So "opportunism" isn't evil? That's a strange statement.
If you've read the article, you'd know that I just use the word 'evil' because people in our society do, not because I even believe in the concept.
If something isn't evil because it is possible to defend yourself from it, does that mean beating someone to death with your fists isn't 'evil' if you could learn martial arts or get a gun to defend yourself?
All you have to do is click on the 'no thanks' at the bottom. If you already have an account with substack it automatically goes to the article.
First, she needs to quit.
But the party needs to replace her not with some star from outside of the party, but rather someone who's been in it for a long time and really understands how it works. That's been a big problem with it from the day May became leader.
Second, the person that replaces her needs to really understand what the role that the Green Party could actually fill in Canada. It isn't to become the government. And it's not even to be a 'ginger party' like the NDP. It needs to be the party that works to raise the consciousness of ordinary Canadians. By that, I mean they should educate people about how government really works, and why we need to deal with the Climate Emergency.
A political party can accomplish a lot without actually winning elections. It has a huge head start with fundraising due to the tax write-offs the govt offers. And organized Electoral District Associations can act like lego blocks that the party can use to mobilized public actions regionally, provincially, federally---and even internationally.
The problem with the Greens is once they start gaining any traction, some outside 'famous person' pops up who wants to join by becoming the leader and get elected to Parliament. At that point, every other aspect of organizing ridings and raising people's consciousness gets thrown away so the party can strip it's gears getting Peerless Leader elected. This eliminates the ability of the party to grow or do much else other than stroke the ego of the leader. That's exactly what happened with May was made leader without having ever been a member of the party.
Elizabeth May has worked very hard for the Green Party and as a member of Parliament. But she doesn't understand the role that the Greem Party should be filling and because of that she's really damaged it---probably fatally.
In general you make a good point. I suppose in some cases it would be possible to cut costs and increase service.
Unfortunately, Carney is committed to dramatically increase spending but not taxation. I don't know much about how he views things like wealth stratification but as someone who has been involved in politics I do know politicians have to support crazy stuff to get elected.
We were in a nasty place before the last election and stuck having to choose between Carney and Milhouse while the orange goof threatened our existence. As I said in the article, I don't know what Carney wants or plans on doing, but I do believe we should expect more from our civil services and I don't think the real problem is lack of funds.
Of course, there are nuances. The graphic was only a mechanism for showing readers that there is an issue that is orthogonal to the standard left-right continuum. When someone comes up with a way of measuring legalism objectively (sorta like the way the Gini coefficient measures inequality), I'll think about parsing things out with more precision. ;-)
"Capitalism is the enemy of all who seek to seize liberty. Only through full anarchocommunism can all be freed."
Agreed. My concern is always how to get from where we are now to where we want to be.
One of the problems that I tangentially referred to, but didn't get into because of space constraints is the way capitalism is colonizing governance. Any large project or disagreement brings in highly-paid consultants like ants to a picnic. And for them, there is every inducement to stretch-out the process as long as possible because they get paid by the hour. I wonder how long things would stretch if all consulting contracts were by the job instead of by the hour?
I've never liked the word 'progressive' because it's a classic case of loaded language: a way of speaking that assumes a disputed point in the words used. That's why I put the term in scare quotes whenever I use it. Because of all the loaded language, the self-described 'progressives' I'm talking about (who totally dominate the NDP and Green Parties) dismiss anyone who disagrees with their assumptions out of hand.
I was recently at a rally where Charlie Angus spoke and it was just assumed---totally without any discussion at all---that Bills C-2 and C-5 were evidence that Mark Carney's govt are total and complete sell-outs. That's just like the people I meet who would think they were grooviest, most compassionate, 'progressive' people possible---yet fight like Hell against any changes that would speed up the supply of new housing.
One of the people who spoke at that rally is an NDP Council member. I've talked to him about housing in the past. I asked him why the city's official plan has nothing in it about making sure that there's enough housing for everyone in the city and he flat out refused to consider this. He said it just isn't the city's job to think about housing. He also said that the only solution would be if the federal government paid for enough social housing to get everyone a home. That's flat-out insane as it would cost an astronomical amount of money and there's no way there would ever be enough public support for it. This is what happens if a political movement substitutes aspirations and process for actually getting the job done.
I suppose what I hope Carney will be is something of a Canadian Deng Xiaoping. He was famous for saying "I don't care if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice".
