Canada & Progressives

[Dilip Panjwani]

"Government redistribution legislation"

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

"government's power to steal from the 49% to bribe the 51% into voting for it"

[Dilip Panjwani]

You are saying 2 things here:

(1) Libertarianism is actually plutocracy,

and

(2) Libertarianism will "automagically" make corruption of the political class disappear

(1) is proof of the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing I have warned about concerning Libertarianism, and (2) is hilarious and presented with no supporting evidence.

Capitalism can lead to plutocracy. Libertarianism prevents plutocracy.
Power corrupts (in politics) and Libertarianism makes corruption disappear by immensely reducing politicians' power.... nothing magical about it except that it is so good that it appears almost magical!

[Bob Armstrong]

Any particular economy must seek to meet as many societal needs as possible. Some economic systems are more successful at this than others (E.g. - Socialism is more successful than Capitalism).

But certain societal needs are based on other than pure economics.

These needs must be tweaked into the economy via Government redistribution legislation.

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

[Pargat Perrer]

Let us understand the nature of this top 1%: Most of their wealth is actually working day in and day out to sustain the economy from which the 99% legitimately benefit. The actual money which the top 1% spend on themselves is not very much, and even if this latter amount is snatched away from them and distributed to the rest, it will be pennies that the 99% will get...
The other aspect is that the ultra-rich can 'buy' the politicians with their wealth and make them take unfair steps / create unfair laws, that enable the ultra-rich to keep on exploitingly increasing their wealth. In Libertarianism, the politicians would not have the power to indulge in such corruption.
..........

You are saying 2 things here:

(1) Libertarianism is actually plutocracy,

and

(2) Libertarianism will "automagically" make corruption of the political class disappear

(1) is proof of the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing I have warned about concerning Libertarianism, and (2) is hilarious and presented with no supporting evidence.

[Pargat Perrer]

,,,,

You cannot have a melting pot of cultures that hate each other, or which hate the country they are coming to. Which is why people who bring these problems to our countries should not be allowed here.

Extreme left and extreme right in USA hate each other, are you saying we cannot have this? But it has been happening for many generations and it has been ok because we've had basically centrist governments who rule over all 50 states. And so far no state has seceded.

Therefore we can indeed have cultures that hate each other in the same manner in the same USA melting pot. The problem is that some individuals try to fan the flames of hatred, i.e. increase divisiveness. Trump would be a pirme example of this.

It is interesting that you are willing for this sort of trial and error to exist when implementing government policies but appeared to me to be almost offended when I suggested exactly this as one of the mechanisms that made capitalism relatively successful. Trying and failing in any arena is the precursor to trying and succeeding. Whether in businesses, governments, or individual achievements.

No, I dont think I said capitalism cannot have its trial and error process, what I'm saying is that capitalism will never care about the improvement of society, it cares only about the individual, and the individual improvement does not lead to societal improvement. For societal improvement, we need government.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hold on there Dilip. I see what you're doing, trying to pit the 51% vs the 49%.

Not buying it, most of the 51% and the 49% are wonderful people, it is the top 1% or fraction of a percent, that is grabbing a greater share of the wealth for themselves.
In the process, most of the 99% are getting short changed, not receiving their fair share.

Even some of the 1% are wonderful people, are charitable and empathetic, but a fraction of that 1% actually believe they deserve more.

So Dilip, stop moving the goal posts. Forget this silly notion of haves and have nots, 49% vs 51%, the real divide is between the ridiculously wealthy 1% short changing the 99%.
As I can see, Libertarianism only makes the gap larger.

Let us understand the nature of this top 1%: Most of their wealth is actually working day in and day out to sustain the economy from which the 99% legitimately benefit. The actual money which the top 1% spend on themselves is not very much, and even if this latter amount is snatched away from them and distributed to the rest, it will be pennies that the 99% will get...
The other aspect is that the ultra-rich can 'buy' the politicians with their wealth and make them take unfair steps / create unfair laws, that enable the ultra-rich to keep on exploitingly increasing their wealth. In Libertarianism, the politicians would not have the power to indulge in such corruption.
The other aspect of Libertarianism is its ability to generate competition which will divide the top 1% wealth amongst a much larger percentage, and create a bigger need for 'workers', which will enrich even those not at the top...
The bottom line is that everyone who does smart and hard work should benefit according to what they have chosen to do, and the market forces are the best determinant of that. The decency and love and brotherhood/sisterhood within the inner 'circles' can look after the disabled and the unfortunate (not the stupid or the lazy)... we all have personally experienced the pride and satisfaction we experience when we provide such help within our circles...

[Bob Gillanders]

Hold on there Dilip. I see what you're doing, trying to pit the 51% vs the 49%.

