But is that not a "Public Good?" If the best is unobtainable, is it not a "good" to try for the best possible. Is a "Public Good" not the best that can be had by all and not just the desire of some?
Canadian Democracy - Takes another hit under Harper
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
But is that not a "Public Good?" If the best is unobtainable, is it not a "good" to try for the best possible. Is a "Public Good" not the best that can be had by all and not just the desire of some?
Well it is not that the best isn't obtainable, it is that the candidate that they think would be the best representative is not who they vote for, often a majority will do that and although if they had not second guessed their peers, the best candidate would have won. This issue is better known as the Abilene paradox.
But that is the idea of pushing a model onto reality. Instead of defining public good and seeing if that is how people actually vote, we are just redefining public good to include how everyone votes.
I don't see where models come into this, but no matter.
I would say that the way people vote in total is the Public Good. Otherwise you are projecting your view of Public Good onto them. Public Good does not necessarily mean all sweetness and light. It is providing the population with what it thinks is its best possible outcome. Public Good is not amenable to definiton in the closed way you seem to be suggesting. It is a nebulous concept like the "pursuit of Happiness."
I don't see this as the Abilene Paradox. People are not ignorant of the wishes of other members of society. In voting strategically, they take the course they see as being most likely to prevent the imposition of the views of those members they see as being opposed to their, and society's, interests.
I would say that the way people vote in total is the Public Good. Otherwise you are projecting your view of Public Good onto them. Public Good does not necessarily mean all sweetness and light. It is providing the population with what it thinks is its best possible outcome. Public Good is not amenable to definiton in the closed way you seem to be suggesting. It is a nebulous concept like the "pursuit of Happiness."
I don't see this as the Abilene Paradox. People are not ignorant of the wishes of other members of society. In voting strategically, they take the course they see as being most likely to prevent the imposition of the views of those members they see as being opposed to their, and society's, interests.
Ok, so here is another little curveball for discussion as we have introduced "the public good" into this.
The only defined roles of government under the constitution is to provide and manage essential infrastructure, to regulate and govern commerce, and provide a justice system. Anything legislated that interferes with our personal freedoms is really beyond the scope of what was intended. If we go all the way back to the original piece of common law, the Magna-Carta, it clearly expresses that governance is to do nothing but ensure we are all free people. Even our current Charter expresses that we are free to pursue employment, religion, residence etc anywhere as we please.
So how do you justify all the restrictive legislation placed upon our persons with the original idea of us being free and not controlled by somebody else's whims.
The only defined roles of government under the constitution is to provide and manage essential infrastructure, to regulate and govern commerce, and provide a justice system. Anything legislated that interferes with our personal freedoms is really beyond the scope of what was intended. If we go all the way back to the original piece of common law, the Magna-Carta, it clearly expresses that governance is to do nothing but ensure we are all free people. Even our current Charter expresses that we are free to pursue employment, religion, residence etc anywhere as we please.
So how do you justify all the restrictive legislation placed upon our persons with the original idea of us being free and not controlled by somebody else's whims.
Unfortunately, that does not lend itself to discussion. The role of government goes far beyond that in even the most 9in practise) libertarian of societies. A soon as being a "free" people enters the field, then all the activities of government that we have and in every area come into play. Your post sounds either anarchical or a step towards Marxism and the withering away of the state.
I am in no way either an anarchist or a Marxist. I believe in the rule of law but law that gives us freedom and choice and holds each person personally responsible and accountable for themselves. I am not insinuating we toss out the criminal code nor am I suggesting that we not be accountable for our dealings in commerce. I am I suppose a true libertarian.
If you take a close look at the Freeman movement you will find they do not preach about no government at all nor do they preach about not being responsible and respectful. Quite the opposite really. I find many of the principles within the movement to be far better than the big-brother, nanny state that is espoused by almost every politician today. Most, if not all (Ron Paul being 1 exception) are heavily influenced if not completely controlled by their corporate donors and have no idea of what individual citizens really want or care about. The trend seems to be all this BS about the 'greater good' of society while concentrating on restrictive legislation that allows for larger corporate profit whilst putting the burden of the cost on the individuals. They forget that society is made up of many individuals with different ideas, morals, values and the overwhelming majority don't give a rat's a*s about corporations or their profit margins.
