here could give you the definition of a "police state" as being, a place where your increased need for police as a means of "control" is no longer just for perceived "protection" but is entering the realm of controlling the population. Now that control is simply by showing up. If you see a cop, you change your behavior. It also extends to more passive means of control. Ie. "we're watching you" camera's.

This leads me into my question.

I read on the missile defense thread (Majoor, your a major (;D) contributor over there) someone referring to our need to participate with the US on their free moving border programs. Now I'm not totally familiar with this, but if it entails them wanting finger prints, DNA, retinal scans, or any other type of ID that is above my name on a certified card, they can forget it. I'm hearing that they want to install such things at airports as well.

I don't know about you guys, but the whole individual's rights and freedoms thing doesn't extend to them having a piece of me and knowing exactly where I am at any given point in the day.

Doesn't it even cause a slight itch in your brain when they not only have camera's everywhere, and they want to install them in schools now. But they want to have our absolute ID (Finger prints, retinal scans, DNA) on file so that they know exactly we are who we are supposed to be.

On top of this, they can already track us by our spending habits (credit and debit cards), and that stupid On Star that tracks your car wherever you go. Little black boxes in your car that record your speed and distance traveled at any point in time.

Somehow this screams loss of individual freedoms to me. In fact it goes all the way to the idea of the mark of the beast from revelations. So it may come to surprise you that I am not totally for all means of the social system. These forms don't say "for the good of the whole" to me. They've gone beyond that point to that of "we want to know just what your doing".

Sigh...thus why I question much of the direction of the States. I see people's points that a total social system means totalilitarism. But I argue that on the other side of the coin, it can go the same way. With their drive for individual freedoms, they too are going down that very route in the name of "security or protecting our individual rights as a country" while at the same time taking more and more personal control away from the individual citizen. And their use of "fear of the bogyman" to do so has the people clammering to give up even more.

I see these things happening slowly in Canada. I see the need for camera's in stores and other places of business so that they can protect their stock. But to put them in schools, and on road sides, busy pedestrian corners, the general walking areas in malls, to monitor us at large (for our protection) just starts the whole itch again. The argument that they are there to help "protect us" and that we should give up a small amount of freedom for that just doesn't wash. Our crime rates have been pretty steady over the last few generations and violent crime has even fallen. So to use crime as an excuse is silly. 

I don't know. Sorry for the rave. Just wouldn't mind one of the Prof's to input on this. Or is this to much sociology for you?


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Feb 2005)

> but if it entails them wanting finger prints, DNA, retinal scans, or any other type of ID that is above my name on a certified card, they can forget it. I'm hearing that they want to install such things at airports as well.



Already done -  been in place at Vancouver and Toronto (to my certain knowledge) for years.  Electronic palm prints and finger prints.  I signed up years ago when I was regularly crossing the border on business.  Much speedier access.  No grief.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Feb 2005)

The big difference between the former USSR, Nazi Germany or Modern China and the UK, United States or Canada is how all this information is used. If Adolf Hitler had the ability to put cameras on every street corner, he would have, and the Gestapo would be reviewing tapes 24/7 to ferret out "suspicious" behavior, however defined.

In the UK, which has the most cameras per capita of any nation, cameras are set up to monitor high crime areas, civil police monitor the cameras and act on criminal activity as *defined by statute*, and they must explain their actions to the judiciary (video tapes are used as evidence). Often, a warrent must be sought to place cameras where crime partterns are changing.

As well, since data is not centralized, special provisions must be granted to coalate the data for law enfocement and coounter terrorist activities. (Yes, that would be the USA Patriot act; they must be able to show reasonable grounds to start the roving wiretaps, check your library records etc.) This is not the case in real "Police States".  As well, the crime and punishment aspects are divorced, unlike Ba'athist Iraq (say), where the secret police could sieze you, interrogate you, tourture or execute you and dump your body into a mass grave or drop it off at your family home at their own discression.


----------



## Zipper (19 Feb 2005)

All very true.

Its just hard to imagine going down this road and not having someone (some group) abuse it in the future. The potential is very much there for misuse. How many times in the past have various law enforcment agencies done the deed, got caught abusing it, and then then been reined in?

Either way. What about the city as state topic? It was getting rather interesting...


