Are you a conserative,liberal, moderate, etc and why

Post Reply New Topic

I am a left-wing radical pro-education, pro-intellectualism, anti-death penalty, anti-prison, pro-humanism, pro-abortion and pro-darwinism.

I believe in a strong government to ensure welfare, education and high taxation to finance these things.

i am a humanitarian with anarchist tendencies.

i am a humanitarian with anarchist tendencies.

Mostly, I don't give a sh*t. I believe rational selfishness is the path to follow.

ruveyn

I'm a liberal progressive.
I was raised in a union house hold, where there had been strong Democratic party allegiance. I've come to embrace the values of the American political left of compassion for those without power; whether it's a matter of siding with labor concerns, civil rights for ethnic, religious, or sexual minorities, or the rights of women. And if that means spending tax money on social programs, then so be it. I believe government should exist to help people, not just stand idly by, or worse, intentionally hurt them. On top of that, I stand by a political philosophy which doesn't shun intellectualism as the past time of the elite, or isn't swayed by religious literalism when it comes to science.
I was also raised in a devout Lutheran household. Because of my mainline protestant upbringing, I find my political concerns conducive with those of my politics, with the exception of the abortion issue. And even then, I find myself holding most of the pro-life movement in contempt, as they tend to care for you before your born, and after you die, but not in between. That is a total contradiction of both the political and religious beliefs I was raised with.
These days, finding myself growing further and further away from my working class roots (even though I've done more than my share of manual labor), I identify more with the likes of bohemians, beatniks, and hippies - artsy intellectual types who take life at a slower pace, and don't mind having squat.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I have trouble with the financial transaction tax, partly because it penalizes those of us (Canada and Germany) who had the good sense to keep a grip on our banking sector.
I also have concerns about setting up too many segregated pools of money (i.e. your approach on natural resource revenue). The EI account has been a source of questionable government accounting, and more pools like that create more unfunded pressures from the consolidated revenue fund.
I don't see a legitimate role for a Crown Corporation in the fuel marketplace.



Guaranteed Annual Income is an interesting policy, but I don't know if we are "there" yet.

You proposal for the AFN runs contrary to the Inherent Right Policy. The AFN is not now, and never has been a governmental instution, and creating it as an instrument of government would fundamentally alter its character. Furthermore, First Nations have treaty rights with the Crown, not with the AFN, and the AFN cannot stand in the place of the Crown for those purposes.

I favour self-government (along with the Kelowna Accord) as an approach to aboriginal issues.



I prefer a 'Lexicare' approach under which lawyers, like doctors, remain private contractors, but basic access to legal services related to criminal, family and administrative law are covered, to some extent.



Here I have to firmly disagree. The imposition of "works councils" is a violation of freedom of association rights. There should be no barriers to collectivisation, but neither should it be mandated.

I certainly disagree about your proposal on directors. The role of corporate directors is to represent the interests of shareholders. Unless workers own the company's share capital, they should have no voice in the election of directors--when they do own share capital, then they should have the same privileges as other shareholders of their class.



Again, too many segregated piles of money. We already have primary and secondary education free at the point of delivery, and all publicly funded post-secondary education is subsidized (though not entirely, I grant you).



Personally, I like STV. But it will never fly, because the electorate don't like it. Ontario and BC both made attempts that went nowhere. MMPR is a flawed, but palatable approach.

I disagree with abolishing the Senate. While that can work in a compact nation like New Zealand, in a federation you need something to stand in the way of Ontario's bloc of membership in the House of Commons. I would favour an elected Senate, within certain limits.

I do not agree about an elected Head of State. That sets up the potential for unworkable situations where both the Prime Minister and the Governor General have opposing electoral mandates. In my view Parliament (and more specifically the House of Commons) is supreme, and the Governor-General's powers should only come into play where the confidence of the House is lost, or is being abused by the Prime Minister of the day.

I would, however, favour indirect election of a Head of State, such as occurs in the Indian model.



