Political Outlooks.

[Chake99]

It seems like there are two types of arguments going on here, ideological arguments over how the country should be run, and then arguments on who would run the country is best, but they're muddled together.

I think it would be a lot easier to understand each other if we bothered to declare what it is we think the government should be and why we think it should be that way, so during these debates we misunderstand each other a lot less, debating about the parties you are not going to change one's political outlook, only what party shares one's political outlook the most.

Here we may debate political out looks themselves.

A sound notion? Regardless I'll begin.

I believe that its the job of the government to make it so that while seeking to enrich themselves people enrich and provide services to those around them.

I believe that ideally capitalism should function by rewarding those who contribute society for their share

I believe that it is the job of the government to create a fairly level playing field for life, by providing education and healthcare to all, and by making people less exploitable with laws.

I believe that human beings naturally only seek for their own good and therefore are naturraly flawed, but not irredeemably.

I believe that any emotional reaction to an issue is simply what one has been conditioned to believe, Nazis were as revolted at Jews as many modern people are at many of the worst human rights abusers, and therefore any emotional reaction to a problem should be discarded before logically examining it.

I believe that the government should seek to rehabilitate those who are not part of society so they can take care of themselves and benefit, and that people who cannot take care of themselves should be taken care of by society.

I believe that when you add any control to the free enterprise you will get a compensation somewhere, one that in some cases is worse than the problem that is trying to be solved.

I believe that individual freedoms should be maximized while excluding from them any abilities to exploit others (I would include selling habit-forming drugs in this category)

I believe that laws should not be used to help one reach "salvation" in the eyes of an organized religion.

Feel free to try and tear it apart.

and does anyone wants to go next?

 

[no1important]

I can not argue about anything you said. As I agree with what you wrote.

 

[Andygal]

I believe that most people, given the chance will try to get ahead of each other and step on people if they can.

Therefore I believe that the role of the government is to ensure that people are not getting denied oppurtunities, that there is equality.

I believe that coroporations are the ultimiate instruments of selfishness and should be tightly regulated to prevent them from exploiting people and engaging in immoral and dishonest practices to get ahead.

I believe that religion has no place in policy-making. Laws should not be made on the basis of religious ideals.

 

[Knightman]

I have already layed out my view on the structure and form our federal government should be operate under and will not fill up this thread reposting here, that can be found in this thread:

http://www.canadiancontent.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5069

What you seem to be pointing out is more the morality of government and society, the ideals it should uphold and the implications those views and actions have on Canadian's.

I believe that its the job of the government to make it so that while seeking to enrich themselves people enrich and provide services to those around them.

I would like to see an expansion of this statment, possibly some examples. If you mean make it more worthwhile for people to help less fortunate individuals then I would agree though.

I believe that ideally capitalism should function by rewarding those who contribute society for their share.

A person gets out of their lives exactly what they put into their lives. If one works hard you reap the rewards. Yes, that is the way it should function except where the physically or mentally challanged and oppressed or abused are concerned, those individuals require support they can not give themselves.

I believe that it is the job of the government to create a fairly level playing field for life, by providing education and healthcare to all, and by making people less exploitable with laws.

You feel that Education and Healthcare should be financially supported by all people, meaning payed for by taxation dollars, if so, Yes I believe that is the way it should be as well. To make people less exploitable would mean setting mechanisms in place to assure fairness at a personal level, a small bussiness level and a coporate level.

I believe that human beings naturally only seek for their own good and therefore are naturraly flawed, but not irredeemably.

Not exactly, there are some that really do look out for others more than themselves whether it be from necessity or from their own free will, but on the overview yes, most will look out for themselves first, I believe that is human nature.

I believe that any emotional reaction to an issue is simply what one has been conditioned to believe, Nazis were as revolted at Jews as many modern people are at many of the worst human rights abusers, and therefore any emotional reaction to a problem should be discarded before logically examining it.

This is a nice thought but very hard to control. At this point in world history we can point to numerous examples where an emotional response has taken over from logic and we are witnessing the outcome. Humans are an emotionally driven creature by nature. Anger and hatred spawn reactionary responses and to inforce a cool down period would be excellent but how that could be done is a huge problem.

