Canada & Progressives

[Dilip Panjwani]

Bob, have the guts to answer the points raised, instead of shutting your eyes and brain to obvious truth.
You do not seem to understand that DM does not encourage the growth of society's wealth, as it punishes entrepreneurs; all it does is redistribute shrinking wealth. It also makes the process of generating wealth managed by government employees, and history and common sense have shown that businesses fail to deliver when run by the government.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

Sloganneering that is repetitive gets quite tiring.

I'll no longer try to explain things to you......pretty committed to Libertarian ideology.

If others here are interested, I will continue to try to explain, what Dilip has NEVER gotten, is that "Communism" is a socialism, but is a bastardization of Marx, not Marxism (And this is the old dog he keeps coming up with so as to beat it with a stick, the same old, tiring one).



Democratic Marxism has never been tried before, as elaborated here, for the benefit, hopefully, of CT'ers. DM has only said that the closest thing to a DM government was that of President Salvador Allende in 1970-73. But it was actually a Unity Government of Democratic Socialism, and the traditional USSR-type Communist Party of Chile.

So please consider (Don't listen Dilip) the series of Discussion Papers I have posted on the prior CT Democratic Marxism thread, and then levy criticism on the policies proposed & we'll have an intelligent debate (Not a mouthing of platitudes, as has regularly happened here).

Bob A (Trying to explain my Democratic Marxism; I've totally failed with Dilip; hope others are clearer on the NEW PARTY proposed policies)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Democracy in Canada

Capitalism with a Human Face - Social Democracy - New Democratic Party of Canada



... the people will finally look at, and appreciate the benefits of Democratic Socialism (Or by then, perhaps the benefits of Democratic Marxism - they will by then have seen the benefits when the Democratic Marxist Party...).

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

What benefits, Bob, are you talking about...you have never honestly answered all the questions about the disastrous nature of Marxism...
Instead of making sure that the dirty rich cannot bribe the politicians to build a system and put in a myriad regulations which prevent the hard-working commoners to start businesses on their own, Marxism just lets the dirty rich steal from the rest and then itself steals what it can from hard and smart-working entrepreneurs to distribute the stolen stuff to those who prefer to relax rather than do hard and smart work.... a very destructive and disastrous system indeed...

[Bob Armstrong]

Democracy in Canada

Capitalism with a Human Face - Social Democracy - New Democratic Party of Canada



The NDP is the eventual path out of Capitalism........capitalism must evolve in Canada to an NDP majority government in future! They will rise like the Phoenix in the next election (Likely not that far off, since the Libs and Cons will agree on nothing).

Eventually the NDP & the Bloc & the Green will decide to end the pain of the struggling Carney minority government, pass the non-confidence motion, and all will go for the golden ring again.

After the NDP fails to satisfy, somewhere forward in Canada's future, the people will finally look at, and appreciate the benefits of Democratic Socialism (Or by then, perhaps the benefits of Democratic Marxism - they will by then have seen the benefits when the Democratic Marxist Party of Ontario formed the provincial government, & restructured the whole province municipally).

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

[Pargat Perrer]

Americas - Canada

Federal Election: Monday, April 28, 2025 (Less than 1 month away!)

"The one issue that could flip the advantage back to Poilievre!

The latest polling data suggests that Canadians believe Mark Carney



would do a better job than Pierre Poilievre at going toe-to-toe with Donald Trump.

However, the majority of Canadians still view the cost of living as the federal election’s number one issue, Mark Ramzy reports."

The Toronto Star - First Up Newsletter - By Andrew Joe Potter - 25/3/29

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

CANADA STAYS CENTER-LEFT
=========================

As many of you might recall, I have long said that for major democratic developed nations, it is probably best to remain politically Center or Center-Left.

Canada did the right thing and threw away the false promises of Libertarianism / Conservatism and stayed Center-Left for the next few years.

The other PP who leads the woeful Conservatives, did he actually lose his seat? If yes, he should resign as did Singh of the Old Democrats. (How long can they be New Democrats? How long can they even remain a party?)

Too bad Dollup Panhandler, your miracle man is not going to take over. Thank goodness.

In the face of crisis, Canadians flocked to the center. Like a herd of elephants who, in response to the unexpected such as an earthquake, form a circle inside of which are their babies.

The Americans did something very different and disturbing, and as a result are in dire straits.

The collapse of the New Democrats is also a trend worth commenting on. Could it be that in Canada, we will reject polarization altogether?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMnQscwcJXE

[Bob Armstrong]

The World Population projections now state that quite soon, due to many factors, the World Population for the first time will start to DECREASE!

Bob A

[Pargat Perrer]

I cannot think of a piece of land on Earth which has not been claimed by at least one country. This includes places that have no people.

Antarctica is covered by an international treaty. No country is allowed to claim even a part of Antarctica for themself. Of course treaties can be violated.

IThe border people have won the battle of ideas in practice, for good or bad. Land has been claimed and it must be defended from criminal invaders. You claim it and defend it or you will inevitably lose it to someone else who wants it. ...

This is the philosophy that leads to exactly what I said, increasing population leads to increasing borders. Claim it and defend it ... leads to conflict and wars, both civil and international.

I
We don't need to limit population growth through force.
...

I agree with this, even though in my last post I said we should now at this point in time limit population growth. Actually, the window has closed. Instead, population growth is henceforth going to be limited by TOTAL .... GLOBAL .... ECONOMIC .... COLLAPSE.