I am sorry to hear that your ideas of government do not include freedom and that you find the topic insipid and not worth discussion. Please keep on trying to influence everyone to remain sheeple and allow the govt to run roughshod over our rights and freedoms. I on the other hand will continue to urge everyone to do all they can to tear down this sham democracy and rebuild one that actually represents the citizenry being free with the govt accountable to us, not us accountable to the govt.
Seeing the way people vote as the Public Good is the model. The Public Good is a projection onto the reality of governance, which doesn't necessarily fit the bill of public, or good. Redefining Public Good to handle that is just ad hoc.
People are ignorant of the wishes of other people, that is the point of the Abilene paradox. This is what we learn from psychology, especially--for the purposes of judging political candidates--the Dunning-Kruger effect. The evidence is that we have exactly the government that 60% of the population did not want shoving this omnibus bill on us. To say this is what the public wanted is to strain credulity. Casting a vote for a candidate is not an endorsement of the unknown legislation that that candidate will promote.
That is not a Public Good, that is a Minority Bad.
I said "vote in total." I am extremely concerned about the dying of democracy in Canada as I thionk I have made clear. What we have is a violation of the Rile of Law (as I wrote somewhere) when a government acts arbitrarily as this government does. It alsoviolated the principle that a majority must not act against minority interests.
I can take the last two posts up later but I have some things on now. Would others like to weigh in on either side?
I can take the last two posts up later but I have some things on now. Would others like to weigh in on either side?
That's an interesting perspective.
Mine differs a bit...
The Flag, our proud and revered fighting Forces, public health care, multiculturalism, and our diverse geography.
And multi decades late.
Your absurd rule of law theory aside, this gov't is as arbitrary as every majority that came before it.
LOL.
I've been thinking of weighing in, but I've been confused by some of the terminology and I'm not sure I understand what people think they're talking about. The notion of a public good that I understand, for instance, doesn't seem to bear any relationship to what you guys are talking about. I understand it in the economist's sense, a good the consumption of which by one person doesn't reduce its availability to anyone else, and that people can't be prevented from using, except at prohibitive cost. Like a bridge, for example: my crossing it doesn't sensibly reduce its availability to you, and I can't legitimately block your access to it. (We'll leave traffic congestion out of consideration.) I also thought the Dunning-Kruger effect was about incompetent people failing to perceive their incompetence and instead judging themselves to be far more able than they are. Everybody thinks they're a better than average driver, for example. Similarly, the Abilene paradox is about groups making choices that no individual in the group actually wanted; voters are such a large, diverse group I can't imagine them electing a candidate that *nobody* wanted, surely everybody running has *some* supporters.
Part truths at best. The flag was adopted with a Liberal gov't in parliament, as was the Charter of rights and freedoms but neither is universally loved or viewed as a cornerstine of our national identity. Multiculturalism was also a Liberal creation, mostly that of the Trudeau regime, as a means to appease Quebec while trying not to be too obvious in the anti-English prejudices that the policies display. Peacekeeping is a polite myth. We have sent troops into harm's way for causes other than our own since our inception as a nation: the Boer War, the World Wars, the Korean War. We've supported UN peace initiatives with ALL governments but at the end of the day, those that had any modicum of success were not "we're Canadians from the UN; lets make peace" but rather "We're Canadians here to monitor and make sure this crap stops or we and our allies will bomb your asses back into the stone age." National health care was the product of Tommy Douglas & the NDP, not the Liberals, and not even he expected the bloated, inefficient monstrosity that was created.
Geez. I guess things like the War of 1812 and the Canadian involvement in the World Wars never happened. I guess the Monarchy serving as our head of state is a recent development and not something. Oh yeah, I forgot that it wasn't Chretien and Martin who originally sent troops to Afghanistan, it was Harper from Opposition!
I had mentiioned that if Harper continues in this way he could be headed for a minority. Not only was I referring to the supersized bills he has rammed thru Parliament but where had his promises - ethics etc gone to.
Stephen Harper's glory may be fleeting if economy fails: John Ivison | Full Comment | National Post
The reaction from the Conservatives’ perennial critics in the environmental movement has been predictable. “An all-out war on nature,” wrote Tzeporah Berman in the Globe and Mail. “A fight for the soul of Canada.”
But behind the over-caffinated rhetoric was a cogent point– environmental organizations claim they are seeing increased membership and support.
My sense is that opposition to this government is spreading to people who may previously have been disposed toward voting for it.
Certainly, Mr. Harper has seen the first significant drop in positive impressions on trust, competence and vision in four years, according to Nanos Research’s latest leadership index.