I believe that the government should seek to rehabilitate those who are not part of society so they can take care of themselves and benefit, and that people who cannot take care of themselves should be taken care of by society.

I agree with these statments. our prison system, our addiction rehabilition programs, our social support programs do these things. There is room for improvement but we are getting there.

I believe that when you add any control to the free enterprise you will get a compensation somewhere, one that in some cases is worse than the problem that is trying to be solved.

What do you mean here? If your describing cooperate tax breaks for large organizations to supposidly increase employment and expansion then yes, that comes with its own set of problems. For us to give more freedoms to small bussiness, less taxation, less regulations then we create an atmosphere for growth on a more personal level but allow possible socially undesirable enterprises to come to life however saying that, can we view it as a good or a bad thing? It probably does not matter.

I believe that individual freedoms should be maximized while excluding from them any abilities to exploit others (I would include selling habit-forming drugs in this category).

I would agree to more individual freedoms on a personal and small bussiness scale. I actually believe that all now Illegal drugs should be legalized and brought under the control of the Food and Drug admistration act. Doing this would suppress any remaining illegal activity and allow us to help the users, the victims of the drug industry.

I believe that laws should not be used to help one reach "salvation" in the eyes of an organized religion.

I believe that religions have no place in governments. I believe that religions cause as much harm as they do good. I believe that religions are the root of a great deal of the problems we are seeing occur at this time. Religions cause social division, plain and simple the " my way or no way" attitude is a vicious thing it has little place in a true and just society.

Seeking freedom from oppression in any form be it laws or public opinion is a goal to be worked for. Yes we need control to function but a tailoring of that control is what should be desired...............

 

[bluealberta]

I have already set out what I think the government should do on a couple of other threads.

Basically, I want a government that puts more choice back to the individual.

I want a government that treats all citizens and regions equally and fairly.

I want people to quit relying on governments of all types to solve their problems.

I want a government to have less regulation on our daily lives.

I want a government who supports a strong military, based on world events.

I want a government that gets out of my way instead of putting barriers up.

 

[Chake99]

Re: RE: Political Outlooks.

I believe that most people, given the chance will try to get ahead of each other and step on people if they can.

Therefore I believe that the role of the government is to ensure that people are not getting denied oppurtunities, that there is equality.

I believe that coroporations are the ultimiate instruments of selfishness and should be tightly regulated to prevent them from exploiting people and engaging in immoral and dishonest practices to get ahead.

You are kind of hard on them, their selfishness is so intrinsic in their nature that you can hardly call it that as an insult, it is there... how do you spell the saying "reason to be" (raison etre?) in french? I know there are Francophones here.. The only point of a corporation is to provide as much money as it possibly can to its shareholders; people do not invest in companies for their conscious they invest in companies to make money, even little jimmy over there does. Because of this to succeed a company must pull as big a profit as it can in whatever manner it can, and if it is more profitable to break the law, so be it.

Which means they should be regulated more closely.

I would like to see an expansion of this statment, possibly some examples. If you mean make it more worthwhile for people to help less fortunate individuals then I would agree though.

Basically you work and by you working you make money and provide a service to someone else. Basically I'm saying people shouldn't be able to make money for not providing a service, (unless they are genuinely incapable in which case they still should do their best), as opposed to exploiting those around them.

A person gets out of their lives exactly what they put into their lives.

completely untrue. That is what would happen in a perfect world. Most people get out less then they put in and some people take out more than they put in.

If one works hard you reap the rewards. Yes, that is the way it should function except where the physically or mentally challanged and oppressed or abused are concerned, those individuals require support they can not give themselves.

that is no excuse for them not doing their best and trying to support themselves, but I agree with you, if they are doing their best they should be supported; the system you are suggesting is extremely exploitable.

You feel that Education and Healthcare should be financially supported by all people, meaning payed for by taxation dollars, if so, Yes I believe that is the way it should be as well. To make people less exploitable would mean setting mechanisms in place to assure fairness at a personal level, a small bussiness level and a coporate level.

