Not all liberals are obtuse.
Last year the Supreme Court declared that our health care system violates human rights. We are the party of human rights, for crying out loud, and we can’t be selectively so. But rather than focus on progressive new directions to help Canadians in need, all you hear about are the repetition of entrenched orthodoxies into meaningless mantra (“no two tier healthcare”, “health card not credit card”). Slogans don’t save lives. If you believe in universally accessible healthcare as I do then we have to open up our minds from our claustrophobic thinking. I mean, if socialist France can embrace some private care and have even greater and more universal healthcare at lower cost, why can’t we even talk about it?
While I take issue with declarations such as “we are the party of human rights”, Ted has good advice for those who yearn for a return to the day before the word “liberal” was hijacked by the extreme left.
For evidence of that, one only need consider their willful blindness to the fact that modern conservatives in both Canada and the US have now taken firm ownership of the type of foreign policy once associated with “classic” liberalism. It’s something that MIchael Ignatieff understands – and it’s why he has considerable respect from the right. But judging by the kneejerk condemnation he’s received for the sin of siding with Amerikkka, any calls for “open minds” on Liberal policy are likely to remain just so many echoes in the wilderness.
The Liberals can’t get past the concept of “not”.
We are not (fill in the blank).
IMO they should first of all define who we is.
Canadian Liberals counted themselves out and their platform has become a multicultural free for all.
They chucked their (our) Canadian culture and values and attempted to replace it with expensive and ineffective jingos.
I doubt I will ever vote for them or the NDP again.
Stev D,
Simple. Yes, you are.
enough
Kate,
Many thanks for opening up this discussion on what it means to be liberal. Up to this point there have been far too many posts by CPC extremists that blame us for everything from the Tsunami to rising commodity prices.
Thanks as well for muzzling maz2. I know he appeals to the sensibilities of conservatives but his posts seem like they are computer generated dumps.
Steve D.
What a load of crap. Average family income in the U.S. is significantly higher than that of Canada’s. Even Alberta only fits in the middle of the pack when you include all states and provinces. Most provinces are well below from what is considered the poorest states in the U.S.
The U.S. has pulled ahead because of what is referred to as the economic freedom factor. Something Canada has lagged well behind because of the crushing effects of the income redistribution policies lefties love. The Motto is no one left behind but it also means no one can get ahead. Your pile of leftist dung is why countries fail economically. But who cares right as long as those bastards don’t get ahead. Gees…..
Ted, maybe I’ve been drinking too much Conservative Kool-Aid but when I read the Kennedy definition of a Liberal in you post, it made me think of Stephen Harper!! I find him to be forward thinking, he is open to new ways of doing things (not rigid), he actually seems to care about making this country a better place for EVERYONE, and has, in fact, started to do so. He doesn’t strike me as your typical “power crazy” politician (at least not yet, maybe after 3 terms…) who will do/say anything to get re-elected. He give me hope!!!
Albertaman
Who is ‘they’? The 100,000 left to drown in New Orleans? The 45 million who have no health care?
The middle class who have seen no real increase in income in 15 years? The millions with minimum or near minimum wage salaries($5.15/hr)?
Do you ever wonder why that when they poll Americans as to whether or not they are happy with the economy they always say no?
The ‘crap’ is deep on the other side.
Those 100,000 that could’nt get off their asses and go to safety?
No real increases in 15 years? Got that beat; no increases for the length of the Liberals rule and well into Mulroney term. This in your socialist workers paradise.
Is that why the unions in Canada are satisfied with wages and benefits? The economy is all good from that point of view in Canada.
Americans are getting richer. Americans are getting more money. Credit card companies are having a higher rate of customers payng off their debt. Increases in real estate have led to greater wealth for homeowners. Unemployment is down.
Yes, the american economy sure is bad. Wake up Steve D.
enough
“So you think you have a Left? It is hard to see from up here in Canada.
The top 10% already own 2/3 of everything.” — steve d.
It sounds as if you are defining the Right and Left relative to a distribution of wealth.
Down here the modern conservative movement adopted some policies of Konrad Adenauer after Barry Goldwater started modern day conservatism. Our economic policies were fleshed out by Jack Kemp and became the economic view of the Reagan administration.
Down here the difference between Right and Left is defined by the degree of governement interference in private markets.
