Canada & Conservatism

[Tom O'Donnell]

I will be quite busy for the next few days, but wanted you to know I am not ignoring your points.

Agreed about "free markets". We don't have them. We don't have capitalism. We have crony capitalism.

To the point about price fixing / manipulation. My wife and I were two people who got some money from the Loblaws bread price fixing scandal. I guess there was some sort of class action lawsuit and since we buy some bread from Loblaws, we each applied for, and received, a $25 gift card. Multiplied by surely at least hundreds of thousands of people they took a pretty big hit. You might say this is not much punishment for a crime of this scope. I would tend to agree.

I would have no objection to the scope of a crime being a large factor in sentencing. Instead of a tax system that punishes people for excellence, the criminal justice system would punish people for the scope of their crimes. I wouldn't hold my breath, though. Example: Ghislaine Maxwell is in prison for grooming underage girls and pimping them out to ... will we ever know?

I have yet to meet a Libertarian who thinks government courts are a bad thing. I personally think it is one of the few necessary functions of federal government.

Lastly, you touch on the idea of negative externalities with your example of train crashes. Same as with price fixing, I have no problem with heads of large corporations going to prison for a long time if they knowingly created reasonable risks to third parties. I am sure there are plenty of "greedy" law firms that will represent damaged parties, for 1/3 of the spoils.

But there is a second way you can be left with no choice, and also a third way.

Second way: the well-financed business drives out the competition by temporarily lowering prices below levels that a smaller operator can compete with. Amazon has excelled at this business model. As soon as all the competition is bankrupted, the monopoly is in place and prices rise back up. Any new competition that tries to appear will see prices temporarily go down beyond what the new business can charge at a profit.

Third way: the thing that needs donw, whether it's a product or service, is not profitable under ANY business model. But it still needs getting done to meet the needs of some people, which could be you and your family. But since it can't be profitable, it is left undone and your needs go unmet. This is a BIG reason for government taxation, and in a perfect world, all the unmet needs would be filled under taxpayer-funded programs even if they all suffer a loss. Very specialized medical programs would be an example. If you have a child with Down's Syndrome, you need specialized services in your small town.

Also, small point but very important ... no such thing as "free market". If you are against lies spread by mainstream media, you should also hate this term.




When I brought up small local units (I mistakenly used the phrase "circles within circles" forgetting that was Dilip's term, and Bob A. uses the term "Local Political Units" which sounds like something the Coneheads would say ...
(nasal voice..."Our parental units are attending the meeting of the Local Political Unit at the local judicial offices in the central business area." LOL)
but in any event, I was referring to something Bob said about this, which is that communications pass up and down the chains from the local units to the bigger units to the ultimate biggest unit, and reputations of people (whether they are lazy or greedy or whatever) can be known. Of course, it is an idealized idea and would surely suffer from corruption because .... people are human.

Tom, how would you feel about your "free market" if a train derailed right in your neighborhood spewing toxious chemicals causing the whole town to be evacuated but too late to prevent many people from breathing in toxic fumes ... and you later found out the accident happened because the railroad was deregulated completely and was allowed to ship said chemicals at the lowest cost possible which meant bypassing any safety checks? Happens almost daily in "free market" USA.

[Dilip Panjwani]

... how would you feel about your "free market" if a train derailed right in your neighborhood spewing toxious chemicals causing the whole town to be evacuated but too late to prevent many people from breathing in toxic fumes ... and you later found out the accident happened because the railroad was deregulated completely and was allowed to ship said chemicals at the lowest cost possible which meant bypassing any safety checks? Happens almost daily in "free market" USA.

When owners of businesses know that enforcement of the Natural Law would make them compensate those harmed fully, they would never risk such derailment...

[Dilip Panjwani]

What is "easy access to capital?" What is the source of this capital? Who decides which business start-ups qualify for easy access? Etc.?

Everyone qualifies. Businesses go bankrupt because the owners want some of them to (remember Trump saying he is a master of 'bankruptcy'?). Those who sincerely want to run a business do not go bankrupt, if there are no stupid government regulations to unnecessarily impede their business (which Musk and Ramaswamy are trying to rectify).
The whole idea behind easy access to capital is that those who are wealthy have the right to enjoy their wealth, but do not have the exclusive right to earn more wealth just because of the wealth they own. In the absence of the myriad of corruption-creating regulations holding back the smooth functioning of sincere businesses, easy access to capital would be a boon for society. The filthy rich multi-billionaires would be replaced by thousands of millionaires...

