Amalgamation

[danbrotherston]

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

This is an absolute misrepresentation of my statement and the reality of the situation.


Facebook:

The idea that you can just "opt out" of their services is wilfully blind. Leaving aside the network effects (I've lost connection with many friends and acquaintances as a result of leaving twitter and FB--it costs me not to use them because other people continue to use them), that's small peanuts. They also have an IMMENSE amount of control over our society. The genocide in Myanmar is the most extreme example, but even here, they exert immense control over our society. You cannot opt out of that.

I *SHOULD* get a say because I believe capitalism is corrupt and broken. I.e., shareholders and the CEO should not get to facilitate genocide just because they are wealthy, they have immense power that is completely unearned. Ergo, we should either prohibit individuals and companies from gaining such power, or forcibly distribute that power away from the few individuals and corporations to a larger more democratic group using regulations and unions (or co-op ownership whatever mechanism you like).

Yes, I'm a "radical" because I think the current situation is very broken and we should be willing to change it...



As for who has my interests in mind...that is such a cynical and and anti-social take. It's also just objectively wrong...

Things are not black and white, my neighbours DO have my interest in mind. It's why they do stuff like bring in my recycling bin when I'm not home. That's not a selfish action, that's a pro-social action.

The same with governments, as I pointed out, if you're an eligible voter, they are motivated to care about your interests. Like I said, I believe that that interest is far too captured and diluted by the interests of wealthy individuals and corporations, but it does still exist.

These things aren't as simple or as black and white as you'd like, the world is complex. If you find comfort in adopting a simple worldview, be my guest, but do not expect me to provide you with a safe place where nobody will confront you with the wondrous complexity of the world.

The irony is that you say I'm disturbed and yet I find your take to be wholly cynical.

[ac3r]

The "progressive" left tends to love the idea of big government because it's the only way they have any hope of making the majority - regardless of how they may feel - put up with their policies. Thankfully, most people don't think this way and we see that when it comes to anything from supporting policies or even bothering to vote. Why bother, if either way we get screwed? Most of us would prefer to have them mind their own business.

Of course they love to tell us how wrong we are and how right they are, haha.

[Kodra24]

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

This is an absolute misrepresentation of my statement and the reality of the situation.


Facebook:

The idea that you can just "opt out" of their services is wilfully blind. Leaving aside the network effects (I've lost connection with many friends and acquaintances as a result of leaving twitter and FB--it costs me not to use them because other people continue to use them), that's small peanuts. They also have an IMMENSE amount of control over our society. The genocide in Myanmar is the most extreme example, but even here, they exert immense control over our society. You cannot opt out of that.

I *SHOULD* get a say because I believe capitalism is corrupt and broken. I.e., shareholders and the CEO should not get to facilitate genocide just because they are wealthy, they have immense power that is completely unearned. Ergo, we should either prohibit individuals and companies from gaining such power, or forcibly distribute that power away from the few individuals and corporations to a larger more democratic group using regulations and unions (or co-op ownership whatever mechanism you like).

Yes, I'm a "radical" because I think the current situation is very broken and we should be willing to change it...



As for who has my interests in mind...that is such a cynical and and anti-social take. It's also just objectively wrong...

Things are not black and white, my neighbours DO have my interest in mind. It's why they do stuff like bring in my recycling bin when I'm not home. That's not a selfish action, that's a pro-social action.

The same with governments, as I pointed out, if you're an eligible voter, they are motivated to care about your interests. Like I said, I believe that that interest is far too captured and diluted by the interests of wealthy individuals and corporations, but it does still exist.

These things aren't as simple or as black and white as you'd like, the world is complex. If you find comfort in adopting a simple worldview, be my guest, but do not expect me to provide you with a safe place where nobody will confront you with the wondrous complexity of the world.

The irony is that you say I'm disturbed and yet I find your take to be wholly cynical.

It's not cynicism, it's realism - I am not cynical towards my family or close friends, I have no reason to be, but I have plenty of reasons to be wary of government or big corporations, isn't this common sense?!

I'm not sure you understand how social media monopolies work - it is all about active users, if enough people leave/deactivate their profile their stock will plummet, hence their market cap (essentially the amount of money the company is worth) will nosedive, and of course the less it's worth the less power it can project etc etc etc

It sounds like you should be protesting facebook and the evils of social media (which I agree is extremely unhealthy, especially with kids)

But again, it is a CHOICE to use it! We, the people, have the power to stop FB or any other social media empire by simply ditching it or switching to another platform or creating our own platform

There is NO CHOICE in the state intervention which you highly speak of, there is NO CHOICE in government overreach, you are not grasping the extraordinary dangers you are advocating for because, I'm guessing, you were never in such a danger

[ijmorlan]

But again, it is a CHOICE to use it! We, the people, have the power to stop FB or any other social media empire by simply ditching it or switching to another platform or creating our own platform

There is NO CHOICE in the state intervention which you highly speak of, there is NO CHOICE in government overreach, you are not grasping the extraordinary dangers you are advocating for because, I'm guessing, you were never in such a danger

In a democratic state, there absolutely is a choice in the state intervention. Even in a system with a really dumb design (e.g. first-past-the-post voting), the people can replace the government, even if it’s harder than it should be.

