I didn't think we had a thread for this. 

Is Trudeau this out of touch or does he just not care?

 

Imagine the "belief" that the size of a government is worse than the immoral, greedy, corrupt, profit-over-everything, save-us-when-we-fail-with-public-money, and never-hold-ourselves-accountable corporations in this country.

1 minute ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Imagine the "belief" that the size of a government is worse than the immoral, greedy, corrupt, profit-over-everything, save-us-when-we-fail-with-public-money, and never-hold-ourselves-accountable corporations in this country.

Wait until you find out how corporations work is what I always think!

Edited March 23, 20232 yr by JCon

1 minute ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Imagine the "belief" that the size of a government is worse than the immoral, greedy, corrupt, profit-over-everything, save-us-when-we-fail-with-public-money, and never-hold-ourselves-accountable corporations in this country.

Because to me, it is. Government employs force. I can voluntarily not support anything which I choose not to support... except for my government, which wills itself a greater share of our money every year.

 

Just now, bluto said:

Because to me, it is. Government employs force. I can voluntarily not support anything which I choose not to support... except for my government, which wills itself a greater share of our money every year.

Expand on that. I bet you can't. Or won't.

1 minute ago, bluto said:

Because to me, it is. Government employs force. I can voluntarily not support anything which I choose not to support... except for my government, which wills itself a greater share of our money every year.

And corporate entities don't...?

You also don't get to opt out of food costs, energy costs, etc., all of which are controlled by corporations.

3 minutes ago, bluto said:

Because to me, it is. Government employs force. I can voluntarily not support anything which I choose not to support... except for my government, which wills itself a greater share of our money every year.

Yeah, it isn't like corporate profits have skyrocketed in the last year or so. Oh, wait...

It's like you're not even trying here.

4 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Imagine the "belief" that the size of a government is worse than the immoral, greedy, corrupt, profit-over-everything, save-us-when-we-fail-with-public-money, and never-hold-ourselves-accountable corporations in this country.

Counter: Everyone's bad.

 

The people have no control over corporations and complete control over all levels of government. 

 

35 minutes ago, bluto said:

You'll never see me try to convince you of that.

Speaking for myself, I'm a voter who hasn't had a party with anything remotely near my values and beliefs for a few decades. Some have talked like they sorta-kinda did... but if given an opportunity to govern they did what every Canadian politician does: increase the size of my government. 

You're the one who said that's what they want... ?

2 minutes ago, JCon said:

The people have no control over corporations and complete control over all levels of government. 

The Canadian Plutocracy. And for the most part, we're just bystanders.

2 minutes ago, JCon said:

The people have no control over corporations and complete control over all levels of government. 

 

The only thing I got is don't by their product and frequent their establishments which is getting harder and harder to do. i.e., monopoly

Sorry man.

You'll never convince me that the morality of a government who can use force/violence/confiscation/imprisonment on me if I don't just hand over a greater share of what I earn through my labours every year is equivalent to some greedy, for-profit organization who I can elect to not use. You're acting as if I'm defending a greedy CEO on a yatcht lighting his cuban with a picture of Borden (although I doubt our new currency can still do that?)... that's not happening. So doon't strawman me and I won't strawman you.

If I choose one food option over another, nobody can confiscate my house, garnish my wages or put me in jail. It's flat out evil.

I have grave moral qualms with using force to confiscate money, property or labour. I bet that you do too.

8 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

You're the one who said that's what they want... ?

I never said the PCs are what I want. Nor would I. I explained how I don't have a party or prominent leader who reflects my values.

2 minutes ago, bluto said:

Sorry man.

You'll never convince me that the morality of a government who can use force/violence/confiscation/imprisonment on me if I don't just hand over a greater share of what I earn through my labours every year is equivalent to some greedy, for-profit organization who I can elect to not use. You're acting as if I'm defending a greedy CEO on a yatcht lighting his cuban with a picture of Borden (although I doubt our new currency can still do that?)... that's not happening. So doon't strawman me and I won't strawman you.

If I choose one food option over another, nobody can confiscate my house, garnish my wages or put me in jail. It's flat out evil.

I have grave moral qualms with using force to confiscate money, property or labour. I bet that you do too.

The only honest answer to your concerns is to move out of the country. I don't mean that in an arrogant way either. Canada is and as far as I can tell will always be a socialist leaning country. That means paying taxes for the "greater good". Even though it's horribly corrupt, it has proven time and time again that capitalism with socialist aspects is the best way to run our current form of society. Like others mentioned, the best places on earth in terms of overall happiness/safety/healthcare etc etc etc all use this type of system.

