CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1067
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:30 pm
 


It's a widely-held perception that in terms of Canadian politics, right-wingers rely more on values than evidence, and left-wingers the reverse. There's some...umm, evidence to support that. A right-winger will say "I don't care if coddling criminals and ignoring victims generates better outcomes as measured by social scientists. It's wrong. It's unjust." I know that describes my position on criminal justice anyway.

But I sometimes wonder if the left isn't just as values-driven as the right. Perhaps they're just not as upfront about it.

A value that I think defines much of the left in Canada is their preference for collective decision-making over individual decision-making. This value underlies their aversion to markets (which involve aggregating individual consumer decisions to determine what products will be produced at what price and by whom) and affinity for "democratic" (i.e. government) control over the economy and our individual lives.

Markets aren't perfect, and they're not appropriate in every human endeavour, but they are valuable in that they allow the individual freedom of choice in how he/she decides how to use his/her disposable income. And it is this freedom of choice that causes the left such discomfort. Why? Because they believe that the average individual citizen is not enlightened enough (i.e. lacks the proper values) to wield the power that disposable income gives them. They will make choices with that income that are not "socially responsible" - that discriminate against marginalized groups, that favour short-term gratification over longer term security, that promote socially undesirable industries, etc. They don't trust you and me not to buy stupid (or evil) stuff simply because a commercial tells us to. That is the contempt the technocratic left have for us.

They think we're okay when we all put our noggins together, but they don't trust any one of us out on our own. Better yet for them however is when we delegate our decision-making to "experts" who can apply their education and specialized knowledge to the problem of how we are to live our lives.

Oh, they may trust worker-owned co-ops or even unincorporated mom-and-pop businesses with small scale manufacturing or some service industries, but for the dominant left-leaning faction in Canada (sorry anarcho-syndicalists, that's not you), anything big and capital-intensive needs to be state-owned. The collective may be their deity, but the state is their church. And like other religions, the church gets to put words in the mouth of the deity.

If the left truly is more evidence-based, it comes with a heavy dose of selection bias. With apologies to Voltaire, if there weren't AGW, the left would have had to invent it.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:38 pm
 


Well the evidence indicates that there is no such thing as freedom of choice, so that royally buggers up your argument. :lol:

Seriously though, I find that the distance from centre is a bigger indicator of non-rationality than left-right. These are your idealogues. I find when I read stuff frmo the far left and far right a highly selective memory and blindness to their own confirmation bias.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 5:03 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Seriously though, I find that the distance from centre is a bigger indicator of non-rationality than left-right.


So we should celebrate mediocrity as opposed to diversity?

Image


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13404
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 5:46 pm
 


Not, you should celebrate reason and critical thinking over "isms". That's not mediocrity.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11362
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 6:49 pm
 


Part of the problem has to do with the word "Values". For a long time they were determined through Dogmatism passed down, allegedly, from God itself. There are however values outside of those.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13404
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 6:52 pm
 


There are however values outside of those.

How much is in YOUR wallet?


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Los Angeles Kings
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4661
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:32 pm
 


Image

I'll try to find one from the other perspective.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13404
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:41 pm
 


it's not a world view that many of us welcome, here. That particular dialectic is, in essence, foreign to most Canadians.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8157
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:27 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Well the evidence indicates that there is no such thing as freedom of choice, so that royally buggers up your argument. :lol:
I've been researching this "disposable income" idea and am beginning to think it is a myth as well. Argument doubly royally buggered.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Seriously though, I find that the distance from centre is a bigger indicator of non-rationality than left-right. These are your idealogues. I find when I read stuff frmo the far left and far right a highly selective memory and blindness to their own confirmation bias.
Pretty much.

If you you look at each issue on it's own, weigh the evidence and find yourself in total agreement with any one particular political party 100% of the time...

...you may need a check up from the neck up.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1055
PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:49 am
 


[quote]It's a widely-held perception that in terms of Canadian politics, right-wingers rely more on values than evidence, and left-wingers the reverse. There's some...umm, evidence to support that. A right-winger will say "I don't care if coddling criminals and ignoring victims generates better outcomes as measured by social scientists. It's wrong. It's unjust." I know that describes my position on criminal justice anyway.

But I sometimes wonder if the left isn't just as values-driven as the right. Perhaps they're just not as upfront about it.

A value that I think defines much of the left in Canada is their preference for collective decision-making over individual decision-making. This value underlies their aversion to markets (which involve aggregating individual consumer decisions to determine what products will be produced at what price and by whom) and affinity for "democratic" (i.e. government) control over the economy and our individual lives.

Markets aren't perfect, and they're not appropriate in every human endeavour, but they are valuable in that they allow the individual freedom of choice in how he/she decides how to use his/her disposable income. And it is this freedom of choice that causes the left such discomfort. Why? Because they believe that the average individual citizen is not enlightened enough (i.e. lacks the proper values) to wield the power that disposable income gives them. They will make choices with that income that are not "socially responsible" - that discriminate against marginalized groups, that favour short-term gratification over longer term security, that promote socially undesirable industries, etc. They don't trust you and me not to buy stupid (or evil) stuff simply because a commercial tells us to. That is the contempt the technocratic left have for us.