I can't see my way clear to agreeing with you about hte UNGA. The European Parliament has demonstrated itself to be a difficult beast, and this with representatives from countries in which free and fair elections are generally the norm. Do you really want 1/6th of members of a UNPA being elected within the borders of the PRC?

A one-state solution in Israel-Palestine is simply not on. I denies Palestinians their own state, which is, I suggest, a necessary precondition to peaceful coexistence.



The problem with too rigid rent controls is that it tends to destroy the availability of rental property. Landlords either convert to strata, or destroy and rebuild in order to cancel existing obligations.

For one, I don't think Canada's banking sector is as good as people think. Sure, thanks to a record number of overseers IN the banks it was a bit more cautious, but there's still various problems. Household debt is rising. Speculation still needs to be controlled and disincentized with taxes.



Specifiying rules for where the money is to be used can be set up.



I do. To provide a counterbalance to the oligopolistic market power of Petrol corporations.



"Yet" is whenever the political willpower is mustered. The more advocates, the more willpower.



I'll perhaps backpeddle on that policy.



Perhaps I'd support something where you can choose you're own lawyer but all lawyers are paid by a single source (the government).



That'll be for the courts to decide, but it's flied in Germany. I really don't see that as a problem, workplaces already come with various organizations one contracts to associate with.



Boards of directors are a notorious blindspot in the corporate bureaucracy and in many instances have been appointed by top executives. In modern marketplaces there is a lot of shtort-termism in the thinking of publically traded company and this causes big firms to increasingly pay out profits as dividends. To counterbalance this pernicious trend, it is neccessary that the stakeholders of a company - the strongest of which are workers - have a say in its organization. Besides, have the firm would still be governed by transient shareholders. Given the concentration of power, the operations of businesses are in the public interest.

Germany seems to have done well whith this model.



Much of what I said was just a restating of the status quo as I believe that many schools are funded by property taxes (and some provicnial money - PST).



A few defeats after an intense PR campaign against it doesn't prove that it's inherently kryptonite.



Perhaps that or something like the Irish model when electing the head of state. Of course, the head of state wouldn't have as much power as the head of government.



I don't really see those problems as fatal, especially given that even as a powerful entity the UN still wouldn't have nearly as much authority as the national governments.



Palestinians are coming around to a One State solution. Furthermore, with various permanent Israeli settlements enroaching and expanding into the West Bank, a Two State Solution is impossible and stupid.



Various second generation rent controls are not rigid and have rules that prevent condo conversions. Furthermore, rent controls would only be implemented when a landlord is exerting the power monopolistic competition gives them.

Arnott, Richard, and Masahiro Igarashi. 2000. Rent Control, Mismatch Costs, and Search Efficiency. Regional Science and Urban Economics 30: 249-288.
^ This study, for instance, demonstrates the Rent controls can be beneficial in a monopolistically competitive market, for instance.

I'm wonked out on the party system. I don't see myself as fitting into the system. I come from a family that picked one side or the other and argued their merits with gusto. I think both sides have issues that I don't feel represent who I am. I've read alot in my life and I feel like they bank on the fact that people don't realize that alot of these ideas have been tried before and failed. I would describe myself as socially conservative in my behavior, but I believe the Republican party does poorly on social issues and is for those who have money. I have no home party and I'm ok with that.

I think that you are mixing apples and oranges here. A financial transaction tax is not going to diminish consumers rapaciousness for credit. I'm not even sure that it will cure banks' risk management approach of packaging up and selling debt. That fix will have to come from monetary policy--but the risk is that a significant drop in consumer spending due to interest rates will cause more damage.



I'm not saying that segregated pots of public money can't be done--I'm saying that it shouldn't be done unless there is a clear trust-beneficiary component (as with EI and CPP). Segregated pots of public money take spending discretion away from government, which means that government has less ability to meet emerging needs. This tends to encourage the kinds of practices where government "borrows" from the surplus in the EI account to balance the budget, or creates pots of money outside of the budget process to preserve spending freedom.

