Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

myata

Members
  • Posts

    4,478
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by myata

  1. If it's working anyhow and crumbs keep coming why bother changing anything? And if it stopped working and crumbs have been far between what do we do, no one knows how to fix it. That's the trap of the third world. Just in case.
  2. The system in place now was never intended as a democratic process in essence rather than just name, that includes transparency and responsibility of the authority to the citizens. Rather as a veil and not a very convincing one at that out of laziness mostly, like why bother? of the elites and interests that rule the country, essentially and as a primary objective in own interests, but sure Canadians can get crumbs sometimes. Just think what question, point, agenda can citizens set and implement now, not in a few decades perspective? There's none. Parties appoint candidates candidates push buttons as the party tells them and where are the citizens in this picture, only a distraction. It doesn't appear to me there's an easy or obvious way out this conundrum but we only have to see, few other options. I would be curious to see how we will meet the bicentennial in what shape. Would public healthcare still be with us, what the tuition will be in annual UBIs and such or maybe they'll finally invent the eternal energy or bottomless well.
  3. It's not going to be easy at all, as in addition to Canadians traditional apathy the ruling caste in the country has developed unique expertise in in distraction and division tactics, be it regional differences, circus question hour performances, "progressive agendas", media propaganda and so on, anything, other than delivering measurable factual results. When will the healthcare be "fixed for generation"? Hasn't it been a generation already? Any one of those issues can get society mired in fruitless discussions forever or very near rather than asking simple questions: who's benefiting from the status quo, and how the country can be made to work for the citizens?
  4. The country needs meaningful change but as far as I can tell, it's not regional differences that are driving the crisis. They were always there and will be, look at BC and Alberta with pipelines. No, the problem is of management of public wealth and affairs, specifically, that the function that was supposed and expected to perform it has grown detached and isolated from the society managing its own affairs at society's expense rather than solving its problems and producing innovation and improvements benefiting all citizens. Lack of accountability and controls, generally incentives and stimuli to perform and adapt does that naturally and rather quickly. The state of the society with respect to a number of essential functions is not great and under the status quo, will deteriorate further. And so the confederation is in a strong, soon critical and urgent need of an essential democratic renewal. The problem is that the system was never intended to adapt and reinvent itself and the population has no experience of conscious construction of democracy, and does not seem to be very interested anyways. And this is a difficult challenge. Not that there are no directions or ideas of renewal but the agent, engine of change appears to be absent. And that is a troubling similarity with a number of failing societies in the world. Other than hoping that coasting on a train built 160 years ago would work forever, somehow, what would be our options? Fortunately, we don't need to decide would it be some new Internet democracy in some unknown future or some mechanism to ensure independence of "representatives", let's have both! Let's have Real Equitability now, as a first step and then go on to refurbish and renew the system. That or eternal coasting, and are there any other options?
  5. As a practical way of effecting meaningful change the existing system is very much useless. It cannot change and it admitted it time and over again, "such a can of worms" and "not to be touched with a stick". The first step is to understand and admit it. The next can be, as the system cannot be changed by itself, to guide it into controlled crisis where it will have no choice but to change. The "Equitability Act" can be one such project - it is easy to understand for the general population, impossible to deny rationally and if implemented, will make the system work not only for itself but for the citizens as well, or at least not to reward itself at their expense. Of course we would have to look very carefully for the loopholes in the boring longreads that it expertly creates (results for the citizens, solving real problems of the society entirely different matter that can wait a few decades of automatic annual raises).
  6. It was an interesting and very necessary social experiment. Plentiful land, very few people. Fish that can be taken with a bucket forests from ocean to the ocean. People free from prejudices, problems and strife. What else needed to start building solid, sustainable prosperity for everybody? Something novel and original, to be proud of and marvel? No, let's do it the old way. Fish drained out forests and beavers cut and sold. Turkeys and bison all but exterminated. And just over a century on, back to the same old, those sitting on public money cutting themselves pieces and shares, no restraints, limits or shame, back to the business of cutting and sawing, bread vs. brioches. Too bad, yawn. It could have been interesting and exciting. Why couldn't it?
  7. And so, and very naturally, it always returns to brioches.
  8. Divide and conquer is such an old and still very effective story. When citizens cannot agree between themselves, they need wise and benevolent arbiter(s) and expert(s). And those need to be compensated fairly, generously and entitled .. even more generously. Look at bureaucracy compensation packages, they are right there at the world's highest. Now look at the services, education, healthcare, municipal are they anywhere near world's best? Add that without checks and controls, positive feedback from the society innovation will be slower and costs ever higher. A trivial one day repair of a few boards in the local park took over two months. The position is wrong already, and the vector is pointing in the wrong direction too.
  9. You can do a bit better if you had the choice to not pay for products, services and figureheads you don't need. It may not make you a fortune but still I would like that, even as a matter of principle. In a free society, one cannot be forced to buy, non negotiable and no questions asked.
  10. It doesn't though. Second law of thermodynamics goes against that, in the letter and reality. If salary can be made just under 200K why not over 500, like who or what said impossible? And it's a misconception that removing figurehead pieces would change anything in the power balance, only make it more obvious, not covered by figurehead imitation of "democracy". If the party office can make "representatives" push finger this way, and not vote for that commission of inquiry, how would it change if they were replaced with 24/7 smiling mannequins or portraits and we would save a ton, probably enough for an annual party countrywide, still better than nothing. And if you want to replace them with a functional modern democracy, it would be a bit different matter. That would require energy, will and intelligence to create and maintain. Because no machine can work forever without cleaning and fixing, thermodynamics does not allow that either.