Anyone with children must now prepare for their children's survival. It That is, if you love your children, in which case prepare to sacrifice yourselves as parents for your children.

It may happen in slow motion ... but it is underway now.

Gold at record highs.
Global trade disintegrating.
China surpassing USA as top world economy, economic war in progress.
USA to annex countries by force, including Canada no matter how many times you say "elbows up".

LOL elbows up .... AK-47s firing .....

end of civilization as we have known it.

[Bob Armstrong]

Antarctica

Does it hold secrets (Beyond who may claim to own it)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upxe03w75Qo

Bob A

[Tom O'Donnell]

I believe parts of Antarctica have been claimed by various countries, though eyeballing the map on the site below it appears that there are unclaimed parts. Perhaps there are also some tiny islands in the middle of nowhere that are unclaimed. I suspect that if there were easy to extract resources / sudden strategic value these places would not be unclaimed for long.

I think of Antarctica like Mars. Inhospitable.

Territorial claims in Antarctica - Wikipedia

[Dilip Panjwani]

I cannot think of a piece of land on Earth which has not been claimed by at least one country. This includes places that have no people. The border people have won the battle of ideas in practice, for good or bad. Land has been claimed and it must be defended from criminal invaders. You claim it and defend it or you will inevitably lose it to someone else who wants it.

Population in all places except Africa are already stable/declining. We don't need to limit population growth through force.

When two or more countries make it to Mars and they have colonies there, there will probably be borders, especially with limited resources.

I think the entire continent of Antarctica is not claimed by any country

[Tom O'Donnell]

I cannot think of a piece of land on Earth which has not been claimed by at least one country. This includes places that have no people. The border people have won the battle of ideas in practice, for good or bad. Land has been claimed and it must be defended from criminal invaders. You claim it and defend it or you will inevitably lose it to someone else who wants it.

Population in all places except Africa are already stable/declining. We don't need to limit population growth through force.

When two or more countries make it to Mars and they have colonies there, there will probably be borders, especially with limited resources.

[Pargat Perrer]

The original inhabitants of North America did not secure their borders. So yes, they let criminal invaders into their lands and had no way to evict them. I thought learning from history was one of the reasons to study it. So that we don't make the mistakes that the people before us made.

Securing borders is one of the primary tasks of national governments. Otherwise, Russia invades Ukraine. Or, as speculated on this site by others, US invades Canada. If borders are unimportant, why care about such things?

True, the original inhabitants of North America probably didn't even think of the concept of "borders" because thee was so much land, so few people.

What seems to happen is that as population grows, the number of borders grow with it. The world today probably has more countries than ever before, and still many areas want to separate even further.

I think we can say population growth leads to increasing fragmentation (borders) leads to increasing conflict (wars).

I don't think the lesson from history is that the original natives of North America should have secured borders (that they didn't have). Rather i think it is that we should now at this point in time LIMIT population growth in order to limit fragmentation in order to limit conflict. We have to deal with the limits of planet Earth.

Musk wants us to go to Mars. RIght now there are no borders on Mars. How long will it be before there are borders on Mars?

[Bob Armstrong]

The original inhabitants had no border concept......land was the gift of the Great Spirit to provide food for them to hunt.



It is true that encroachment on the "hunting territory" of another tribe caused conflict.....but this was a fight over food, not land.

Certain consequences follow from this "life view".

Bob A

[Tom O'Donnell]

The original inhabitants of North America did not secure their borders. So yes, they let criminal invaders into their lands and had no way to evict them. I thought learning from history was one of the reasons to study it. So that we don't make the mistakes that the people before us made.

Securing borders is one of the primary tasks of national governments. Otherwise, Russia invades Ukraine. Or, as speculated on this site by others, US invades Canada. If borders are unimportant, why care about such things?

Some of the most worrying trends are in non-Western, but still First-World countries, for example South Korea, Singapore, and Japan. These are high-IQ societies and it would be tragic for the planet to have their numbers decreasing.

Agreed about increasing wealth decreasing the fertility rate. I am sure I have read the same. But I suspect culture also plays a factor and so do incentives.

[Pargat Perrer]

The 2030 projection I assume includes the criminal invaders that the Trump administration is trying mightily to boot out. That should adjust that number down somewhat.

"Criminal invaders" .... totally ignoring the "criminal natives" .... and by the way, who were the original "criminal invaders" of North America?

Consider that the native population is breeding at significantly less than the 2.1 children per woman needed for replacement. In the US it is roughly 1.7; Canada 1.5. Without legal immigration, the population of most Western nations would be dropping. The propaganda that somehow Western folks are responsible for some sort of population explosion is ridiculous.

Well, I don't know who is blaming it on "Western folks" ... but it seems you are saying that if only we just had "western folks" in the world, everything would be fine.

I don't think population trends depend on race or nationality, but rather on economics. If "Western folks" are not growing their numbers as much as others, it is because they are much wealthier than others. I believe it is a proven fact that increasing overall wealth leads to decreasing population growth. I am sure I saw stats to prove that, but I can't remember where I saw it.

Note the countries with fertility rates of 4+ are almost all African nations.

List of countries by total fertility rate - Wikipedia

I wonder what were the fertility rates in North America in the 1600s, the 1700s, the 1800s ....among "Western folks" .... again, increasing wealth leads to decreasing population growth. Africa is very poor. They are where North America was in the past centuries aforementioned.