With large corporations, we have control over them only in a way similar to how we have control over the government: by getting together and acting collectively. In a democratic society, the biggest way in which this is done is through the government.

That being said, I think a lot of things are best left to individual choice, but in order for real choice to exist in most markets, there have to be rules, created collectively (i.e., through government, whatever you prefer to call it), that constrain the behaviour of individual market participants.

[danbrotherston]

This is an absolute misrepresentation of my statement and the reality of the situation.


Facebook:

The idea that you can just "opt out" of their services is wilfully blind. Leaving aside the network effects (I've lost connection with many friends and acquaintances as a result of leaving twitter and FB--it costs me not to use them because other people continue to use them), that's small peanuts. They also have an IMMENSE amount of control over our society. The genocide in Myanmar is the most extreme example, but even here, they exert immense control over our society. You cannot opt out of that.

I *SHOULD* get a say because I believe capitalism is corrupt and broken. I.e., shareholders and the CEO should not get to facilitate genocide just because they are wealthy, they have immense power that is completely unearned. Ergo, we should either prohibit individuals and companies from gaining such power, or forcibly distribute that power away from the few individuals and corporations to a larger more democratic group using regulations and unions (or co-op ownership whatever mechanism you like).

Yes, I'm a "radical" because I think the current situation is very broken and we should be willing to change it...



As for who has my interests in mind...that is such a cynical and and anti-social take. It's also just objectively wrong...

Things are not black and white, my neighbours DO have my interest in mind. It's why they do stuff like bring in my recycling bin when I'm not home. That's not a selfish action, that's a pro-social action.

The same with governments, as I pointed out, if you're an eligible voter, they are motivated to care about your interests. Like I said, I believe that that interest is far too captured and diluted by the interests of wealthy individuals and corporations, but it does still exist.

These things aren't as simple or as black and white as you'd like, the world is complex. If you find comfort in adopting a simple worldview, be my guest, but do not expect me to provide you with a safe place where nobody will confront you with the wondrous complexity of the world.

The irony is that you say I'm disturbed and yet I find your take to be wholly cynical.

It's not cynicism, it's realism - I am not cynical towards my family or close friends, I have no reason to be, but I have plenty of reasons to be wary of government or big corporations, isn't this common sense?!

I'm not sure you understand how social media monopolies work - it is all about active users, if enough people leave/deactivate their profile their stock will plummet, hence their market cap (essentially the amount of money the company is worth) will nosedive, and of course the less it's worth the less power it can project etc etc etc

It sounds like you should be protesting facebook and the evils of social media (which I agree is extremely unhealthy, especially with kids)

But again, it is a CHOICE to use it! We, the people, have the power to stop FB or any other social media empire by simply ditching it or switching to another platform or creating our own platform

There is NO CHOICE in the state intervention which you highly speak of, there is NO CHOICE in government overreach, you are not grasping the extraordinary dangers you are advocating for because, I'm guessing, you were never in such a danger

The cynicism is in saying that NOBODY (neighbours, friends, colleagues would all be in that group) cares about your interests. You lead a sad anti-social life if you believe every person you meet is against you. But now it seems you try to reposition your statement, saying you aren't assuming that of your "close friends", but you have reason to be wary of "corporations and government".

As for government or big business, I explicitly said to be wary of them. But also to understand their motives and how and when they align with yours. Your implication that I suggested that you should not be wary of governments and corporations is...frankly a lie.

As for social media, I've already explained how it is impossible to opt out of the existence of large corporations. I can do nothing about your unwillingness to face that reality.

As for state power, I fully understand the dangers, which is why I fight for democracy...rather than dismiss it.

[Kodra24]

It's not cynicism, it's realism - I am not cynical towards my family or close friends, I have no reason to be, but I have plenty of reasons to be wary of government or big corporations, isn't this common sense?!

I'm not sure you understand how social media monopolies work - it is all about active users, if enough people leave/deactivate their profile their stock will plummet, hence their market cap (essentially the amount of money the company is worth) will nosedive, and of course the less it's worth the less power it can project etc etc etc

It sounds like you should be protesting facebook and the evils of social media (which I agree is extremely unhealthy, especially with kids)

But again, it is a CHOICE to use it! We, the people, have the power to stop FB or any other social media empire by simply ditching it or switching to another platform or creating our own platform

There is NO CHOICE in the state intervention which you highly speak of, there is NO CHOICE in government overreach, you are not grasping the extraordinary dangers you are advocating for because, I'm guessing, you were never in such a danger

The cynicism is in saying that NOBODY (neighbours, friends, colleagues would all be in that group) cares about your interests. You lead a sad anti-social life if you believe every person you meet is against you. But now it seems you try to reposition your statement, saying you aren't assuming that of your "close friends", but you have reason to be wary of "corporations and government".

