Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watdcsu!brewster From: brewster@watdcsu.UUCP Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Free trade, Canadian culture, $$ Message-ID: <3062@watdcsu.UUCP> Date: Thu, 26-Feb-87 10:18:38 EST Article-I.D.: watdcsu.3062 Posted: Thu Feb 26 10:18:38 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Feb-87 00:11:32 EST References: <191@fornax.uucp> <3047@watdcsu.UUCP> <2735@hcrvax.UUCP> Distribution: can Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 145 >From: ken@hcrvax.UUCP >So if Jerry Falwell et al can sell the "Moral" Majority philosophy to enough >people, then pre-marital fornication should become illegal. I don't think this will happen, because people aren't that stupid. But suppose it did happen. What makes you and your view so special that you should be allowed to say the majority are wrong. Conversely, the majority of the population currently don't support the Moral Majority philosophy. Why should this minority not be allowed to turn around and foist their views off on us much as you are obviously willing to do with your views on them, even if you were in the minority? Sounds to me like the only viewpoint you will accept as being "correct" is your own, independent of whether you are in the minority or the majority. Most people at least have some of the same notions but in "reality" as you later call it, not everyone can have their own way on every issue. Everyone realizes that the Moral Majority is really a misnomer since their leaders actually speak for a very small portion of the population. But don't you think they chose the name for a reason. Of course they did. *IF* they can convince people that they are a majority then society is conditioned to accept the fact that their opinion will rule the day. >If the 99% of people who don't make more than $200,000 per year vote >that all people who do should have their assets forcibly redistributed, >then let's do it. Something of this form happens in socialized states already, or as in the recent Holland quote people are stopped from making 200,000 to start with. I don't support this view, but some recent posters seem to think that this may be a preferable state of affairs. I maintain that majority rule is the best way to decide which view should preside in any country. What alternative method do you propose for enforcing an economic viewpoint within any state ? Note that if the above scenario happened then the people with 200,000 would leave the country pretty damn quickly and the ones left behind would be far worse off in the long run. What do you think is going to happen if highest marginal tax rate in the states is at approx 30% and Wilson doesn't get Canada's tax situation straightened around very quickly ? Why do you think he has been promising to make "big changes" "very soon" ? >In theory, brewster@watdcsu.UUCP may be right. But political philosophy >must work in practice as well as in theory. Let's look at reality: >Facts: >----- >* Most people don't have the time to learn enough to make informed > decisions about important political issues. I disagree. In regards to the MAJOR issues of the day most people actually have personal opinions, the degree of informment and the amount of learning is open to question, BUT : >* Many people don't have the brains to make informed . . . why should we deny people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are uninformed. Exactly what counts as uninformed in your mind ? Why should I assume that you are informed ? You one of those high faluting college guys who nose everything or somethin like that ther ? Why should I assume that anyone else is better informed than myself and allow this other person the proxy right to make up my mind ? Why shouldn't I assume that the Communist Party of Canada is not the best informed group and allow my proxy vote to be exercised by them ? :*) >* Given a choice between my own personal good and the good of society > as a whole, most people will choose my own personal good. See point (1) > for why they might choose short term personal gain over long term > societal gain, even when this means they will lose in the long run. This tradegy of the commons behaviour is well studied, and when you are dealing with at least a semi-educated public and an intelligentsia that is willing to stand up and shout whenever a tradegy of the commons arises I think people will make the right decision. >Obvious examples: tobacco lobbies, the NRA, many polluters, etc. I think these examples are particularly poor, and actually support the opposite view. What have a belligerent public forced tobacco companies to do recently ? What have a belligerent public forced polluters to do recently ? >Due to the preceding points, we hire politicians not just to implement >the decisions of the masses, but to use brains and integrity, Given the brains and integrity shown by recent Conservative politicians from Quebec (and in the interest of conversation let me say all politicians from Quebec in recent history independent of party affiliation), I was very amazed to see your comment occur under a section of the discussion labelled "facts" and "reality". >If we ignore reality and try to implement a simple will-of-the-masses >political system, we will actually wind up with a will-of-the-best-and- >loudest-lobby system. Many of the ugly problems in our society today >are due to decisions made on that basis already. Can you say (powerful) >"special interest groups?" Exactly my point. Politicians respond to these SIG, which really represent only a small portion of the population. This is exactly what we don't want as you state. How can this be rectified ? I say politicians should make a more concerted effort to represent the grass roots constitutent, and when this doesn't happen the grass root constitutent should make more of an effort to kick the politician in the ass. You say that politicians should try to make the "correct" decisions independent of what the people want. Firstly, how is this even remotely related to the reality of the situation which is that getting re-elected is usually the primary goal of politicians. Secondly, why are you so keen to trust politicians to always make good decisions on their own, they're people too and if not kept in check by the populace they will and do abuse the system where possible. >Please don't flame me for being a Big Brother politician or something. >I'm not. All I am trying to do is point out that simplistic blanket >statements such as that to which I am responding inevitably ignore large >sections of reality, and must be read very critically indeed. Go ahead and flame me for having faith in the people and for Libertarian leanings in general. All I am trying to point out is that people who don't trust the masses usually have something to hide and probably good reason to be afraid; and that the above contributors addition to a discussion of reality was fatally flawed, in my mind at least. As for simplistic blanket statements; they have to be taken in that light as counterexamples and loop-holes will always be found. Despite this the KISS principle will get you a long way. KISS (keep it simple stupid). Try not to become a man UUCP : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster of success but rather try Else : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657 to become a man of value. Albert Einstein