Not buying it, most of the 51% and the 49% are wonderful people, it is the top 1% or fraction of a percent, that is grabbing a greater share of the wealth for themselves.
In the process, most of the 99% are getting short changed, not receiving their fair share.

Even some of the 1% are wonderful people, are charitable and empathetic, but a fraction of that 1% actually believe they deserve more.

So Dilip, stop moving the goal posts. Forget this silly notion of haves and have nots, 49% vs 51%, the real divide is between the ridiculously wealthy 1% short changing the 99%.
As I can see, Libertarianism only makes the gap larger.

[Bob Armstrong]

Under Democratic Marxism, given the penchant for equality...........

Both the 51 % & the 49% .......... will each get their own private...

JET!

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

[Dilip Panjwani]

To paraphrase John Kenneth Galbraith: Under capitalism and communism, man exploits man. Under libertarianism, it's just the opposite.

Under Capitalism and Marxism, politicians govern corruptly to enable man to harm man. Under Libertarianism, politicians only enforce the Natural Law to prevent man from harming man...

[Peter McKillop]

The 51% majority are wonderful individuals.... so long as they do not want to steal from the 49% minority by using their majority vote....

To paraphrase John Kenneth Galbraith: Under capitalism and communism, man exploits man. Under libertarianism, it's just the opposite.

[Dilip Panjwani]

The 51% majority are wonderful individuals.... so long as they do not want to steal from the 49% minority by using their majority vote....

[Bob Gillanders]

Well then, why don't you just take the vote away from the under-49ers. Those useless bastards don't deserve to have the vote, is that what you're saying, Dilip? It sounds like your **Natural Law** doesn't think much of those who, for whatever reason, inhabit the bottom rungs of society even though many (most?) of these people are working as hard as they can just to survive using the limited abilities life and nature gave them. If the under-49ers are such a concern for libertarians then why don't they have a policy that calls for euthanizing them? Oh wait, then some of the 49-and-overs would have to get their hands dirty doing society's drudge work. Maybe in the libertarian world the under-49ers should be a permanent untouchable caste who would be assigned food and living quarters in exchange for work and whose breeding would be tightly controlled. Sounds to me, Dilip, like your version of libertarianism is a bust.

Thank you Peter. I love your post. I too find Dilip's lecturing about the haves and have nots to be disturbingly offensive.

[Peter McKillop]

Would work only if the voting is not allowed to violate the Natural Law or Libertarianism....otherwise the have-nots, defined as earning less than the 49th percentile, will vote to steal from those earning more than the 49th percentile, and only corruption and chaos will be generated as a result of theft becoming the norm....

Well then, why don't you just take the vote away from the under-49ers. Those useless bastards don't deserve to have the vote, is that what you're saying, Dilip? It sounds like your **Natural Law** doesn't think much of those who, for whatever reason, inhabit the bottom rungs of society even though many (most?) of these people are working as hard as they can just to survive using the limited abilities life and nature gave them. If the under-49ers are such a concern for libertarians then why don't they have a policy that calls for euthanizing them? Oh wait, then some of the 49-and-overs would have to get their hands dirty doing society's drudge work. Maybe in the libertarian world the under-49ers should be a permanent untouchable caste who would be assigned food and living quarters in exchange for work and whose breeding would be tightly controlled. Sounds to me, Dilip, like your version of libertarianism is a bust.

[Dilip Panjwani]

The View of Democratic Marxism - The Policy - Evolution of Society to a "Collection of Villages".





Step # 3 - When all nations on the planet have done this, then the nations can dissolve themselves to evolve the planet's society into "A Collection of Villages", each village run by direct democracy voting

Bob Armstrong (Democratic Marxist).

Would work only if the voting is not allowed to violate the Natural Law or Libertarianism....otherwise the have-nots, defined as earning less than the 49th percentile, will vote to steal from those earning more than the 49th percentile, and only corruption and chaos will be generated as a result of theft becoming the norm....

[Bob Armstrong]

The View of Democratic Marxism - The Policy - Evolution of Society to a "Collection of Villages".



How to?:

Step 1 - a. Each province/state of a country should devolve all its powers possible to a structure of city-states within it.

b. The provincial/state government level should become the Secretariat of the Association of City States of the Province X. This is necessary to work with the federal country province/state system in the transition period.

Step # 2 - The Federal Government devolves its powers to the country's now "Collection of Villages". It becomes the Secretariat of the Federal Association of City States of Country Y. This is necessary to work with a world nation system in the transition period.

Step # 3 - When all nations on the planet have done this, then the nations can dissolve themselves to evolve the planet's society into "A Collection of Villages", each village run by direct democracy voting (Now possible due to communication technology).

Issue: Which province/state is willing to go first?

Ontario Answer: Under the Province of Ontario Government by the elected Democratic Marxist Party of Ontario (Exists and has a Fb Page).

Bob Armstrong (Democratic Marxist).