Just now, Bigblue204 said:

The only honest answer to your concerns is to move out of the country. I don't mean that in an arrogant way either. Canada is and as far as I can tell will always be a socialist leaning country. That means paying taxes for the "greater good". Even though it's horribly corrupt, it has proven time and time again that capitalism with socialist aspects is the best way to run our current form of society. Like others mentioned, the best places on earth in terms of overall happiness/safety/healthcare etc etc etc all use this type of system.

Thank goodness.... that's what civilized society is about. 

5 hours ago, bluto said:

Yeah! Those rotten scumbags with their...(checks notes)... desire for a limited and less intrusive government!

You said this (the above) after someone complained about the conservatives.

2 minutes ago, bluto said:

I never said the PCs are what I want. Nor would I. I explained how I don't have a party or prominent leader who reflects my values.

I never said that you wanted the PCs in power. I asked for examples that any government wants smaller less intrusive government....and I'm still waiting.

7 minutes ago, Noeller said:

Thank goodness.... that's what civilized society is about. 

Not for some that I've observed.

Greater good, civic duty, social responsibility, take care of one another outside of my inner circle etc etc have no bearing on some peoples beliefs and values.

Their only counter is how dare you judge me, you don't know me.

15 minutes ago, bluto said:

I never said the PCs are what I want. Nor would I. I explained how I don't have a party or prominent leader who reflects my values.

It sounds like you don't want government at all.  Good luck finding a party that will dissolve themselves after winning an election.

It's bad enough that the right has become anti-government, but it's even more discouraging that people would vote for those people.

My belief, my approach is always one of inclusion. But, I know lots of people that prefer the exclusion. It's philosophical difference. 

My beliefs are supported with evidence and validated with experience. I don't fear the gov't because they controlled by the rule of law, which includes the Charter. 

39 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

It sounds like you don't want government at all. 

Why strawman me?

39 minutes ago, JCon said:

My belief, my approach is always one of inclusion. But, I know lots of people that prefer the exclusion. It's philosophical difference. 

My beliefs are supported with evidence and validated with experience. I don't fear the gov't because they controlled by the rule of law, which includes the Charter. 

I am also for inclusion. So long as it is voluntary. 

55 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

You said this (the above) after someone complained about the conservatives.

I never said that you wanted the PCs in power. I asked for examples that any government wants smaller less intrusive government....and I'm still waiting.

I said it because calling all conservatives scumbags seemed a bit OTT.

And I don't care to give you examples of a thing that I don't believe exists... as I have already explicitly stated that I don't believe it exists.

17 minutes ago, bluto said:

Why strawman me?

I am also for inclusion. So long as it is voluntary. 

I said it because calling all conservatives scumbags seemed a bit OTT.

And I don't care to give you examples of a thing that I don't believe exists... as I have already explicitly stated that I don't believe it exists.

fair enough. I'd argue saying all cons want smaller gov is similar. And you did kinda say it exists...I'm being nitpicky cause I'm bored...

Edited March 23, 20232 yr by Bigblue204

27 minutes ago, bluto said:

Why strawman me?

I am also for inclusion. So long as it is voluntary. 

I said it because calling all conservatives scumbags seemed a bit OTT.

And I don't care to give you examples of a thing that I don't believe exists... as I have already explicitly stated that I don't believe it exists.

Because your position is nonsensical.

6 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Because your position is nonsensical.

I'm being genuine when I say this: It actually saddens me that my fellow countrymen consider my wish for a government that could fit in the box that it came in to be nonsensical.

22 minutes ago, bluto said:

I'm being genuine when I say this: It actually saddens me that my fellow countrymen consider my wish for a government that could fit in the box that it came in to be nonsensical.

I don't think it's nonsensical. I think it's misguided and based on dreams rather than reality.

You need representation for all people..... how can you accomplish that with a government that could fit in a box? We're a nation of nearly 40 million people. As we've learned, there are a great many differences between the populations of each province, and even WITHIN each province.... I don't understand how you can represent everyone's wishes with the government you propose......

28 minutes ago, bluto said:

I'm being genuine when I say this: It actually saddens me that my fellow countrymen consider my wish for a government that could fit in the box that it came in to be nonsensical.

It is nonsensical because if you shrink government to that extent you are giving power (more so than they already have) to the ultra wealthy and mega corporations.  That objectively does not make anyone's life better. 

 

5 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I don't think it's nonsensical. I think it's misguided and based on dreams rather than reality.

Potato/po-tah-to.

The thing is low tax/small government was tried in Kansas as a grand GOP experiment and it failed miserably.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2017/06/07/the-great-kansas-tax-cut-experiment-crashes-and-burns/?sh=247f60e15508