“Interestingly, the proportion of Canadians who were unsure, or said ‘none of the above’ has also increased. This suggests that Canadians that were positively predisposed towards Mr. Harper are now parking – likely a result of disappointment, rather than anger at this point,” said Nik Nanos.
The race is now on – the Conservatives have bet the farm on opening up new markets and exporting resources to the developing economies of Asia. If they succeed, they will have lived up to their promise of securing the prosperity of Canadians and addressing the dark clouds of their anxieties.
If the economy falters, and the government alienates ever more voters in its attempt to impose its agenda, in three years time Mr. Harper may come to wish he’d followed the lead of the Roman Imperators. Glory may indeed turn out to be fleeting.
Stephen Harper's glory may be fleeting if economy fails: John Ivison | Full Comment | National Post
The reaction from the Conservatives’ perennial critics in the environmental movement has been predictable. “An all-out war on nature,” wrote Tzeporah Berman in the Globe and Mail. “A fight for the soul of Canada.”
But behind the over-caffinated rhetoric was a cogent point– environmental organizations claim they are seeing increased membership and support.
My sense is that opposition to this government is spreading to people who may previously have been disposed toward voting for it.
Certainly, Mr. Harper has seen the first significant drop in positive impressions on trust, competence and vision in four years, according to Nanos Research’s latest leadership index.
“Interestingly, the proportion of Canadians who were unsure, or said ‘none of the above’ has also increased. This suggests that Canadians that were positively predisposed towards Mr. Harper are now parking – likely a result of disappointment, rather than anger at this point,” said Nik Nanos.
The race is now on – the Conservatives have bet the farm on opening up new markets and exporting resources to the developing economies of Asia. If they succeed, they will have lived up to their promise of securing the prosperity of Canadians and addressing the dark clouds of their anxieties.
If the economy falters, and the government alienates ever more voters in its attempt to impose its agenda, in three years time Mr. Harper may come to wish he’d followed the lead of the Roman Imperators. Glory may indeed turn out to be fleeting.
You ever see a government that didn't pander to some special interest group?
Your problem is that we don't all have the same idea of public good. Also the majority is not necessarily the best judge of what is in the public good. Sane, rational thought and politics are much like oil and water. The mix is only temporary at best.
I think the problem is that people are talking at cross purposes because they have different understandings of the same phrase and don't seem aware of it. It's not my problem, I haven't been part of this conversation until pointed that out. We need to distinguish between a public good in the economist's sense and the public good in the broader social and political sense, which is better called the common good or the common weal. They're not the same thing, but people have been discussing them as if they are.
Some insight into Harpers Govt
One year into his majority, Stephen Harper is still playing the minority game | Full Comment | National Post
All is stealth and indirection, surprise and ambiguity, as before. Big changes, when they happen, are done suddenly, casually, without warning or justification, as if they were of no importance: buried deep in an omnibus bill, sloughed off in the course of a committee hearing, tucked in at the end of an answer in Question Period, dropped on the table at a premiers’ meeting. The closest thing to a vision statement, the speech in which the Prime Minister mused, indecipherably, on the need to reform pensions, was delivered in the Swiss Alps. When the President of the United States wants to announce a major change in policy, he goes on national television. When Harper does it, he scribbles it in the margin of whatever mystery novel he’s been reading and leaves it on the bus.
So although there have been some important shifts in policy in recent months — a major rewrite of federal environmental policy, a substantial retreat on the F-35 purchase, a possible extension of the Afghanistan mission beyond 2014, an effective redrafting of the terms of fiscal federalism — they would for the most part have escaped public notice. Even the government’s most ambitious plans, such as the simultaneous negotiation of free trade treaties with virtually every major trade bloc in the world, or its top-to-bottom reform of immigration policy, are presented as faits accomplis, unveiled in rapid succession without much opportunity for consultation — or for opposition to form.
It may be a majority, in other words, but it’s still playing the minority game: only it is no longer the opposition parties it is attempting to outfox, but the public.
Time was when a government that wished to implement some major reform would first issue a green paper, to kick off discussion; then a white paper, containing more finely tuned proposals; and only then proceed to legislation. But this government has no wish to win hearts and minds. Its strategy, rather, is to take ground in a series of lightning-fast guerrilla raids; to neutralize opposition, as by the defunding of advocacy groups, rather than to rally public opinion to its side.