Not quite sure what you mean by this comment, but there's lots of talk. But most of seems to me to be deflections from admitting that we need to change zoning rules that keep developers from building new housing. The common refrains are things like "developers won't build affordable housing", "it's because of financialization", "I'm all for more density---just not in this neighbourhood", "I just don't think it's fair for people who already own their own home to pay for the infrastructure needed to build new housing", etc. I've put a lot work into researching this subject for a lot of articles, and when I looked into all of these things I found that they really aren't the problem---it's the nest of legalization that makes the process of home-building super slow and piles a lot of unnecessary costs onto the developers.
Unfortunately, a great many 'progressives' are baby boomers who already own their own homes and they simply don't understand the housing crisis because it doesn't directly affect them.
My concern is a suspicion that a lot of the support for people like Trump, Poilievre, and other populists comes from the fact that 'progressives' don't even acknowledge that the sclerotic ways of modern govt are doing things like driving up the cost of housing. In the third part of this series I'll be talking about this. There's a graph from Naxos polling that I find is really interesting---it seems to show a lot of the people who used to support Poilievre have moved not so much to Carney as to 'undecided'.
Please note, I'm not completely sold on Carney. But I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt right now. I'm also of the opinion that if we won't support politicians who at least say the right things, we are never going to get anyone in office that will do a good job.
I suspect a lot of the 'privacy' excuses that various agencies use to make things difficult are ultimately bogus. But that too is an opportunity cost of setting up too many rules. Saying that it isn't is something of a 'no true Scotsman' argument.
Let's just agree to disagree. I'm not particularly set in my ways about this issue, but I don't think you've convinced me yet. Luckily, the decision isn't up to me. But I still am going to use opposition to Bill C-2 as a means of introducing the points I want to raise in the second article on this subject--which I am convinced are important.
As an aside, I just want to mention how civil this conversation has been. It reinforces my feeling that there's no need for social media to be so damn divisive--it's just that the private sector systems are designed to encourage outrage and fear. Yeah Lemmy! Yeah Fediverse!
Interesting you should mention phone location data not requiring a warrant. About ten years ago at work we had a problem with a student who'd posted a message somewhere that they were considering suicide. Someone else who saw this contacted the police, who came with a social worker and asked me to help find the person. (I used to work in an academic library as a porter.) The police said they had 'pinged' her phone, which allowed them to identify which corner of the building she was in. With a description, we were able to find her. So it would appear that there is already some ability to find phone locations without a warrant already.
As for the 'voluntarily shared, "subscriber information"', my understanding is that's pretty much sold to data brokers by most companies---which means the government could just buy if if they wanted. This gets back to my concern that if we tie up the hands of the government too much we end up with a situation where the government--even if it wanted to--couldn't protect us from big business. FaceBook, Twitter, Instagram, TicToc, etc---that's what really scare me, not Mark Carney. I get to vote for my government, but not Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk.
Also, about being affected by 'too much privacy' legislation, I disagree. I sponsored my wife as an immigrant and I can tell you that the layers of privacy nonsense that the government lays on top our interface with it can be irritating as Hell. It basically means that I cannot use the web-based system to interface with it because I use open source software. Another example, my wife has an account with the CRA but she can't access it on line because they insisted on mailing her a password through snail mail. It got lost. And to get this problem fixed, she has to contact them either through the CRA website (which she cannot access without the password) or call them on the phone number that's never answered and just kicks you off if you wait too long to get an answer. In addition, I still cannot use email to contact my doctor because of privacy rules---and I can only use the phone because the rules were waived during the COVID crisis.
There are a lot of problems with misapplied privacy rules that haven't been created or implemented with any appreciation of the opportunity costs involved. They add a huge burden on the efficiency of government programs and also the private sector when it interfaces with the government. I suspect that if the government tried to streamline the system in the way that Estonia has, it would be fought tooth and nail by people in support of privacy rights---although I think it would be just fear of change more than anything else. See: https://billhulet.substack.com/p/the-estonian-zero-bureaucracy-project
I did an interview with a retiring provincial cabinet minister once and she said that there was a torrent of vile, abusive, social media directed at her for years. She simply gave up on social media herself and had a staff member screen out most of it and send her the intelligent questions and comments. I'm kinda amazed that anyone would suggest that politicians shouldn't have the right to simply block abusive comments---.