Socialism is government control over the means of production. Since “government control” means government interference in private markets, we would regard that as being entirely on the left.
Where free individuals have an opportunity to come together to make private exchanges so long as they are legal and do not violate ethical standards, the Right believes that this transaction is virtuous. This is an example of what we consider to be the Right.
When Marx originally formulated his now-disproven theories, capitalists were seen as an unscrupulous elite who controlled all the possibilities of commerce through their relentless clutch on money.
This view has been completely discredited in the West, partly because, as others have pointed out to you, any kid down at the grocery store who is invested in a pension plan will own shares of a big index fund like the S&P 500 or Vanguard’s Total Market Index, or some Canadian equivalent.
And anyone who has $50 or $100 in profit can become a capitalist by buying shares in a mutual fund or shares of a stock.
So today, almost everyone is a member of the investor class and a thoroughgoing capitalist, whether they are rich or not.
Your posts would suggest that when workers become sufficiently enraged at capitalists they would move to overthrow capitalists by a workers’ revolution. And as you can see from what I’ve posted today, that would mean that they were trying to overthrow themselves, since these old Marxist theories have fallen to the realities of the modern world.
Our problems down here essentially stem from too many Leftist ideas infecting our government. For example, our government does control the means of production, but through taxation and regulation and other measures that disrupt our markets and keep people from reaping their profits so that they can move more quickly into the middle class. Really, the idea of economic class structures is not a rigid one, as people move in and out of different economic classes at the rise and fall of their economic conditions.
To discuss the US’s Right and Left, you need to have a clear understanding of what we consider the Right and Left to be.
steved is so out of the loop that he does not even know that there is difference between health insurance and health care.
There are 45 million Americans who do not carry health care insurance, not 45 million Americans who do not have health care.
There is more available health care in America than anywhere in the world.
And there are many many Canadians who are forced by our own government policy to take advantage of that fact.
Kate: Thanks for the Maz2 TOP (totally off-topic) abuse warning! Exceedingly annoying.
Liberalism: Does anyone know which PM was supposed to have said, “The NDP (actually the forerunner CCF) were Liberals in a hurry”? That is exactly right I thought when I first heard it.
Conservatism: Margaret Thatcher said the following: “The facts of life are conservative” which also struck me as the unvarnished truth, and especially as I read many of the reality-denying (albeit earnest and well-meaning) posts on the various threads.
Liberal: word-hijacking. Liberal meant free from government interference when lawfully pursuing your self-interest; and of course government protection from people who would resort to violence and fraud; government as “nightwatchman”. Now liberalism means “freedom from want and need and the right to a pleasant and satisfiying life”.
Hayek or von Mises said: Liberalism (classical) was the substitution of the CONTRACT society (market economy) for the STATUS society (privileges). Modern “liberalism” is the reverse; name any subject and it applies: “multiculturalism”, “feminism”, and all other forms of Group Identity Politics.
Did you know: in BC, a pre-nuptial contract essentially loses it force in the courts after about three years. So we can see what has happened with the sanctity of a contract, made between one adult and another adult, under liberalism. Actually under “liberalism” there are no adults!
Greg (outside Dallas) at June 13, 2006 02:17 PM
Damn good post, Greg!
Left and Right: Yes, to to with where you stand vis a vis the relationship between the state and the individual, with moving left more and more state intervention, moving right, less and less state, so that “far right” SHOULD really mean anarchy, not fascism which is what today’s leftists mean when they speak in that sly code-language (CBC referring to “right wing” think-tanks, but never “left-wing” think-tanks).
For a long time (probably due to von Mises readings) I’ve been convinced that on a correct idelogical spectrum fascism-communism really belong together as merely superfically different forms of totalitarianism.
Finally: will never get over my shock and amazement hearing our former PM Paul Martin described as “right wing”, presumably because he was a “businessman”.
It really is true, in Canada there is enormous confusion here.
Greg outside dallas
It looks like I was correct there is no Left to speak of. Just enough Left to stop the revolution. Low minimum wage, low welfare payments, low social security payments, medicare, such as it is. With the Right trying to bankrupt social security and medicare by starving government of money via tax cuts to the rich you can see where your future is going to be messy.