‘Its strategy is to take ground in a series of lightning-fast guerrilla raids’
But while the public might have been inclined to look indulgently on such behaviour when the dupe was the opposition, it is less likely to be so tolerant when it discovers the joke is on it. The government has squandered what little trust it enjoyed before, with the consequence that when it wants to ask the public to do something difficult, it meets only suspicion and hostility; what was a strength when it was weak — its endless willingness to twist this way and that, or swallow itself whole if that was what was required — is a weakness now that it is strong. Where another government might have “spent some political capital,” as the cliché has it, this one discovers its account already overdrawn. Which only reinforces its instinct to dissemble.
And so, a year after it was elected, having been careful throughout to avoid the public’s wrath, it nevertheless finds itself down 10 points in the polls. It has been able to rely upon guile and deception to get by until now. But what will it do for the next three years?
One year into his majority, Stephen Harper is still playing the minority game | Full Comment | National Post
All is stealth and indirection, surprise and ambiguity, as before. Big changes, when they happen, are done suddenly, casually, without warning or justification, as if they were of no importance: buried deep in an omnibus bill, sloughed off in the course of a committee hearing, tucked in at the end of an answer in Question Period, dropped on the table at a premiers’ meeting. The closest thing to a vision statement, the speech in which the Prime Minister mused, indecipherably, on the need to reform pensions, was delivered in the Swiss Alps. When the President of the United States wants to announce a major change in policy, he goes on national television. When Harper does it, he scribbles it in the margin of whatever mystery novel he’s been reading and leaves it on the bus.
So although there have been some important shifts in policy in recent months — a major rewrite of federal environmental policy, a substantial retreat on the F-35 purchase, a possible extension of the Afghanistan mission beyond 2014, an effective redrafting of the terms of fiscal federalism — they would for the most part have escaped public notice. Even the government’s most ambitious plans, such as the simultaneous negotiation of free trade treaties with virtually every major trade bloc in the world, or its top-to-bottom reform of immigration policy, are presented as faits accomplis, unveiled in rapid succession without much opportunity for consultation — or for opposition to form.
It may be a majority, in other words, but it’s still playing the minority game: only it is no longer the opposition parties it is attempting to outfox, but the public.
Time was when a government that wished to implement some major reform would first issue a green paper, to kick off discussion; then a white paper, containing more finely tuned proposals; and only then proceed to legislation. But this government has no wish to win hearts and minds. Its strategy, rather, is to take ground in a series of lightning-fast guerrilla raids; to neutralize opposition, as by the defunding of advocacy groups, rather than to rally public opinion to its side.
‘Its strategy is to take ground in a series of lightning-fast guerrilla raids’
But while the public might have been inclined to look indulgently on such behaviour when the dupe was the opposition, it is less likely to be so tolerant when it discovers the joke is on it. The government has squandered what little trust it enjoyed before, with the consequence that when it wants to ask the public to do something difficult, it meets only suspicion and hostility; what was a strength when it was weak — its endless willingness to twist this way and that, or swallow itself whole if that was what was required — is a weakness now that it is strong. Where another government might have “spent some political capital,” as the cliché has it, this one discovers its account already overdrawn. Which only reinforces its instinct to dissemble.
And so, a year after it was elected, having been careful throughout to avoid the public’s wrath, it nevertheless finds itself down 10 points in the polls. It has been able to rely upon guile and deception to get by until now. But what will it do for the next three years?
Even defining what is in the public good from a social perspective is hard to define. The socialists have their worker nirvana, big brother knows best view which most of us do not find all that appealing and certainly not fiscally possible or responsible.
If you had a vote on it the majority would vote on what is best for them in the here and now, not what is best long term or even good for the next generation that will be stuck with the bill.
Ahh, the great selfish society of the western world...just how the bankers and power brokers want it!
That may well be true for most but I for one would be first in line to vote for a restructuring of our financial system that would remove public debt from us and our children and future generations. It is a funny thing and also very revealing of who controls our government that it is really so easy to do and yet nobody in the government would ever dare to bring forward the model of how to do it. In case you are wondering how this could happen (within a few years no less) investigate the island nation of Guernsey.
Sell one of your homes and apply those funds to the greater, global societal good.... The only thing stopping you, is you.
If we make some changes and remove the debt based monetary system from existence in our country I will gladly sell 1 and donate the money to something good. Until that change happens I am keeping it to sell upon retirement because I am not counting on any pension or benefits from the govt.