Yes, yes and yes. Everyone should be provided equally with some services (Education though should have some private, private schools are allowed to be selective, education is a lot more efficient if you can tailor learning to the groups that are moving at different speeds). Also of course business laws fair employment practices etc...

Not exactly, there are some that really do look out for others more than themselves whether it be from necessity or from their own free will, but on the overview yes, most will look out for themselves first, I believe that is human nature.

Yes human nature; I said a naturally. A human like most other animals will by instinct will only look-out for itself. However that doesn't mean people can't control instincts with morality.

This is a nice thought but very hard to control. At this point in world history we can point to numerous examples where an emotional response has taken over from logic and we are witnessing the outcome. Humans are an emotionally driven creature by nature. Anger and hatred spawn reactionary responses and to inforce a cool down period would be excellent but how that could be done is a huge problem.

I'm talking on the personal level not the national level. People who do not want to be manipulated should follow their logic as opposed to their emotions. For example if people in the Jesusland had paused and thought about what they were doing as opposed to doing what felt right, and American, and Christian Bush would not have been elected.

I agree with these statments. our prison system, our addiction rehabilition programs, our social support programs do these things. There is room for improvement but we are getting there.

You obviously agree with the statement to a greater extent to I do. I think that prisoners should do labor, (we punish them for being parasitic on society by making them more parasitic on society), and social programs (like social assistance) should only be given if they try their best to support themselves, they don't have to succeed, they just have to do some type of work.

Can you chew on this idea? Welfare recipients to receive welfare must work for the government as laborers. Nothing to harsh, nothing that would be to hard, but they benefit society, would be motivated to find other jobs, and the government gets a larger labor force for only an extra administrative cost.

Of course there would be exceptions like for single moms but you get the idea...

What do you mean here? If your describing cooperate tax breaks for large organizations to supposidly increase employment and expansion then yes, that comes with its own set of problems. For us to give more freedoms to small bussiness, less taxation, less regulations then we create an atmosphere for growth on a more personal level but allow possible socially undesirable enterprises to come to life however saying that, can we view it as a good or a bad thing? It probably does not matter.

Some controls are good, but some are bad, I can't really make a blanket statement. For example rent controls, they killed building of rental housing in Ontario as it wasn't profitable anymore, result? More people not able to find housing than before as no one was building. The government tried to remedy this by subsidizing rent(!!!!!!) and building non-for profit rental housing... and it just got nasty. Huge amounts of money wasted.

When the Conservatives came in they removed rent control, rental building boom, rental housing surplus and average rent falls beneath what rent control had froze it at and there is tons of houses for everyone.

BTW the ones who instituted rent controls were the NDP.

I would agree to more individual freedoms on a personal and small bussiness scale. I actually believe that all now Illegal drugs should be legalized and brought under the control of the Food and Drug admistration act. Doing this would suppress any remaining illegal activity and allow us to help the users, the victims of the drug industry.

I believe marijuana should be and then monopolized by the government. Habit forming ones though I disagree with; what one could argue is that the person is exploiting you by addicting you to a drug, and thus obtaining a constant stream of income.

I think cigarrettes perhaps should be illegalized, if so they should do it by making it ilegal for anyone under 19 to smoke, and then by raising the age every year .

Basically, I want a government that puts more choice back to the individual.

so less restriction...

I want a government that treats all citizens and regions equally and fairly.

...
so you believe the GTA should have 1/6 of the seats in parliament?
I never understood why Alberta thinks its getting a bad deal. Its got a lot of seats proportianally and is doing great.

I want people to quit relying on governments of all types to solve their problems.

Definately. But these are more statements of the relationship between people and government

I want a government who supports a strong military, based on world events.

hell yes, I don't understand how people can want Canada to have more international influence but no army. The guy with no army can't tell the other people what to do with their's, ones influence on the world stage is among other things defined by the power of one's military

I want a government that gets out of my way instead of putting barriers up.

if the barriers are as efficient as possible and contribute to the greater good, I'm all for them.