You see, the American dream is, over time, losing its lustre. It doesn’t work for the vast majority. The small minority are cleaning up in a big way. Just like Marx said they would. You did know that the gap between rich and poor is increasing?
Just because a guy owns a few stocks does not make him part of the ownership, that is just a joke. There are but a few thousand who control and own most of the wealth. That small class of people can be called ‘owners of production’ in the Marxian sense of the word. Marxism is just a 150 year old theory and like a lot of old economic theories they become dated and need updating over time. Modern socialists see a mixed economy as being the most beneficial for the greatest number of people. This is where
America will end up, sooner rather than later because too many people looking for more from America than it is providing.
Me No Dhimmi:
I think you are glossing over the differences between libertarians and social conservatives in your “right”. Social conservatives want more and more state intervention.
Which, ironically/coincidentally, is I believe why the term “liberal” moved from it’s classical liberal meaning. In fact, only half of the definition moved: if you take classic liberalism to mean less state intervention, then the first social “liberals” were classic liberals desiring a freedom from government interference in the way they lived their lives. Over time, the social liberalism merged with the desire to have the state interfere in the economic realm.
Over about the same time, the social conservatives who have always wanted more state intervention in social behaviour but also food and drug policy, education, drinking, censorship, etc. came to reside on the “right” side along with libertarians.
So the issue is not as simple as more or less state, but state to what end.
Ted
Cerberus
Ted: Fair comment. You are right. Which is why I often describe myself as a conservative/libertarian. I saw it put this way recently: conservatives deny freedom in the area of personal behaviour, liberals the economic area.
I often cite the “War on Drugs” as a good area to differentiate conservatism/libertarianism. Personally, I believe people should be free to put into their body any substance they wish. Problem is, as you know, without economic freedom (other people must pay the bills) we have no provision for the true libertarian to opt out through waivers.
BTW, Hayek himself was adamant that he was NOT A CONSERVATIVE. Called himself an old whig! He made the point that conservatives will be against state intervention in industrial policy while at the same time being for state intervention in agricultural policy.
steve d., it’s very presumptuous of you to imagine that you know more about American life than a fully paid-up and seasoned American citizen.
However, I now understand your presumption. You have at least been honest enough to reveal who and what you really are.
A communist.
Steve D,
No nation lasts forever but the US is still going strong. Economic growth, the premier destination of immigrants, R and D of technology the list goes on.
The US rejects all that is dragging europe and all the other failed socialist utopias. This is what makes it better than those failed and failing states. The US was built upon a foundation of less government, more freedom. Dependence upon oneself rather than the state has been the source of Americas success. And yet, you want to do away with that very thing.
Modern socialists are just as bereft of ideas as the old socialists. They are more wrong because they have been repeatedly proven incorrect and still keep tilting at windmills.
America lets people improve themselves rather than depend on the state. Is that what you want Steve, someone to look after you? Can’t handle the challenges of life? Need someone to do your thinking for you? Or are you one of the ones who will take care of everyone else? You know better than everybody else what they need. In your socialist ideal you are in one camp or the other. So which is it?
enough
greg in dallas
You are presuming to know something about the Left. Being American there is no Left. There is centre and right, no left.
What you think is left is really extreme Right.
On the extreme Right you find Fascism. Fascism is when the state and the corporations join, each working closely with the other. Along the way they surpress unions(they have gone from 33% of the workforce to less than 10%). It combines with Nationalism/patriotism to encourage the individual to give himself to the state.
A scapegoat is needed as well(terrorists,immigrants,both?take your pick)
Expansionism seems to be a feature as well.
What you mistaken for a threat from the Left is a threat from the Right.
By the way Marxism is not state-centred it is individual centred. It sees the individual, who should be free, enslaved by corporatism. How many feel that today? Especially in America where the average holidays are 2 weeks a year. Americans work harder than any other people and there are 30 million working poor.
enough
What I would like is the individual truely having control of his life. But to have this he must have control of his workplace. Today the corporation is gaining ever more power and control over people.
The state and corporation together control everything. The individual is nothing. Nationalism and patriotism bury the individual.
