O is for Oligarchy. Relevant to Canada to an extent
(www.austinchronicle.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (4)
sorted by:
I think its fair to be concerned that our meth lab basement neighbors are run by CEO's and lobbiests - your explaining away was super unfactual and it is a problem. Canada is Us lite with better PR. We still murdered the indigenous population en masse, still have police killings (read: Starlight Tours), and still have a glass ceiling over the general population so we have no choice but to be modern slaves in the age of the greatest economic disparity surpassing the french revolution easily.
Canada isn't US lite in the slightest. You've got an unhealthy obsession with a boogey man is what it is. Canada is not perfect (re: indigenous population). Neither is any country on the face of the Earth. One of my biggest beef with you liberals is that if something isn't utopia, it's failed. There's no country on the face of the entire Earth which has a completely clean history, so Canada's tragic actions there do not make Canada a bad country by my estimate. I compare Canada to what's on planet Earth, not based on unicorn ideals. First worlders like yourselves have had such a comfortable life that you can afford to complain that your high standard of living is a failure because there are flaws here and there, flaws that are actively being addressed.
"Still have police killings" sounds like utopian bullshit to me. As long as there is man, there will be mistakes. Unjustifiable police murders, as all unjustifiable murders, will ALWAYS exist. But how often do they occur? Juxtapose the number of run ins that people have with cops against how many unjustifiable cop murders occur. Such an issue is infinitesimally small in the US, just as it is in Canada.
And I don't care about income inequality because I don't think someone else being rich condemns someone else to poverty. Wealth can be made out of thin air, it's not a zero sum game. When one country becomes rich, it doesn't mean another country had to become poor for it to happen, that country took otherwise worthless resources (like steel, brick, plants, etc) and made them into useful commodities that can be bartered and traded with. The citizens of those countries made products that sold for money, and that money allowed the citizen to purchase things that, once before were luxuries, became normal, every day life as that country became wealthier and wealthier. The argument of wealth inequality being the cause of poverty and blight supposes the argument that the software engineer earning $200,000 a year working for Amazon is impoverished because Jeff Bezos is the richest man on the face of the planet.