Tomorrow is tax freedom day.

[dumpthemonarchy]

What is needed is a staggered tax day. For some people the day is earlier, for some it is later. One day for all is simply too much hyperventilating by the rich. But that would have less drama, but it would be more interesting.

I don't like to use the word freedom with tax "freedom" day because we live in a free country. The NP and the Fraser Insitute seem like closet anarchists with an authoritarian bent.

 

[Bar Sinister]

So? It's still as close to a direct democracy than anything else in the world and through that, the citizens keep themselves content. Some other country's citizens using direct democracy may allow goats to vote and allow nothing but minarets. It makes no difference. The purpose of a direct democracy is to make its peoples happy, however they want to be happy. What they are happy about is irrelevant. BS. An analogy to your logic would be to say that Germans are Nazis because they were Nazis in the past. So what? What a democratic country does to keep its citizens happy is irrelevant to other countries. Mob rule is a danger sometimes, so what? Representative democracy also has its downsides, too, such as when it becomes a plutarchy rather than a democracy, as it has in the USA and Canada. If people want to be happy, the direct democracy is the most effective way for them to be happy.

It seems to me you are being deliberately obtuse. Do you really not understand that using a majority opinion to suppress a minority is not democracy? Let's follow your happiness analogy to its logical conclusion. "I want to be happy. Muslims make me unhappy. Let's get rid of all the Muslims. Yay - now I'm really happy."

You want a few historical analogies? How about the fact that in the USA prior to the Civil War a large number of people were held as slaves. And why not? Slave ownership certainly made their owners happy. And of course, the slave owners were the majority so everything was OK.

You seem to have a real problem understanding that simply because the majority wants something that does not make it democratic. Forcing the values of the majority on the minority does not constitute democracy; instead it usually results in abuse of human rights. Using your Germany analogy there is little doubt that a majority of Germans prior to World War II were anti-Semitic. But I guess that was alright - after all being racist made them happy and what could possibly be bad about that?

You keep on pushing for direct democracy. That is fine just as long as you understand that direct democracy can be just as flawed as other systems of democracy.

 

[Cliffy]

I think we should have a benevolent dictatorship. On the Alkali Lake reserve, back in the early 80s, the new chief went to Indian Affairs and told them that all money would go to him and he would feed the people, which h did. But he gave them no money for alcohol. He had to carry a gun everywhere but after one year, the band was 100% alcohol free. Now the band has a number of businesses, unemployment is low and they became a model for many reserves in Canada. That is what we need because, looking at the present system, people do not seem smart enough to make the necessary changes on their own.