Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 4th Sep 2011 15:48 UTC
Legal "Secret U.S. government cables show a stunning willingness by senior Canadian officials to appease American demands (more here) for a U.S.-style copyright law here. The documents describe Canadian officials as encouraging American lobbying efforts. They also cite cabinet minister Maxime Bernier raising the possibility of showing U.S. officials a draft bill before tabling it in Parliament. The cables, from the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, even have a policy director for then industry minister Tony Clement suggesting it might help U.S. demands for a tough copyright law if Canada were placed among the worst offenders on an international piracy watch list. Days later, the U.S. placed Canada alongside China and Russia on the list." Unbelievable. Suddenly I understand why the SFPD had no qualms about acting as henchmen for Apple goons to violate someone's constitutional rights. If a government is messed up, it only makes sense this is reflected in the corporate policies of its prime corporations.
Thread beginning with comment 488456
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Human mess
by Alfman on Sun 4th Sep 2011 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Human mess"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

"Why it is... so often wrong in promoting their new mythical honest idol?"

I'm insulted by this notion that honesty is mythical. I try my absolute best to be honest when it comes to my jobs and responsibilities. Despite the fact that I see dishonest people getting ahead of myself, I've remained honest. Perhaps my kind will eventually die off because we're not fit to survive, but I still will cling to the view that honestly is a virtue worth having even if it is a competitive weakness.


"Those are our failures."

To the extent that we have control over them, then sure, but you must be aware that many people over here in the US view the government as a fascist entity acting on behalf of wealthy corporate interests through both parties.

It may be a conspiracy to you, but in their minds, their government does not represent them.

http://newjerseyhills.com/observer-tribune/news/article_7074df6c-f7.....

"Despite the poor national economy, the report found that the personal wealth of members of Congress increased collectively by more than 16 percent between 2008 and 2009. It also showed that 261 congressmen, or nearly half of the membership of the House of Representatives, are millionaires."

The fact is wealth plays a large part in getting representation within government. Regardless of the reasons, government is overwhelmingly composed of wealthy classes who would rather keep pushing corporate interests over us.

I'm an advocate of real democracy, but it's gotta represent the people. What we have today does not.

Edited 2011-09-04 20:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: Human mess
by MollyC on Mon 5th Sep 2011 09:24 in reply to "RE[5]: Human mess"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

...you must be aware that many people over here in the US view the government as a fascist entity acting on behalf of wealthy corporate interests through both parties.


And there are others in the US that think that the government is there just to take from the middle class and the rich and give it to the poor.

I think both sides are whack. Sure, the govt helps corporations when the govt thinks that it is in society's interest to do so, but that's not "fascism". And sure, there's a safety net to help those that are struggling, but that doesn't mean that the govt is stealing from the rich/middle class to give to the poor. The ideologues on both sides are so annoying.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Human mess
by Neolander on Mon 5th Sep 2011 10:19 in reply to "RE[5]: Human mess"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

In Sweden, I have met someone who advocated random elections. People are picked randomly in the ID database and designated as part-time leaders of the country. To address things which they don't know, they refer to a public institution of people who work in the field.

This idea makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, though I can't find precise arguments against it, but it would certainly lead to more representative governments.

Edited 2011-09-05 10:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Human mess
by Alfman on Mon 5th Sep 2011 17:24 in reply to "RE[6]: Human mess"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Neolander,

"In Sweden, I have met someone who advocated random elections. People are picked randomly in the ID database and designated as part-time leaders of the country. To address things which they don't know, they refer to a public institution of people who work in the field."

Interesting, however I dislike the fact that this system would not be democratic either.

I've proposed some ideas in the past myself.

1. Rank voting, to address the problem when people end up voting for the candidates most likely to win, rather than those they actually want to win. This one is a no-brainer, but would severely weaken the democratic and republican parties such that I doubt there is sufficient incentive among politicians to fix the problem.


2. Revolving door vote. Instead of voting at distant intervals, a public vote could be recorded for each voter until the person dies or casts a new vote. The majority vote would be tabulated continuously (something like every month). This would have significant ramifications, but the idea is that politicians would have a far greater incentive to listen to the public over their own agenda.


3. Vote directly on issues instead of through politicians. A representative might not follow through on his stated plans. And even if he does, our vote for him doesn't imply endorsement of the full plan. People must vote for the candidate on a restricted set of dimensions (which often turn out to be those promoted by political think tanks). This implies that most dimensions will never see the light of the democratic process, and can even result in elected officials pushing policy which completely contradicts the majority view on them.

4. Domain specific elections. Short of being able to vote on specific issues, maybe it'd be possible to vote in representatives on a finer granularity such that voters can cast a ballot which better reflects their choices.


Of course I've heard some people say that democracy doesn't work in the first place because people are too stupid to make the best choices for themselves without political middlemen. Maybe that's true, but I'd still rather live democratically among a stupid people than live under tyrants who are wise.

Reply Parent Score: 2