Amalgamation

[Acitta]

City and Township Mayors call for new vision for local government

[bravado]

City and Township Mayors call for new vision for local government

Local lords band together to protect their inefficient fiefdoms. It seems weird that the City of Waterloo is not in this statement.

[Bytor]

The provincial committee is in town today to discuss our local governance.

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/to-amalgama...-1.6731669

'"…by eliminating duplication," Vrbanovic said.'

Sure Berry. You want to download services to the lower tier so they each do it themselves, but you want to eliminate duplication? Quite the contradiction, that.

[tomh009]

The provincial committee is in town today to discuss our local governance.

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/to-amalgama...-1.6731669

'"…by eliminating duplication," Vrbanovic said.'

Sure Berry. You want to download services to the lower tier so they each do it themselves, but you want to eliminate duplication? Quite the contradiction, that.

Yeah. I really don't see how that would improve efficiency.

[ijmorlan]

We're from the government and we're here to help ...

Not a great reference. It was Ronald Reagan, I believe, who used it as part of the right-wing project to undermine trust in the whole concept of working together (i.e., in a democratic society, government, for projects on a certain scale).

But yeah, I don’t really want any new help from Doug Ford and his cronies…

[tomh009]

I can't see that the provincial government would choose to move responsibility from the region to the individual cities/townships, or getting rid of the regional government altogether. The region isn't really blocking any residential construction, which is Ford's priority--that's basically all on the cities. To me, the possible outcomes out of this review are essentially:

• Status quo, with no substantial change (maybe fire responsibility to region)
  
• Amalgamation
  
• Amalgamation, excluding Cambridge
  

And I think the first is the most likely.

[Kodra24]

We're from the government and we're here to help ...

Not a great reference. It was Ronald Reagan, I believe, who used it as part of the right-wing project to undermine trust in the whole concept of working together (i.e., in a democratic society, government, for projects on a certain scale).

But yeah, I don’t really want any new help from Doug Ford and his cronies…

Ummm, no. Reagan's quote is: "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I want to help."

Coulnd't have said it better myself - the less government interference in our lives the better

[danbrotherston]

Not a great reference. It was Ronald Reagan, I believe, who used it as part of the right-wing project to undermine trust in the whole concept of working together (i.e., in a democratic society, government, for projects on a certain scale).

But yeah, I don’t really want any new help from Doug Ford and his cronies…

Ummm, no. Reagan's quote is: "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I want to help."

Coulnd't have said it better myself - the less government interference in our lives the better

Great, so you don't get to use the public roads, you don't get healthcare--even private healthcare which is largely the product of government research grants, you don't even get to interact with anyone else in the society because we are all educated as a result of broad public education.

You can go live alone in the woods...except you cannot even do that without depending on society.

Reaganism is a denial of the reality that we are social creatures living in a communally...in a society. You cannot live without depending on other people, this is an inherent to human existence.

You can argue about the scale or distribution of power within a society but you cannot argue against it's existence, which is exactly what Reagan style conservatives pretend to do. The funny thing is, you'll probably pipe up with "well private whatever whatever"...and now you *are* arguing about power distribution in society, and you are arguing that YOU should not have power, and instead wealthy people should have the power. Democratic governments are the mechanism by which we distribute power equally to the people independent of wealth, and modern conservativism is a reactionary response against that, and a push away from egalitarianism towards a wealth/hereditary hierarchy.

[Kodra24]

Ummm, no. Reagan's quote is: "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I want to help."

Coulnd't have said it better myself - the less government interference in our lives the better

Great, so you don't get to use the public roads, you don't get healthcare--even private healthcare which is largely the product of government research grants, you don't even get to interact with anyone else in the society because we are all educated as a result of broad public education.

You can go live alone in the woods...except you cannot even do that without depending on society.

Reaganism is a denial of the reality that we are social creatures living in a communal society. You cannot live without depending on other people, this is an inherent human feature.

You can argue about the scale or distribution of power within a society but you cannot argue against it's existence, which is exactly what Reagan style conservatives pretend to do.

10/10 for taking what I said and completely twisting it around to suit your narrative

I did not say we do not need government - we need government to be as small as possible and as efficient as possible, you always have to remember that it is accountable to the people, and it certainly is none of those things right now

Do you honestly think the government has your best interest at heart?

Of course we are social creatures living in a communal society but how we depend on other people varies on what you mean - yes, I depend and expect city employees to do their job (via taxpayer funds) to maintain the roads just as much as I depend and expect the doctor to treat my injuries in a timely manner

I certainly don't need the government to tell me how to act, speak, think (obviously within the confines of the law) which it is increasingly eager to do

[nms]

If by "increasingly eager to do" you mean to ensure that everyone in society has an equal part to play, then I'm all for it. Past cases where the government has told society how to act, speak and think:
- granting women the right to vote
- granting anyone who wasn't a white male the right to vote
- granting everyone fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, equality rights, official language rights and minority language educational rights regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, sex, and disability.

We as a country, province, region and cities/townships have suffered through 40+ years of public thinking that governments need to be "small and efficient," which has generally meant cuts to programs and services that are now beginning to affect more than just the marginalized. As a Region we are thankfully in no where near as bad a shape as other cities such as Toronto.

[Kodra24]

If by "increasingly eager to do" you mean to ensure that everyone in society has an equal part to play, then I'm all for it.  Past cases where the government has told society how to act, speak and think:
- granting women the right to vote
- granting anyone who wasn't a white male the right to vote
- granting everyone fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, equality rights, official language rights and minority language educational rights regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, sex, and disability.

