For far too long conservatives have resisted using those terms because they wanted to take the high ground over the left. The right is 'too good' to use those extreme terms. Well clearly the left calling the right 'fascists' has been extremely effective, even though their actions are far closer to fascism. The left is not playing by the same rules. I totally understood the idea the right had where it was thought the left using these terms would just make them seem crazier to normal people, but so far the results haven't shown that. The right has to switch up strategies. And is it really hyperbole with everything the globalist elites and their leftist pawns are doing right now?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (6)
sorted by:
I just wish both sides would stop the name calling and start talking to each other like human beings. I'm a Progressive leftist but I came here because I wanted to engage in dialogue with my fellow Canadians.
At the end of the day I think we have a lot more in common than we realize. I mean I'd like to live a nice, happy life with enough money to pay for the things I need to survive, have some left over for recreation and maybe a vacation every year or two. I want my family and friends to be safe and to have those things too. I imagine that your desires aren't too incompatible with that.
IMO the real enemies are the oligarchs who are already insanely rich but still want more, and they use their resources to try to divide us while they laugh all the way to the bank. I don't have a problem with people being rich, but I do have a problem when they use their wealth and power to hurt those far further down the economic scale.
This was a common complaint during Occupy Wall Street - calling out the rich for wanting to increase their holdings isn't the answer, nor are they the problem.
The issues lie with the government actors who allowed the interests of the people to be subverted in favour of the interests of those who would grease their palms to look the other way.
Moreover, there are deficiencies within governmental structure that magnify the damage that it causes.
Thomas Sowell makes the claim that government is not the personification of the will of the people, government has their own objectives, their own goals and desires that run against the will of the people.
Politicians want re-election, bureaucrats want their budget increased and workers want to keep their cushy jobs.
I can accept that a state is required to ensure that the free market is allowed to operate under certain conditions and serves to protect the personal and property rights of individuals, however it modern society it has metastasized into a super structure aimed and running every part of our lives with zero accountability.
In order to run a 'better' government, several things need to happen:
-Decentralization - government should live closer to their electorate and operate under the minimum scope necessary. Think less power federal and provincial power and more municipal level power. Being closer to the electorate makes them more accountable to the voting base.
-Transparency - This one is promised often but rarely delivered. All actions carried out by the government (with some exceptions) should be executed with no attempt to hide any relevant details from the public.
-Privatization - This one is the big one. A good government is a government that properly recognizes the role they have with the electorate. In modern society, there is an expectation that government should be the 'provider' of services such as education and healthcare to the public. I believe that government fails at maintaining a decent quality or ROI on taxpayer investment in both of these categories (Notice how when wealthy people need surgery,etc, they go to the USA for treatment).
Education has been on a downhill trajectory for decades, and healthcare is such that waiting lists are ever expanding (I was on a wait list for day surgery, I had to wait 23 months)
These services aren't free, and if the taxpayer was removed of this burden and allowed to invest their money in a free market with competition, you would find that quality and return on investment would increase. I would rather pay $150 to see a good doctor than pay only taxes for a crappy one. I would rather put my child in a good school for a nominal fee than a crappy public school.
There is also a secondary benefit to privatization - a desire to develop new treatments and medications. The USA is responsible for the lion's share of medical innovation, partly due to the fact that there is profit to be made doing it. My father is alive today because of a procedure in the USA that was not allowed in commie Canada. Ask yourself - when has the government been a leader at innovating ANYTHING? Their business is the status quo.
Of course, these measures won't be popular with a public that has been conditioned to believe that free market = bad and they shouldn't be held responsible for decisions like their own health and their children's education. That isn't a failure of the market, it was the propaganda pushed on our youth by - you guessed it - public servants whose primary interest is self preservation.