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Feb 2005)

>So your going to lock up and throw away the key for "everyone" that commits a crime?

Of course not.  But what about those that are on their third or fourth or fifth etc go?


----------



## a_majoor (19 Feb 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >So your going to lock up and throw away the key for "everyone" that commits a crime?
> 
> Of course not. But what about those that are on their third or fourth or fifth etc go?



To spin this back into the city state discussion, we are seeing some variations of this. Vancouver attempts to deal with drug problems with a "needle exchange", other cities have treatment programs and some simply institute draconian law enforcement regimes. It is difficult to discern what approach is "best", since the goals overlap to some extent and conflict with others, but mostly because they are also overlain with the efforts of other levels of government (and even international considerations. The DEA is not a big fan of Canada's approach to the "deamon weed", for example.

A "City State" which can set its own rules would be able to try various approaches to law and order, and indeed, several city states can try different ideas. Criminals can be incarcerated, executed or even exiled (the ancient Greeks used all three approaches depending on the crime), while the "national government" and "guilds" simply screens applicents to the Armed Forces and professional positions for previous criminal records from their city states...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Feb 2005)

Since this post is more related to the power of the Internet, I attach it separatly:



> SOME INTERESTING THOUGHTS ON BLOGS AND THE BRITISH ELECTIONS:
> 
> For decades the national conversation in most western countries has been directed by a few talking heads. Newspapers play important roles but all the evidence suggests that broadcasters have possessed the greatest potential to frame public debate. British politicians have known that communicating their message depends upon getting the nod from a small number of powerful figures in the broadcast media.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zipper (20 Feb 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >So your going to lock up and throw away the key for "everyone" that commits a crime?
> 
> Of course not.   But what about those that are on their third or fourth or fifth etc go?



As I said before...

I agree that a certain percentage of criminals who are deemed likely to commit another crime should be kept there. But the vast majority of criminals are either one time commiters (flare of anger, drunk and hit someone, etc.) or people who have a substance abuse problem that if treated properly and given the tools to get a job, just may do so. With proper programs in place, you can at least attempt to save some of them.



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> A "City State" which can set its own rules would be able to try various approaches to law and order, and indeed, several city states can try different ideas. Criminals can be incarcerated, executed or even exiled (the ancient Greeks used all three approaches depending on the crime), while the "national government" and "guilds" simply screens aapplicantsto the Armed Forces and professional positions for previous criminal records from their city states...



So you think that the individual cities will create their own criminal codes? We already have to some degree. But your thinking it will go further? Interesting.

I'm rather out on this. Their are either two ways I can see these city states rising. One being that as more people live in urban centers as compared to rural, that the power bases move from provincial legislatures to city councils, with even some of the federal powers moving to that level as well.

The other is of course the more Sci Fi version of some massive destructive moment taking place that destroys all communication devices, thus creating an environment for cities to become "islands" of civilization and information if you will. Thus as they gain their communications back, they find that they rely more upon their own communitee's then that of the larger nation.

Weird? Oh yeah...

I think we are moving slowly to something more like the former however.

As for that report Majoor. I can definitely see that happening. Alot of interest groups who went fairly unheard are going to have a far greater voice in future.


----------



## pbi (21 Feb 2005)

I think that we have to be very careful to distinguish between the selection of means of delivering social programs (needle centres) or the temporary emphasis placed on various municipal law enforcement efforts (city campaign against hooker strolls) and the devolution of our national criminal code. To me, the posession and enforcement of a common code of criminal justice is an important unifying instrument and a symbol of a sovereign state, and not something that should be devolved to muncipalities with their essentially narrow and short-term political focus. How are Canadians to appear equal before the law if each city sets its own criminal code? One could certainly find fault in our criminal justice system today, but at least the CCC sets out in principle that a Canadian in Prince Rupert and a Canadian in Corner Brook are subject to a common code with certain common guiding principles in its application. 

As well, further devolution of powers away from the Federal centre, especially with regards to criminal law (which often has an effect on our relationship with other nations especially the US) would IMHO risk further weakening our ability to present any sort of unified national front when dealing internationally.

City states disappeared because they became obsolete in the face of nation-states. I do not see a city being any more suited to "state": status now than in the days of Athens, Venice or Danzig.

Cheers


----------