They think we're okay when we all put our noggins together, but they don't trust any one of us out on our own. Better yet for them however is when we delegate our decision-making to "experts" who can apply their education and specialized knowledge to the problem of how we are to live our lives.

Oh, they may trust worker-owned co-ops or even unincorporated mom-and-pop businesses with small scale manufacturing or some service industries, but for the dominant left-leaning faction in Canada (sorry anarcho-syndicalists, that's not you), anything big and capital-intensive needs to be state-owned. The collective may be their deity, but the state is their church. And like other religions, the church gets to put words in the mouth of the deity.

If the left truly is more evidence-based, it comes with a heavy dose of selection bias. With apologies to Voltaire, if there weren't AGW, the left would have had to invent it.[/quote]

[img]http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif[/img]

Ah the good ol' "Left / Right" debate. This should be fun.

The whole Leftism / Rightism thing was always an odd thing for me. Such a Black and White Mentality.

If someone makes a comment that your Conservative/Republican position doesn't like, your a Lefty in the Extreme who does drugs and harbors terrorist. If you make a comment that a Democrat/Liberal doesn't agree with then your a Righty to the Extreme who worships God.

... Regardless if you do or don't.

I can't say I ever heard of Lefties wanting to have the government take away our disposable income because we're not responsible with it. That would not make much sense because then where would they get the money for their pot?

Regardless, whatever one does with their disposable income is irrelevant because it all goes right back into the economy one way or another.

Regarding the comment about being centre left or centre right being mediocrity, it's not. It's a mere position and nothing more. It lies in the grey area between the two extremes. Mediocrity sounds like an argument extreme lefts or rights would use to try and support their "You're either with us or against us" B&W Mentality.

Myself?

I support any decision that sounds logical to me and uses common sense to back it up.

While I have that little NDP icon by my avatar, there are a few things I have supported that the Liberals and Conservatives have done over the years. Would I vote for either?

Based on overall positions and past decisions I didn't agree with, no.

Now I'll get back to my popcorn.


Last edited by Praxius on Sat Jan 17, 2015 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1067
PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:10 am
 


Praxius Praxius:
Now I'll get back to my popcorn.

Make sure you have some beer with that popcorn. After all, that's what Martin-era Liberal operative Scott Reid said Canadian parents would blow any extra money in their pockets on, exposing what was surely a broadly-held opinion in that centre-left party.
Praxius Praxius:
I can't say I ever heard of Lefties wanting to have the government take away our disposable income because we're not responsible with it. That would not make much sense because then where would they get the money for their pot?

Then why are folks on the left constantly complaining about "mindless consumerism" and people buying "junk from China"? Turns out they care quite a bit about how people spend their disposable income.

As for the pot, perhaps they'd see that as a "need" that should be provided by the state. Pot-ro Canada? The logo could be a half maple leaf, half cannabis leaf. The National THC Program.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21610
PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2015 12:35 pm
 


Everyone is driven by values of some sort. Most maintain their arguments have evidence but we as a species seem to enjoy picking and choosing what we agree, share, consider, or believe from the sources they find agree most with their palate.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1453
PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2015 1:09 pm
 


Individualist Individualist:
It's a widely-held perception that in terms of Canadian politics, right-wingers rely more on values than evidence, and left-wingers the reverse. There's some...umm, evidence to support that. A right-winger will say "I don't care if coddling criminals and ignoring victims generates better outcomes as measured by social scientists. It's wrong. It's unjust." I know that describes my position on criminal justice anyway.

But I sometimes wonder if the left isn't just as values-driven as the right. Perhaps they're just not as upfront about it.

A value that I think defines much of the left in Canada is their preference for collective decision-making over individual decision-making. This value underlies their aversion to markets (which involve aggregating individual consumer decisions to determine what products will be produced at what price and by whom) and affinity for "democratic" (i.e. government) control over the economy and our individual lives.

Markets aren't perfect, and they're not appropriate in every human endeavour, but they are valuable in that they allow the individual freedom of choice in how he/she decides how to use his/her disposable income. And it is this freedom of choice that causes the left such discomfort. Why? Because they believe that the average individual citizen is not enlightened enough (i.e. lacks the proper values) to wield the power that disposable income gives them. They will make choices with that income that are not "socially responsible" - that discriminate against marginalized groups, that favour short-term gratification over longer term security, that promote socially undesirable industries, etc. They don't trust you and me not to buy stupid (or evil) stuff simply because a commercial tells us to. That is the contempt the technocratic left have for us.

They think we're okay when we all put our noggins together, but they don't trust any one of us out on our own. Better yet for them however is when we delegate our decision-making to "experts" who can apply their education and specialized knowledge to the problem of how we are to live our lives.

