"Flavours of Democracy"

[Brad Sallows]

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

Not necessarily.

 

[jrhume]

Who decides those 'needs'?

Jim

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm guessing Zipper does.

Or maybe he will let me decide his needs.

 

[Infanteer]

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]

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]

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.

But he's right out of 'er in saying the US has a lower standard of living than, well, almost anyone (ok, maybe Luxembourg 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 heights.

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 stroll along the Downtown East Side, around Main & Hastings, or 'Pain & Wasting' as it's commonly refereed to as. This area of Vancouver has seen a lot of HIV/Hep C, drug, rape, murder, prostitution, and all manner of undesirable 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.

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.

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.

Who decides those 'needs'?

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?

>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]

Quote from: Kirkhill on Yesterday at 17:42:28
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?

Fair comment Zipper.  An unthinking response on my part.

 

[jrhume]

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

I can do that on my own.

Jim

 

[rw4th]

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]

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. :-*

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

I agree and disagree with you. Your right that any "pure" system can go down the total control road. The people (majority) themselves have to give a damn about the little people. It doesn't work otherwise. The blending of the two is far more likely to work. A democracy with social ideas.

As for our "drift", I don't see Sweden going into a totalitarism type of trap? The people do not wish it that way. And yet they have good social programs, health economy, good manufacturing base, and a strong military for defense. Its the will of the people to do such things.

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.

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?