[Sid Belzberg]

You keep bringing up this same example over and over again, from poverty-stricken Bangladesh. The USA and Canada are not Bangladesh!!!

You think Mark Cuban or Keven O'Leary are going to go onto Shark Tank and offer every prospective entrepreneur "easy access to capital"???

NOOOO!!! what they do is DEMAND proper VALUATION!!!! there is no easy access to capital outside of poverty-stricken nations.

GET REAL.

and the latest 1000-year flood in Bangladesh is sure to wipe out Grameen Bank because so much arable land was destroyed and can no longer grow crops. All those loans wiped out.... due to the effects of CLIMATE CHANGE which you deny because you can't see beyond the tip of your nose.

GET REAL

Peter, don't listen to the shit these guys spurt out their asses. Sid has to go all the way to Bangladesh to find an example of investors giving away money ... to people who have nothing left to lose. And now they've lost even that. "Microfinancing" is just a magical term for "giving money away for nothing". Don't invest in those idiots.

The 2000 dot com crash proved you can't just give away money to every hair-brained scheme. Learn from history.

Your outburst is as ill-informed as it is insulting, but let’s dissect your points with clarity and precision.

First, the Grameen Bank is not "giving away money." It's providing loans, not handouts, to individuals who otherwise have no access to traditional banking systems. These loans come with repayment structures, and Grameen's repayment rates have consistently exceeded 98%—a statistic that puts many Western banks to shame. This model is not confined to "poverty-stricken Bangladesh"; it has inspired microfinance institutions worldwide, including in the U.S., where organizations like Kiva and Accion work to provide capital to underserved communities. So, the idea that "easy access to capital" only applies to poor nations is ignorant nonsense.

Second, Bangladesh’s flood-prone geography is not a recent revelation. The country has been adapting to seasonal floods for centuries. In fact, initiatives like the Grameen Bank and BRAC have enabled communities to recover faster and build resilience. Inhabiting a flood-prone region doesn’t erase decades of economic progress. Your cheap attempt to tie this to climate change fraud is both irrelevant and disingenuous.

Third, your grasp of Shark Tank economics is laughable. Yes, Mark Cuban and Kevin O’Leary demand valuations because they operate in a venture capitalist framework designed for developed markets. Microfinance and venture capitalism are two different systems addressing two different economic realities. Conflating the two only reveals your inability to engage with nuance.

Fourth, the 2000 dot-com crash? Really? Comparing speculative, overvalued tech stocks to the Grameen Bank model is so absurd it barely merits acknowledgment. Grameen’s success is grounded in sustainable, small-scale entrepreneurship, not speculative bubbles. It's a shame you can't grasp the difference. But let’s expand: taking risks on overvalued stocks during the dot-com boom may have led to losses for some investors, but it also triggered one of the most significant technological revolutions and economic booms in history. The same speculative environment birthed giants like Amazon, Google, and eBay, which now form the backbone of the global digital economy. Risk-taking, when guided by vision and innovation, can transform industries. Microfinance follows this principle by empowering individuals to take small, calculated risks, yielding high social and economic returns.

Finally, your crude remarks and personal attacks are emblematic of someone who has run out of valid arguments. Instead of spending years with your vile trolling of me replete with antisemitic bigotry, condemned uniformly by all, here including your former allies, it’s likely because substantive debate is beyond you. Rather than spewing vile, bigoted vitriol, perhaps try reading up on the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Grameen Bank, which has uplifted millions worldwide and proven that financial inclusion works.

Your inability to understand or accept these facts doesn’t make them any less true—it just makes you look increasingly ridiculous. Get educated before spewing more nonsense.

I have no problem seeing man as a cancer

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Peter,
Let me offer you this example.
Easy Access to Capital: The Grameen Bank Example

"Easy access to capital" refers to financial systems that provide funding to individuals or businesses with minimal barriers. A powerful example of this is the Grameen Bank, founded by Dr. Muhammad Yunus in Bangladesh. The Grameen Bank pioneered the concept of microfinance—small, collateral-free loans aimed at empowering the underprivileged, particularly women, to start or grow small businesses.