Steve D. No one here said the U.S. is perfect far from it. But believing the CBC speak that Canada is Morally superior is a load of crap. I lived beside a native reservation and saw how the good intentions of the nanny state have kept the population in poverty in perpetuity. I honestly believe that Liberals mean well but continue the cycle of weakness and dependency by pretending the nanny state will take care of you is damaging beyond belief. Health care,ha, my wife spent 4 days waiting for surgery in Saskatchewan for a severely broken leg because of a lack of resources. A doctor offered to do it on his own time but it was denied. My father had to leave the country to receive timely and proper treatment for his cancer.
The fact that a Black Democratic mayor failed his people along with others proves nothing other than incompetence of Governments. Wow is that a revelation! If they were white would help have come sooner,probably. But which group did the most good providing relief supplies quickly and efficiently. Wallmart and FedEx were heralded for providing the most competent relief and accomplished what all levels of government could not. Two companies you would despise because of what they represent.
Spewing a few statistics from your imagination are useless at best and deluding yourself into thinking we are somehow doing better than the U.S. is ludicrous and a good reason why we fall further and further behind in our standard of living compared to the U.S. Now when I say we are falling behind I mean this is a whole and not using the Native reservation as proof of this fact as you would do. These are facts easily found at the Fraser institute. However, rhetoric is harder to disprove than facts hence your heavy dependence on rhetoric.
I believe we’re truly in an era where we will see a fundamental shift in the political spectrum, not just here in North America, but around the world. The re-branding of parties here in the West, political protest in the Ukraine and Nepal, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that will ultimately determine the fate of the Middle East…it almost makes me want to quit my job and take on political philosophy full-time – except I can’t grow anywhere near a decent beard.
More to the point for this thread, I would say Paul Martin is probably as good a choice as any of the current leadership candidates…if only he could’ve put down the brownies and not surrounded himself with a pack of young neo-socialist yesmen (for the record, I am the first to coin the term neo-socialist. Patent pending, patent pending, patent pending).
I think the Liberals might have to wait a while before they find their next firebrand leader to bring them back to the promised land. Perhaps one of those precocious 11-year-olds who broke open their piggy banks to fund Joe Volpe’s campaign?
Steve D. Again what a load of crap. I am held almost speechless at such at load of pure nonsense. The schizophrenic belief system with more state involvement is a must on one hand and on the other the “state controls everything” which “buries the individual”. Egads, I think your right side of your brain is a closet conservative. But it must be hell living in the same head with it.
Albertaman
Yes, I am glad you agree with me that most Americans are unhappy with the economy(57%).
You are right about disasters. Let them help themselves or let the corporations lead. That is fine with me. Let me give you a hint as to what may happen. Our last, conservative, government privatized lots of things. One was the cleaning up of messes on the highway. Last week a lumber truck turned over and we waited five hours while the private company wouldn’t move until it had the money promised to do it. I wonder what our major highway north blocked for 5 hours cost the economy?
If you want a two tier health system then good luck. You got the right ingredients in Ottawa and Provincially. What are they waiting for?????
Permission from the Left?
We are not doing better than the USA except when it comes to redistribution of wealth. We are not doing great in that area but better than the US.
Don’t forget they are spending far more than they are taking in. They owe 10 trillion and counting. They are spending 10billion a day on the wars. How long do you suppose they can party like that? They are drawing Canada in but I don’t think that will help in the long run. We won’t spend like drunken sailors for too long.
Governments / corporations. This is an area where LEFT and RIGHT (as I use the term, i.e. free market enthusiast, not fascist) can find some common ground. Recall, Harper, way before the election, even before the campaign, decried that Canada was a “corporatist” state. In fact, I wrote him (and received a genuine reply) and suggested that he use a term the public would understand, like Davd Lewis, NDP leader of a few decades back, “corporate welfare bums”.
When I call myself “right” I really mean favouring the “free market economy” and sincerely believe that governments should not interfere in the economy in any way, shape or form: government subsidies, loans, tarriff protections, excessive regulation (often sought by corporations seeking to squelch competition), export development banks (mercantilism), etc. etc. etc., but also not minimum wages, and labour laws that give unions a pass on violence etc. etc. etc.
Neither the US nor Canada (nor any country really with the possible exception of Hong Kong) are “free market economies”. They are all “mixed economies” except that the US is less mixed than Canada or Europe, and therefore their living standards are higher.
steve d: no idea how old you are, but in the 50s and very early 60s, Canada had a higher living standard than the US — significantly higher. To me, it is indisputable that the sole reason for the relative slide is that government as a percentage of GDP is now approaching 50% vs. say 35-38% in the US (still high). I gather that the optimmum number is closer to 25%.