  11. That would be one essential difference. The other one is that however bad capitalism can be, you can choose not to buy from this company and to not work for that. That does not work with MPs and other democratic entourage pretty much devoid by now of most if not all meaningful function. There's no choice to not buy it, and to not pay for it.
  12. At least banks provide essential service to the society and I'm not advocating only observing. Car loans, consumer loans, mortgages, industry and business loans really hard to get by without. But would I notice if all of a sudden we'd lose MP and GG? I don't think so. Just don't see how, one tiny and microscopic thing I'd need from them. At exorbitant and non-negotiable price.
  13. Laws of nature state that energy is needed to counter entropy and decay. And so where energy and will cannot be found there will be only one direction and trajectory. No surprises. For a while we can enjoy moderate corruption and even get used to it, problem is, it isn't a stable state. Why limit itself where there is no limits?
  14. A democracy of fugureheads who entitle themselves run behind the curtains under the banner of permanent conflict of interest. Whole family works for a charity given non-competitive contract, but see here, the paragraph says it's not so not to worry only an appearance! Is it the third world already, or still an appearance? Where citizens sleep and couldn't care, the democracy will degrade and decay. There will be no surprises.
  15. There's an essential difference: one, I, you don't have to work for any given capitalist's company. But nobody's asking us about whether we want to hire and pay MP, GG, etc. it's a one-way street, and here's the bill with annual indexation. Capitalism may have its own problems but they aren't necessarily the same as those of a dysfunctional, facade, democracy.
  16. I have no problem whatsoever with people making money, any amount of them from their own resources, ideas, time and efforts, and within law. The problem is then some of us begin to cut shares and entitlements for themselves out of someone else's pocket, our public pocket, and without free consent. Just so, we're entitled and here's the bill. There's no way I would agree to pay all these outrageous compensations if I had any choice not to - it's just nothing I'm interested in thank you, and no, not even next time. Taxation is fine as long as it's reasonable and pays for common good. This is not how the story reads here though, and has not been for a while already. Maybe we should go back to voluntary contributions for representatives, without quotes? One works well, represents citizens maybe they'll notice. These are just employees though, of some obscure corporations that are working mostly for themselves perpetuating their prosperity not mine, so why should I have anything to do with it, or be paying for it?
  17. Either citizens have democracy that's working for them; or the bureaucracy runs quasi democracy that benefits itself via smarty fancy rules, like for our salaries "annual inflation" is two percent but for your pension it would be only 0.1%, honestly. It's unsurpassed in the skill of making those rules here's the 1000 page manual and try to figure how it should make sense for you. Temporarily it can be something in-between but eventually settles to one or the other. Don't expect surprises. I'm afraid that we may be past the point where it could control its appetites or reform itself. If nothing is done now we could sail happily right to the point where the absurdity arrives in the mail.
  18. Is there anything else there though, with party nomenclature calling all shots that "representatives" have no way of questioning or Heaven forbid, disobeying? If it can't be seen does it meant that it exists still? Or it means that these are very expensive (to us, the payers) typewriters and handshakers with $200K annually indexed salaries, grotesque pensions and unlimited allowances, by some irony or long forgotten tradition still labeled as "representatives"?
  19. Right, that's how it works with a bureaucracy left to its own instruments, to control and manage itself. Sure it'll take care of things, in its own way that always comes to maximum spending on itself with minimum result for everybody else. Nothing personal, just the math. Only it's not the people we elect, but that we couldn't care to own our own democracy, and that means watch it, clean it and fix it as and when needed, regularly and constantly.
  20. No, no only a common misconception! The process of approving the annual 2% raise for "representatives" is a fingersnap, 2+2, done and next item. It's only when applied to the affairs of common citizens (down below, can you see them, moving) it becomes long and complicated longread, with multiple difficult to understand layers of "inflation". Why complication though, and where? If esteemed minister is good for an automatic inflation raise, why not Jack and Jill's pension, and at the same exact rate? Where's the difference who can point it?
  21. If we couldn't or would not do this, what we still can as "the citizens"? Push a button (connected to nowhere) once every so many years? Nothing will happen. The thing cannot and won't control itself, proven in zoopsychology. Effective oversight and controls do not exist. May very well be the last chance for a change.
  22. So why: a license plate sticker; a transit ticket; university tuition; and minister salary can go up, like a clock, year on year at a 2% "inflation". But your pension, benefit, tax bracket has quite different number. Why is it, what would be the underlying reason and cause? Aren't we all equal, and equitable? Curious minds want to know. How about "Real Equitability Act": no public service cost or tax; no compensation paid to a public figure or employee (unless set in collective bargaining, for a member) can increase more than indexation of pensions and benefits of the citizens. Either of the two is true: this is not an equitable society; all citizens are equal in their rights so there cannot be different, tweaked and adjusted as needed "inflations". So which one? And which party will take it to the reality representing in truth the interests of the citizens? Any one?
  23. Think how cool it would be though, can set yourself any salary, entitlements and pension (out of bottomless magic wishing well) and nobody cares, no questions asked no one around at all. Wouldn't it be worth working for?
  24. Imagine if every (actually) working Canadian would move to: USA; Europe; Caribbean including Haiti and so on, one wouldn't even need to explain how they "restructured" and "indexed" their salaries and pensions so that they near doubled in as many decades? Wouldn't it be so great, let's do it!
×
×
  • Create New...