Oh, they may trust worker-owned co-ops or even unincorporated mom-and-pop businesses with small scale manufacturing or some service industries, but for the dominant left-leaning faction in Canada (sorry anarcho-syndicalists, that's not you), anything big and capital-intensive needs to be state-owned. The collective may be their deity, but the state is their church. And like other religions, the church gets to put words in the mouth of the deity.

If the left truly is more evidence-based, it comes with a heavy dose of selection bias. With apologies to Voltaire, if there weren't AGW, the left would have had to invent it.


As always, Individualist, you provide a thoughtful analysis and lots of interesting points to ponder. And indeed, in some respects I agree with you about the way collective decision-making is so strongly supported by some progressives, but that said I would also provide the caveat that some people and groups, oftentimes on the right, will withdraw from the collective or act as though their power gives them the right to exercise power and override decisions that were legitimately made according to the rules and strictures of a democratic society, and have no compunction with transferring more and more power away from democratic institutions that have various formal and informal checks on their power to technocrats that have tremendous powers invested in them by various treaties and agreements, have no constitutional strictures on how they can act, and are not accountable to the millions of people whose decisions they impact?

This is the road that we have been taking more and more with institutions like investor-state dispute panels and organizations like the World Bank, institutions that provide avenues for wealthy investors and transnational corporations that individual citizens and smaller enterprises typically lack. Investors and companies use challenges under agreements like NAFTA, or even just the threat of them, to force governments to back down on actions that they believe are being taken in accordance with the mandates they have received from their voters and the Constitutions that outline their responsibilities in society. Institutions like the International Monetary Fund are given tremendous power to make economic decisions that affect the lives of millions of people, power that is wielded largely by faceless technocrats.

And yet, with all the power we give these people, what formal checks do they have on their authority? What means do we as citizens have to keep them accountable if we don't like what they're doing? Do you or I, as individual citizens, have any sort of reasonable access to these avenues of power? Anyone can, in theory, have access to the courts for redress against other citizens or against the state, can vote in elections or run for office themselves, and state institutions have had various formal and informal safeguards installed in national constitutions like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Bill of Rights and formal separation of powers embedded in the American Constitution.

As I'm sure most people on this forum are familiar with, Canadian conservatives have railed against unelected, unaccountable Canadian judges overruling the "will of Parliament" with their decisions, which has led to talk of the "Court Party" in Canada...but I have heard little, if anything from the Canadian right on the fact that NAFTA's investor-state panels have no notwithstanding clauses to act as a check on their authority, nor for the way that companies like Eli Lilly try to override Canadian case law regarding patents or Lone Pine Resources attempting to short-circuit the Quebec government's attempts to exercise its lawful constitutional rights on regulating oil and gas development. These foreign entities are trying to muck about with the decisions of elected legislatures in the same way that the courts have, so why are progressive leftists the only ones criticizing them?

This, and the continued enthusiastic support various parties typically associated with the right have for the increasing transfer of power in this direction, suggest to me that they value markets, or at least their ideal versions of markets, over anything else. It seems to me that they almost view markets, in isolation, as some sort of magic cure-all that can fix any and all social ills that might occur. Never mind that in practice entities that attain great power through markets can and do attempt to use their power to forcibly impose social change that serves their interest, as witnessed by the infamous "banana republic" interference in Latin America, or more subtle efforts such as the investor-state dispute settlements...which in turn give ammunition to those on the collectivist left that Individualist decries, as well as to left-wing leaders like Bolivia's Evo Morales, who seek to accomplish their goals using ballots rather than bullets, and the same democratic avenues available to all their fellow citizens.

Any criticism of markets, even if it is to suggest that markets are not appropriate for all endeavours, as you note, is responded to with implications that the questioner wants to nationalize everything in sight and turn Canada into the Northern Hemisphere's equivalent of Venezuela. This is different from the concerns about things like government overreach and abuse of state power raised by people like BartSimpson and Individualist on this forum. However, even with all that there are still more formal checks on state authority than on the technocratic institutions that are increasingly being set up, and more avenues for ordinary citizens to access the halls of power in a legislature or council chamber, than there often are for the technocratic institutions.

It seems to me we have a couple of different groups of elites running around in today's society-the more collective elite, typically associated with the left, that wants to implement top-down control on things they don't like, and the elites associated with the right, whose support for markets extends over and above the desire of individuals to be able to act, which can in some circumstances be supported by government action. If wages are constantly facing downward pressure, and government attempts to ensure the health and safety of their citizens are continually attacked, what does that do to disadvantaged individuals who might not otherwise be able to make the best use of their talents?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:20 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Seriously though, I find that the distance from centre is a bigger indicator of non-rationality than left-right.


So we should celebrate mediocrity as opposed to diversity?

Image


That's hilarious. I love the cirlced C.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13404
PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:26 pm
 


Centrist consensus is being confused as something lesser, weak and mediocre when what it actually represents is the ability to negotiate, allow give-and-take and find acceptable compromises. That is a far more developed and evolved strategy than digging your heels in and drawing lines in the sand, all of the time. It is impossible, for example, for a nation to make good law when it most of it consists of immoveable political extremes.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.