In a CPAC documentary on Harper I just saw, Harper was said to believe that Canadians should be richer than Americans. I totally agree.
as von Mises teaches, all government interventions produce results that are less satisfactory that what had obtained before even from the point of view of the government and parties recommending the interventions.
See: Fredrick Bastiat, “What is seen vs. what is unseen”.
You may be overstating two things there, Me No Dhimmi.
First of all, in many many ways the US business is a lot more regulated than Canadian business and certainly a lot more protected in industries like agriculture, steel, cotton, banking. The difference is that in Canada there is more direct regulation of business activity; in the US they (state, federal senate, federal house, different committees and branches) set up layer upon layer of regulations and then say you can go it on your own.
As for standard of living, there is no question that the US has a higher AVERAGE standard of living. The rich are far far richer and there are far far more of them. But the poverty levels they accept we would never accept here (at least, not unless it is for natives). Infant mortality rates are higher. Crime higher. More have no health care. Health problems higher and far more costly. For many many people the greater perceived possibility of making things better is more appealing, to be sure. But simply comparing the nations based upon a single statistic like “standard of living” (which doesn’t take too many economic indicators into account anyway) doesn’t give us much.
Ted
Cerberus
Ted: US business more highly regulated? I seriously doubt that but I’ll happily concede if that can be proven which I doubt it can.
Stats: well, we agree they are tricky and I concede that “standard of living” is problematic as are jurisdictional comparisons. I guess I’m referring to average GDP per capita, which applied to Canada AND the US.
I got quite a chuckle when I read how the UN got to pick Canada as the best place in the world in which to live. I forget exactly the methodology but as I remember it, they gave LESS weight to income per capita above a certain threshold of their choosing (I felt in order to deliberately move the US down the ladder).
Then there’s the reality on the ground: bar none, the US is the world’s most-favoured immigrant destination. They have either correctly intuited something the UN didn’t want to admit or they are propagandized automotons. I’m thinking they get the word from earlier successful immigrants and don’t spend a lot of time poring over UN studies :).
But stats notwithstanding the US is still perceived as the “Land of Opportunity”, I think you’ll agree.
Me No Dhimmi,
thank you very much for your consideration in respect to the United States. We’re not perfect, but we have a lot of good people trying very hard to deal with our problems.
A sort of competitive flavor arises sometimes when a discussion takes place involving the US and Canada. Perhaps this all has something to do with this mouse and elephant topic that one reads about occasionally.
The truth is that Americans truly want what is best for America and what is best for Canada. We actually are not concerned on this side of the border with who is richer, or who does better, in what category.
We basically want ensured prosperity and success and warmest relations for Canada. I like being an American, but if I had to choose another country to live in, I might well choose Canada.
Americans simply do not understand the sort of antagonism that drifts down from the Canadian Left.
After all, if you guys want to have a more socialist country, then good for you. God bless. It’s not the US way, we don’t prefer that model, but hey, different strokes for different folks.
Our hope is that good relations between our two countries and strong friendships continue to grow. We have only good wishes for Canadians.
steve d.,
I doubt if you understand the Right, because you don’t seem to have had any actual experience with it.
I think you are confusing stato corporativo with plutocracy. As others have said before me, the far Right from a conservative perspective would be extreme decentralization and therefore anarchy. Fascism was old guild socialism, re-baptized. (If you wish to learn about it, see the book Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises, chapter 32, Confiscation and Redistribution, section 4, Guild Socialism and Corporatism.)
As to your larger point, we get it. You don’t like Americans. Fine. We’re not in love with you either.
Greg (outside Dallas): von Mises “Human Action” indeed. Read it a couple of years ago, and am getting close to a re-read. A magnum opus of the very highest order from the 20th century’s greatest economist, AND easily read by the layman!. Also his Socialism. I’m currently reading a very short book from 1940 called “Interventionism: An economic analysis” which was only published in the last 90s.
von Mises is health-giving I feel. The clarity of his thought and his non-polemical approach is extremely enlightening and bigod it makes you feel good!