We as a country, province, region and cities/townships have suffered through 40+ years of public thinking that governments need to be "small and efficient," which has generally meant cuts to programs and services that are now beginning to affect more than just the marginalized.  As a Region we are thankfully in no where near as bad a shape as other cities such as Toronto.

To ensure everyone in society has an equal opportunity yes, but not equal outcome

There is so much that is wrong with our country right now, but I'll decline to elaborate further in this thread as it's going quite off-topic now

[ac3r]

Some of us love small government, some of us love to bend over and spread wide for big government.

And some of us want no government... :'P

[danbrotherston]

If by "increasingly eager to do" you mean to ensure that everyone in society has an equal part to play, then I'm all for it.  Past cases where the government has told society how to act, speak and think:
- granting women the right to vote
- granting anyone who wasn't a white male the right to vote
- granting everyone fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, equality rights, official language rights and minority language educational rights regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, sex, and disability.

We as a country, province, region and cities/townships have suffered through 40+ years of public thinking that governments need to be "small and efficient," which has generally meant cuts to programs and services that are now beginning to affect more than just the marginalized.  As a Region we are thankfully in no where near as bad a shape as other cities such as Toronto.

To ensure everyone in society has an equal opportunity yes, but not equal outcome

There is so much that is wrong with our country right now, but I'll decline to elaborate further in this thread as it's going quite off-topic now

Nobody here is arguing for equal outcome, but that's a pretty common excuse to refuse to actually consider whether people have equal opportunities.

[danbrotherston]

Great, so you don't get to use the public roads, you don't get healthcare--even private healthcare which is largely the product of government research grants, you don't even get to interact with anyone else in the society because we are all educated as a result of broad public education.

You can go live alone in the woods...except you cannot even do that without depending on society.

Reaganism is a denial of the reality that we are social creatures living in a communal society. You cannot live without depending on other people, this is an inherent human feature.

You can argue about the scale or distribution of power within a society but you cannot argue against it's existence, which is exactly what Reagan style conservatives pretend to do.

10/10 for taking what I said and completely twisting it around to suit your narrative

I did not say we do not need government - we need government to be as small as possible and as efficient as possible, you always have to remember that it is accountable to the people, and it certainly is none of those things right now

Do you honestly think the government has your best interest at heart?

Of course we are social creatures living in a communal society but how we depend on other people varies on what you mean - yes, I depend and expect city employees to do their job (via taxpayer funds) to maintain the roads just as much as I depend and expect the doctor to treat my injuries in a timely manner

I certainly don't need the government to tell me how to act, speak, think (obviously within the confines of the law) which it is increasingly eager to do

I didn't take anything you said out of context...you quoted and indicated support for a political ideology. I simply pointed out the reality of that political ideology. If you prefer a different ideology, you should say that instead.

As for the government, they absolutely have my interests at heart...that isn't to say that my interests aren't competing with many MANY other interests, some of which, I feel are prioritized far too much.

But I can also tell you that neither the "magic invisible hand" nor corporate shareholders have your interests in mind at all.

And I'm happy to discuss what a government should do, but this strategy of demonizing the government because you believe they don't care about your interests, is a strategy used by those who actually have the freedom not to care about your interests (i.e., corporate shareholders), to convince people to oppose democratic processes in favour of corporate control.

I don't want the government to dictate what I can say, but at least I get a vote in that government, I get no vote on Facebook's board, and they exercise far more control over my speech than the government does, and do so as a direct result of their lobbying and policies enacted in the name of "small government".

[Kodra24]

10/10 for taking what I said and completely twisting it around to suit your narrative

I did not say we do not need government - we need government to be as small as possible and as efficient as possible, you always have to remember that it is accountable to the people, and it certainly is none of those things right now

Do you honestly think the government has your best interest at heart?

Of course we are social creatures living in a communal society but how we depend on other people varies on what you mean - yes, I depend and expect city employees to do their job (via taxpayer funds) to maintain the roads just as much as I depend and expect the doctor to treat my injuries in a timely manner

I certainly don't need the government to tell me how to act, speak, think (obviously within the confines of the law) which it is increasingly eager to do

I didn't take anything you said out of context...you quoted and indicated support for a political ideology. I simply pointed out the reality of that political ideology. If you prefer a different ideology, you should say that instead.

As for the government, they absolutely have my interests at heart...that isn't to say that my interests aren't competing with many MANY other interests, some of which, I feel are prioritized far too much.

But I can also tell you that neither the "magic invisible hand" nor corporate shareholders have your interests in mind at all.

And I'm happy to discuss what a government should do, but this strategy of demonizing the government because you believe they don't care about your interests, is a strategy used by those who actually have the freedom not to care about your interests (i.e., corporate shareholders), to convince people to oppose democratic processes in favour of corporate control.

I don't want the government to dictate what I can say, but at least I get a vote in that government, I get no vote on Facebook's board, and they exercise far more control over my speech than the government does, and do so as a direct result of their lobbying and policies enacted in the name of "small government".

Why would you get a vote on Facebook's board (unless you're a vast shareholder), it's a for-profit business - simply do not use their services if you don't agree with their actions/principles etc

However we are not afforded such freedom of choice when it comes to government, just look at the mismanagement of funds at every corner and we are stuck to pay for it, all of it

You are highlighting the point I've made, in that NO ONE has your best interests at heart except for yourself - not government, not big corporations, not your neighbour etc.

How one can just let go and blindly believe that government has their best interest at heart is disturbing, it's like you've given up on life - I certainly hope I never ever feel that way