Far better to create the legislative mandate to fulfil the stated purpose, and then hold government to account for the public money being used to accomplish that mandate.



In a position of market unfairness, I think government's proper function is to step in an regulate the marketplace directly. Government's hand should be seen clearly, and for what it is. Government interference should not be disguised as "just another corner gas station."



Oh, I think the political will for GAI could be mustered--interestingly it can be mustered on both the far left (as progressive social policy) and the far right (as a rationalization of dozens of overlapping, ineffective handouts). But we will have to make some significant changes to tax policy (For tax purposes, will GAI dollars be the first dollars--taxed minimally, or the last dollars (taxed heavily)? What will be the approach to clawback?) and to transfer payment policy (Will these transfers go out in whole or net of projected clawback? Are there preferable transfer mechanisms?)

When you are talking about a billion dollars of transfers per week, you need to get the policy framework right.



I don't deny that the proxy mechanism has put a great deal of control in the hands of officers--but we are increasingly seeing shareholder revolts, and institutional investors (like my pension plan, and the mutual funds in my RRSP) exercising greater and greater influence over director elections.

Profits are an entitlement of shareholders--they are the ones who have taken the financial risk, it is they who are entitled to the financial reward. (And let's not forget that workers' pensions are some of the largest institutional investors who are reaping those rewards. Hamstring those pension funds and all you are doing is selling out pensions). Workers are entitled to a fair wage and safe working conditions, and they are entitled to bargain collectively to ensure that they receive these. But it is fundamentally wrong to give workers both collective bargaining rights, and control over the net proceeds of the shareholder's investment.



It likely varies considerably by province. In BC all public school and post secondary funding comes out of provincial revenues.



STV will always be more confusing to the voter than MMPR. If Parliament, or the Legislature was dealing with this alone, then I could see it happening (the way it did in Australia). But so long as electoral reform is going to be decided by referendum, I still believe STV to be a non-starter.

I can't speak for the Ontario situation, but it BC it was incredibly poorly understood, and did worse--not better--the second time around.



So replace a toothless talking shop with a toothless, elected talking shop? Sounds like a waste of time, money and effort to me. If it doesn't have power, it doesn't need to be elected. If it does have power, it's doomed ab initio.



You have a different lens than I. I don't see any apetite among even moderate Palestinians for a one state solution. As for Israeli settlements, I hold the view that Israel fully expects to give these up, and demand significant cash compensation for transferring this infrastructure to a new Palestinian state. The Americans and the Saudis will likely be held to ransom on this one. After all, if the Israelis and the Palestinians can come to an agreement on the rest, cutting a cheque will be easy pressure.



I don't deny that they can be--but the greater the number of barriers you put in the way of a landlord reaping a return on his investment, the easier it is for him to decide that the lot is more valuable as parking than as rental housing. You might be able to stop strata conversion, but you can't stop demolition. At some point the landlord simply walks away and leaves the building to rot.

There needs to be a balance point where government ensures that there is a fair market for both sides--tenants and landlords alike. It's all well and good to claim that controls would only be implemented when monopolistic power--but that trigger is too vague. Far better to break up the monopoly.

what do you mean by "i don't give a sh*t?"

sounds like two VERY different statements

I am generally indifferent to what other people do or think unless it portends harm to me and mine.

I am too busy living my life to get overly involved in the lives of others.

ruveyn

My response to "what are your political beliefs?" is always "They will either baffle or anger you."

I don't think it is an AS thing. Anyone who has actually thought about things will likely come to conclusions which the majority find deeply weird.

In my case, it is made doubly weird by my wariness of any strongly held beliefs, even in myself.

Ah I see now. Sounds cool.

This is actually a very good point; perhaps I'll use something like this from now on.

whoa ruveyn, totally just saw that your statement read "selfishness" instead of selflessness.

yiiiiiikes..

you read it right the first time. I live for my own sake that the well being of those I hold near and dear (primarily my family). All others take a lesser position in my priority scheme.

Rational selfishness is my modality.

ruveyn