In Bangladesh during the 1970s, widespread poverty and limited access to formal banking systems left millions without the means to improve their livelihoods. Traditional banks viewed the poor as uncreditworthy, requiring collateral and extensive documentation that these individuals could not provide. Recognizing this gap, the Grameen Bank adopted an innovative approach by providing small loans directly to the poor, relying on trust and a group lending model where borrowers formed peer groups to encourage repayment.

This system revolutionized access to capital. Over time, borrowers—primarily women—used the loans to start businesses such as weaving, farming, or small trading ventures. The results were transformative: increased household incomes, improved education for children, and better health outcomes. In turn, this economic empowerment contributed to the broader recovery of Bangladesh's economy, helping to stabilize communities and foster sustainable development.

The Grameen Bank's model has been replicated globally, impacting millions in countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Organizations like Kiva and BRAC have drawn inspiration from it, using microfinance to address poverty and inequality worldwide. Beyond economic benefits, this approach has demonstrated that investing in people’s potential, regardless of their financial status, yields immense social and economic returns.

You keep bringing up this same example over and over again, from poverty-stricken Bangladesh. The USA and Canada are not Bangladesh!!!

You think Mark Cuban or Keven O'Leary are going to go onto Shark Tank and offer every prospective entrepreneur "easy access to capital"???

NOOOO!!! what they do is DEMAND proper VALUATION!!!! there is no easy access to capital outside of poverty-stricken nations.

GET REAL.

and the latest 1000-year flood in Bangladesh is sure to wipe out Grameen Bank because so much arable land was destroyed and can no longer grow crops. All those loans wiped out.... due to the effects of CLIMATE CHANGE which you deny because you can't see beyond the tip of your nose.

GET REAL

Peter, don't listen to the shit these guys spurt out their asses. Sid has to go all the way to Bangladesh to find an example of investors giving away money ... to people who have nothing left to lose. And now they've lost even that. "Microfinancing" is just a magical term for "giving money away for nothing". Don't invest in those idiots.

The 2000 dot com crash proved you can't just give away money to every hair-brained scheme. Learn from history.

[Sid Belzberg]

What is "easy access to capital?" What is the source of this capital? Who decides which business start-ups qualify for easy access? Etc.?

Hi Peter,
Let me offer you this example.
Easy Access to Capital: The Grameen Bank Example

"Easy access to capital" refers to financial systems that provide funding to individuals or businesses with minimal barriers. A powerful example of this is the Grameen Bank, founded by Dr. Muhammad Yunus in Bangladesh. The Grameen Bank pioneered the concept of microfinance—small, collateral-free loans aimed at empowering the underprivileged, particularly women, to start or grow small businesses.

In Bangladesh during the 1970s, widespread poverty and limited access to formal banking systems left millions without the means to improve their livelihoods. Traditional banks viewed the poor as uncreditworthy, requiring collateral and extensive documentation that these individuals could not provide. Recognizing this gap, the Grameen Bank adopted an innovative approach by providing small loans directly to the poor, relying on trust and a group lending model where borrowers formed peer groups to encourage repayment.

This system revolutionized access to capital. Over time, borrowers—primarily women—used the loans to start businesses such as weaving, farming, or small trading ventures. The results were transformative: increased household incomes, improved education for children, and better health outcomes. In turn, this economic empowerment contributed to the broader recovery of Bangladesh's economy, helping to stabilize communities and foster sustainable development.

The Grameen Bank's model has been replicated globally, impacting millions in countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Organizations like Kiva and BRAC have drawn inspiration from it, using microfinance to address poverty and inequality worldwide. Beyond economic benefits, this approach has demonstrated that investing in people’s potential, regardless of their financial status, yields immense social and economic returns.

[Peter McKillop]

You need to recognize market forces: If providing services at a reasonable price gets one a better market share, that business would go for it. The Libertarian philosophy is to enable lots of competition (from easy access to capital), so that the consumer gains... just as the workers do, with greater demand for their work.

What is "easy access to capital?" What is the source of this capital? Who decides which business start-ups qualify for easy access? Etc.?