Many earnest but confused posters here would profit enornously by spending some time reading von Mises.
greg outside dallas
Unlike Americans most Canadians know a great deal about America. Being interested in politics I have been watching very closely for at least 10 years. I do think I know whereof I speak regarding America.
I have read quite a bit about politics, ideology and political theory.
Fascism’s founder Mussolini in writing a definition of fascism said that fascism is the opposite of socialism. That is why the Left are the first victims of Fascism. When the corporate elite join the state, that is the rocket fuel of Fascism. North America has the seeds of Fascism. There was a plot in America during the 1930’s and if the elite felt threatened again they would resort to it again. Only this time they have better tools(Patriot act) and a friendlier government.
I never said I don’t like Americans. You just are not used to this kind of questioning of authority. You assume America is working for you but you don’t know because you never question.
I read a lot of American blogs that know exactly what I am talking about. Most are in ‘blue’ states but there are some everywhere. Arguably the majority voted against Bush in the last two elections. Fraudulent elections are a hallmark of Fascism. So it is out of concern that I see America drifting more and more Right towards Fascism. I see increasing evidence. If the economic situation turned sour so could the political situation. Most Americans are just unaware of the dangers lurking that are far more serious than terrorism. You don’t have to like socialists I could care less if you or anybody does. It is beside the point. The point is you are blind and will not see. Which makes you very dangerous. You can be used, massaged, by planted news and baseless excuses for war or other acts such as warrantless wiretaps and torture. Most Americans just looked the other way instead of demanding truth, lawfulness and morality from their government. All these set you up for Fascism. Don’t believe me look into it. Find out what conditions are necessary for Fascism to develop. Look for warning signs of Fascism. You may be surprised and alarmed as I am.
“Unlike Americans most Canadians know a great deal about America”
Steve – is there no limit to your assinine commentary? Canadians only believe they know more about Americans because they watch so much American TV, and they’re too dense to realize it ain’t “real life”.
Ask these “experts” how much time they’ve spent there, how many states they’ve visited, how many American friends they have, and the majority will admit to almost no personal experience with America beyond a few shopping trips or tourist traps.
Now, please give it a rest. Unless you have something substantive to add to a thread, that’s on topic, and not dripping with meaningless pap you’ve learned to parrot from elsewhere (and don’t understand) – find somewhere else to troll.
Fascism and communism are BOTH forms of socialism, according to Ludwig von Mises, one of the great thinkers of the 20th century (sociologist/philospher/economist. Don’t be fooled by the expressed hatred between the two groups. State OWNERSHIP of the means of production and TOTAL CONTROL of the means of production which are only nominally in private hands means the same thing: total state control.
Degrees, steve d, degrees. You’ve got to be more nuanced in your diagnoses. Looks a bit-like in certain respects is NOT IT.
Greg, our left doesn’t hate America any more than Moore, Pelosi and the Deaniac do. But our left gets a lot of ideas from your left and that just helps perpetuate them. Europeans watch F911 too and that just drives them farther left.
We conservatives in Canada have to fight the steve d’s plus your powerful MSM. It wastes a lot of energy.
Try to imagine if Canada had 10’s more lefties than you do and that we Noam Chomsky running our MSM outlets that sent airwaves into your nation every night with doom and gloom about Bush and Rove.
Oh well, these challenges make conservatives stronge .. I hope.
BTW , long time no see .. hope all is well … cheers …
The United States and Canada are the worst places to live in the whole world… except for all the others!
I don’t think most of us really realize how good we have it here in North America. The poor among us are rich in comparison to a great percentage of the worlds population. Our political systems may need tweeking here and there but by and large… they work for us, why argue with success?
If Steve and others like him don’t like it here, they ought to go and take up residence with Fidel Castro since he seems to be the standard to which we should be held. Perhaps North Korea would be more to their liking. Lots of company in the camps. Venezuela? The Soviet Union (Oops, they don’t exist!), maybe some other failed state instead. Pick one and have a good trip!
Daniel
nomdenet, very nice to know you are still out there fighting the good fight.
I really appreciate and understand the way our drive-by media enable your drive-by media and only make the burdens on Canadian conservatives even heavier.
Even if I were an atheist (I’m not), it would be enough to make me believe in Satan.
At the same time, I think that all of you Canadian conservatives have done an absolutely amazing and tremendous job.