[Dilip Panjwani]

and you also wrote to Bob G.:

"The right way of dealing with these greedy companies is to enable non-greedy entities to compete with them in their businesses by providing services at a reasonable price, and thus driving the greedy ones out of business.... not by robbing them as a Marxist would recommend!"

So first of all, there ARE NO NON-GREEDY FOR-PROFIT ENTITIES. None. Zero.

There never will be any unless it is put into law by government but to do that, you'd have to force people to go against their nature. and resourceful greedy people will ALWAYS find ways around it.

So ... BOOM ... there goes Libertarianism up in smoke.

"providing services at a reasonable price" is not a concept for-profit entrepreneurs hold dear. In fact they don't care a fart about "reasonable price" they care only about profit.

You fail to comprehend human nature. You apply laziness to socialists without understanding greed applies to socialists and capitalists and Libertarians alike.

You need to recognize market forces: If providing services at a reasonable price gets one a better market share, that business would go for it. The Libertarian philosophy is to enable lots of competition (from easy access to capital), so that the consumer gains... just as the workers do, with greater demand for their work.

[Pargat Perrer]

Sorry Vlad, I didn't anticipate this reaction. I did not intend to deny violence in the past under the brand of Marxism. What your family suffered is terrible and I take your account of it at face value. We do need to strive for a world without violence. I hate political labels, very confusing and with various meanings around the world. That's why I joined Sid in encouraging Bob A. to rename his non-violent democratic version of Marxism.

It should again be stated that tortures and murders and property expropriations all happen under right-wing fascism as well. One must be against ALL POLITICAL EXTREMISM to be considered to have a fair and balanced viewpoint.

If you want to learn all about the 20th century major events (the two World Wars, the Cold War, etc) which gets deeply into all of communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism and does so in an entertaining fiction narrative, but includes all the major real-life actors and their real-life actions ... Hitler, Chamberlain, Lenin, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman, Oppenheimer, Marshall, etc etc ... I highly recommend a trilogy of books by author Ken Follett. In the following order,

"Fall of Giants"
"Winter of the World"
"Edge of Eternity"

These are all very thick books. Follett is a true master of characterization and so you get deeply involved in the characters living out their lives in the real-life 20th century events, and dealing with the consequences of all the extreme political systems as they clash with each other.

but Bob G. you seem to be more of a video watcher than a reader?

[Pargat Perrer]

Any version of Marxism still has the unworkable disastrous economic elements of Marxism, with its eventual ruining of society, whatever name you may want to give it...

and you also wrote to Bob G.:

"The right way of dealing with these greedy companies is to enable non-greedy entities to compete with them in their businesses by providing services at a reasonable price, and thus driving the greedy ones out of business.... not by robbing them as a Marxist would recommend!"

So first of all, there ARE NO NON-GREEDY FOR-PROFIT ENTITIES. None. Zero.

There never will be any unless it is put into law by government but to do that, you'd have to force people to go against their nature. and resourceful greedy people will ALWAYS find ways around it.

So ... BOOM ... there goes Libertarianism up in smoke.

"providing services at a reasonable price" is not a concept for-profit entrepreneurs hold dear. In fact they don't care a fart about "reasonable price" they care only about profit.

You fail to comprehend human nature. You apply laziness to socialists without understanding greed applies to socialists and capitalists and Libertarians alike.

[Pargat Perrer]

Consider what happened during Covid. Local shops were closed here, while behemoths like Walmart remained open. Crowding hundreds of people into one store as opposed to having people dispersed to many stores. Why did this happen? Did Walmart close down the competition? No, the government did.

If people let the free market play out, then everyone has a choice to support or not support businesses. If I don't like that CEO Joe Blow makes umpteen millions of dollars I don't have to frequent any of his businesses - that is unless government grants him a monopoly or special exemptions and I have no choice.

But there is a second way you can be left with no choice, and also a third way.

Second way: the well-financed business drives out the competition by temporarily lowering prices below levels that a smaller operator can compete with. Amazon has excelled at this business model. As soon as all the competition is bankrupted, the monopoly is in place and prices rise back up. Any new competition that tries to appear will see prices temporarily go down beyond what the new business can charge at a profit.