When I first started posting on Kate’s site, I believe SDA had only been up about a year. (I had been completely outraged and taken aback when Canada did not back America in the U.N.)
I found an aggregate of wonderful Canadian conservatives, struggling against an enormous burden of ilberal attitude and opinion, not to mention a totally entrenched, corrupt Liberal regime.
At that moment, if anyone would have told me that Kate and the Shotgun and you and all the many conservatives in Canada would have been able to bring about the Harper victory, I would have said they were crazy.
You guys have been the Thomas Paine of your generation, and the struggle continues.
Believe me, my hat is off to all of you, and I have tremendous gratitude to all of you who have fought so hard and so well, to start to reverse the abysmal trend that a great country like Canada has been infected with for such a long time.
If I were a conservative in Canada, I would have to take pills, or my head would explode.
Me No Dhimmie
ludwig was an apologist for the status quo.
Ludwig doesnt speak of the incompatibility between Fascists need for corporate sustenance from the elite owners on the one hand and the rejection of the corporate elite as nothing but corporate welfare bums living off of the labour of the workers.
Fascism represses labour and removes its rights whereas socialism empowers labour and their rights.
Ludwig doesn’t answer those questions because they are inconvenient.
You have to be more nuanced. Look I don’t want to defend a writing that is almost 150 years old any more than you would want to defend Adam Smith when defending todays economics. We have moved on. However, the general gist of what he had to say is still relevant.
Your notion that Marx thought that the state should own everything is a bit off the mark. Marx thought that the state would produce all the essentials individuals needed in their life so that they could be free to be creative. Instead of being enslaved to a single job or even specialty you could move around and try different things thereby enriching your life. Does that sound so terrifying? He has been made into this monster without anyone actually trying to see where he was coming from and what he was trying to say.
In the 19th century factory life was long, harsh and brutal. He saw it as demeaning. He was looking for a way to get man out of this drudgery of being chained to a machine for 14 hours a day.
Pick your heros wisely.
steve d: “ludwig was an apologist for the status quo”.
About von Mises, that is simply as wrong a statement as can be imagined. You cannot have read von Mises and also made that statement.
Me No Dhimmi
I have his book Socialism: An Economic Sociological Analysis
Can you tell me where to find it? I can’t.
Thanks Greg. I lived in New York when Reagan took over from Jimmeh Cahtah. The Carter years were similar to Canada’s situation in that all self-confidence “can-do” had been replaced by … inaction at best .. Self-loathing at worst.
So I need to tell you the flip side of my earlier comments are that Reagan and the US are an inspiration to conservatism too.
When you think about it, in North America, we’re up against the MSM, academia and billions of dollars essentially used to bribe the welfare state; it is truly amazing how conservatives can break through all that. It can only be one reason, that people realize it works better and particularly if they have kids they don’t want to leave them the mess we can see building with socialism and pacifism in Europe … err Eurabia.
Back on topic to Ignatieff, I sat in a room at the University Club in Toronto over a couple of years ago when he gave a dinner speech on “The Lesser of Evils” where he backed the War in Iraq. The tension in the air was thick. The Q&A was embarrassing. He advised Canadians to look in the mirror and not to be too smug; there was a lot of uneasy shifting in seats.
Overall I would say that Ignatieff is like Joe Lieberman who’s another brave guy. The Liberals here are like the Demos, they’ve played their game of emotion for so long now that they don’t know how to fight with ideas, that is, ideas other than how to give you… state-run unionized nanny care … for free of course.
In response to Ted and Me No Dhimmi:
Having lived and worked in the US for a number of years, I wouldn’t say the regulatory burden is much different in either Canada or the US. Ask any US business owner about OSHA or the EPA, or for that matter, trial lawyers, and you’ll find he’s as hamstrung as any Canadian.
And Ted is quite right – a number of US industries, such as sugar, corn, and a little one called “defence”, operate behind subsidy and tariff barriers that are as effective as Canada’s agricultural marketing boards. Nor should anyone assume that the US government is not a large participant in the economy; it averages a little over 30% of GDP, while in Canada, government expenditure accounts for a little less than 40% of GDP. So while there is a difference, it’s a difference of degree, and not of kind.
The biggest difference I have found between the two countries is this: In the United States, you can climb as high as your ability and drive can take you, and you can fall as low as your laziness, bad luck, and depravity will let you. In Canada, we chop off both extremes. I’d rather be poor in Canada than poor in the US, but I’d rather be rich in the US than rich in Canada.
And Ted is on to something with his description of social conservatives as people who want to leave business alone but control individual’s morality, and liberals as people who will leave individuals alone but want to control business. I also consider myself more libertarian than anything else, and today, the CPC comes closest to that core belief than any other party. That may change.
I can’t see how Ignatieff fresh into the political pool of sharks that is the Liberal party, can outswim the ones who have been involvedfor years.
Bob Rae seems the most likely winner. Thank god for that. He may be new to the Liberals but the NDP are just as empty of new ideas. Steve D is a perfect example. Rae will serve to split the left vote while pushing centrists over to the now less scary Harper.
It certainly does not hurt that the credible candidates are all Toronto centric. Toronto can continue to relegate themselves to the sidelines.
enough
steve d: If you’re referring to von Mises magnum opus, “Socialism”, I bought it on line from FEE (Foundation of Economic Education)book store. If you’re interested in getting a better feel for the free market philosophy and libertarianism, they also have a monthly magazine called The Freeman which you can receive for the asking. As I may have mentioned, I sincerely believe you would agree with von Mises in many respects, esp. vis a vis the deleterious effects of the government-corporate axis.
Ignatieff is the clear cut leader as his only baggage is a tie to the mighty USA (a good thing). A modern day Jimmy Carter, a breath of fresh air that can only be linked to the Liebranos through guilt by association (a very weak link).
Far too many people remember ‘Bob Rae Days’ and his continual fumbling and flip flopping. His goose is cooked but he’s too naive to realize it.
As far as you economist eggheads go please remember this is 2006 and although some basic fundamentals/principles remain the same the world has changed immensley since 1940. Classroom mental gymanastics don’t give a rat’s ass in todays political-business environment.
John Carson said: “As far as you economist eggheads go please remember this is 2006 and although some basic fundamentals/principles remain the same the world has changed immensley since 1940”.
Me No Egghead (if I’m included in that). I’ve been a self-employed businessman since 1979. I took one economics course in — gasp — 1967; I’m no “economist”.
You’re right except here: “some basic fundamentals/principles remain the same”.
That should be ALL not SOME. The laws of economics don’t change like fashions. The laws of economics are not “intellectual fashions”. This is simply because human nature is immutable.
But you probably just made a off-handed remark, so no big deal.
Me No Egghead, Me No Dhimmi
Greg: I have travel extensively in the U.S. and employ a dozen or so of your compatriots. I was struck by how appreciative these people were to be employed and that they treated me with a respect that I had never experienced in Canada before. When I gave the Americans a company vehicle to drive they each thanked me separately. In Canada, the sense of entitlement runs deeply and gratitude sparse. To me the difference boils down to this. In Canada the left has built a system that rewards failure and weakness and in the U.S. the right has built a system that rewards success and responsibility. Ultimately the left in Canada would bleed us until we were all basket cases and completely dependant on the state living in abject poverty. Both systems have their weaknesses but to left in Canada Americans are far more generous and donate to Charity at a far greater amount per capita than Canadians.
Albertaman, thank you for recognizing these qualities in print.
You know, when I was a kid growing up in Midland, Texas, there was a quality of respect between labor and management that has not been completely eradicated from the American scene, despite the best efforts of liberals.
The kind of respect that you obviously have for your employees and the respect that they have for you is a mutual virtue.
When I was a kid, management had a genuine respect for labor. Nobody felt better than someone else because they worked with their hands. Like many, I’ve been on both sides of this arrangement (which happens a lot, despite the ignorance of our commie friends).
Everybody that has ever been in management knows that there are occasional moments with you look with envy on the guy out there with the shovel.
Anyway, I’m very sorry that the left has started to inculcate class envy into the way in which we look at the cooperative effort of employer-employee.
I liked the days when the CEO knew and understood that the janitor was important to the company, and the janitor was grateful for the opportunity for rising salaries and upward mobility.
I’ve seen quite a lot of genuine understanding about all this from Alberta. I guess it’s one of the reasons that Alberta and Texas have so much in common.