Third way: the thing that needs donw, whether it's a product or service, is not profitable under ANY business model. But it still needs getting done to meet the needs of some people, which could be you and your family. But since it can't be profitable, it is left undone and your needs go unmet. This is a BIG reason for government taxation, and in a perfect world, all the unmet needs would be filled under taxpayer-funded programs even if they all suffer a loss. Very specialized medical programs would be an example. If you have a child with Down's Syndrome, you need specialized services in your small town.

Also, small point but very important ... no such thing as "free market". If you are against lies spread by mainstream media, you should also hate this term.

As for Bob A's idea of local governance, at least where I live we already have that.
I live in a town of about 35K people. Not enough to know every person but small enough that my wife and I have had a sit down meeting with the mayor about a neighbourhood concern for about 30 minutes (she has kept Mondays open for a few hours each week to address citizens' concerns) and we have attended a couple of town council meetings that are open to everyone. My personal view on government is that there are a few - very few - things that need a federal government and that most other things should be handled at a local level.

The neighbourhood concern was people speeding on the roads right near our condo - a big problem since we live across the street from an elementary school and half block from a retirement home - and although it took about a year or so they did eventually put up four-way stoplights which helped manage the problem.

I personally look forward to what happens if/when Musk and Ramaswamy draining the swamp of lifetime civil servants whose only contribution to society is blocking people who want to get things done. From what I've seen they will somewhat copy the Milei plan in Argentina.

When I brought up small local units (I mistakenly used the phrase "circles within circles" forgetting that was Dilip's term, and Bob A. uses the term "Local Political Units" which sounds like something the Coneheads would say ...
(nasal voice..."Our parental units are attending the meeting of the Local Political Unit at the local judicial offices in the central business area." LOL)
but in any event, I was referring to something Bob said about this, which is that communications pass up and down the chains from the local units to the bigger units to the ultimate biggest unit, and reputations of people (whether they are lazy or greedy or whatever) can be known. Of course, it is an idealized idea and would surely suffer from corruption because .... people are human.

Tom, how would you feel about your "free market" if a train derailed right in your neighborhood spewing toxious chemicals causing the whole town to be evacuated but too late to prevent many people from breathing in toxic fumes ... and you later found out the accident happened because the railroad was deregulated completely and was allowed to ship said chemicals at the lowest cost possible which meant bypassing any safety checks? Happens almost daily in "free market" USA.

[Dilip Panjwani]

... encouraging Bob A. to rename his non-violent democratic version of Marxism...

Any version of Marxism still has the unworkable disastrous economic elements of Marxism, with its eventual ruining of society, whatever name you may want to give it...

[Bob Gillanders]

Dilip decentralization in Libertarianism is called a structure of "circles within circles".

DM's decentralization is called a structure of a "collection of villages (Local Political Units)".

Tom refers to the decentralization experience in a middle sized town of about 35,000 residents.

Bob, I think you are on the wrong path. I don't think you can force the world into small units, whether they be circles or LPU's.
If you go small, they will go big, and the big will eat the small.

You need a concept of governance which is scalable.

[Bob Gillanders]

Those of us with family members murdered and other family members tortured and many threatened with death when they were very old senior citizens have no question or doubt of whether the Marxist brand's reputation is justified or not.

Sorry Vlad, I didn't anticipate this reaction. I did not intend to deny violence in the past under the brand of Marxism. What your family suffered is terrible and I take your account of it at face value. We do need to strive for a world without violence. I hate political labels, very confusing and with various meanings around the world. That's why I joined Sid in encouraging Bob A. to rename his non-violent democratic version of Marxism.

[Bob Armstrong]

Dilip decentralization in Libertarianism is called a structure of "circles within circles".

DM's decentralization is called a structure of a "collection of villages (Local Political Units)".

Tom refers to the decentralization experience in a middle sized town of about 35,000 residents.

So it appears that we do have a consensus building that big is not beautiful. Big has separated the elector from those they elect. Big has allowed one nation to hold the rest hostage by the threat of dystopia (Russia putting nuclear option in Ukraine back on the table). Big has led to Capitalism evolving into Big destroying the little businesses, monopolies with conspiracy to keep prices high.

This may be a commonality developing here on CT, which could form the basis of some multi-political supported re-structuring of society here in Canada?

Is this how we can avoid the coming dystopia?



Bob A (Willing to build a civil, citizen-generated, non-political "new societal structure", leaving aside differences re Democratic Marxism for later)