As for government or big business, I explicitly said to be wary of them. But also to understand their motives and how and when they align with yours. Your implication that I suggested that you should not be wary of governments and corporations is...frankly a lie.

As for social media, I've already explained how it is impossible to opt out of the existence of large corporations. I can do nothing about your unwillingness to face that reality.

As for state power, I fully understand the dangers, which is why I fight for democracy...rather than dismiss it.

You're kinda all over the place, earlier you literally said you absolutely feel the government has your best interest at heart - are you referring to this current federal government or really any that comes to power? In any case I indicated that that is the fundamental difference between you and I, and that I cannot really fathom even meeting such a person, but alas they do exist

Since you mentioned it though and got personal, I have a great family life with lots of friends, and get along well with colleagues, and I still think we are our own individual selves with accountabilites and interests, and should ensure our own interests are met first - that's not cynicism

In the end I think it's pretty clear what your values are and what mine are - there's no need to delve further

[danbrotherston]

The cynicism is in saying that NOBODY (neighbours, friends, colleagues would all be in that group) cares about your interests. You lead a sad anti-social life if you believe every person you meet is against you. But now it seems you try to reposition your statement, saying you aren't assuming that of your "close friends", but you have reason to be wary of "corporations and government".

As for government or big business, I explicitly said to be wary of them. But also to understand their motives and how and when they align with yours. Your implication that I suggested that you should not be wary of governments and corporations is...frankly a lie.

As for social media, I've already explained how it is impossible to opt out of the existence of large corporations. I can do nothing about your unwillingness to face that reality.

As for state power, I fully understand the dangers, which is why I fight for democracy...rather than dismiss it.

You're kinda all over the place, earlier you literally said you absolutely feel the government has your best interest at heart - are you referring to this current federal government or really any that comes to power? In any case I indicated that that is the fundamental difference between you and I, and that I cannot really fathom even meeting such a person, but alas they do exist

Since you mentioned it though and got personal, I have a great family life with lots of friends, and get along well with colleagues, and I still think we are our own individual selves with accountabilites and interests, and should ensure our own interests are met first - that's not cynicism

In the end I think it's pretty clear what your values are and what mine are - there's no need to delve further

Here's what I said about government....

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.

It is absolutely in line with everything I've said before, and it is absolutely objectively correct.

And this is true for most governments, most democratic governments anyway. Yes, the liberals (who I did not vote for, I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear), and the provincial PC government. Yes, the Ford government, which I despise...still does have what they feel is my best interests at heart. Ford, in all his infinite corruption, still is angry when homebuilders he gives land too aren't going to build homes and are instead doing a corruption. He is fighting hard to give me more highways (which I don't want, but he thinks I need). Etc. etc.

And yes, my interests are a tiny tiny too small fraction of the motivations that both Ford and Trudeau use which are otherwise largely captured by wealthy interests, but they still exist.

You can see how this works at a local level. Understanding how you can influence politicians to do more of what you want is key to actually getting shit done. You think the ION and the bike network just happened. It took years and years of advocacy from people like me and others here to actually make these things happen. That works because the politicians do respond to our interests.




As for your colleagues and neighbours...you are the one who is all over the place. You said, unequivocally, that you felt they did not have your interests in mind (and presumably you act in kind). Now you say you get along well with them. Do you perhaps mean, you ignore them and don't interact with them unless you want something for yourself? That is a kind of "getting along" but it isn't a social interaction.

[tomh009]

Yes ... what we have is a representative democracy. We elect representatives who (we feel) will represent our interests. The representatives then make decisions based some combination of on their platforms/policies (what they campaigned on), what they believe are the best decisions (not what the campaigned on but what they think we need), and what they think we would like, even if it's not the best thing for us (because that might help them get re-elected).

It's an imperfect system, but it's one of the best that has been invented. And whether any one of us likes a particular government, that government generally does make decisions that the government thinks is best for their voters, and that their voters would like, as Dan said above. Direct democracy eliminates the representative level, but the decisions will still reflect the population at large, not each individual voter.

[neonjoe]

A small tidbit in the April 10 Cutting Red Tape news release that may have been overlooked.
The province will be removing all planning powers from the upper tier governments starting for some municipalities on July 1st with others like Waterloo Region coming into effect later.
When that happens we can say goodbye to the Countryside Line as the region will have no power to override the local municipalities who wish to change the line within their boundaries.

https://news.ontario.ca/en/backgrounder/...more-homes

Municipal Planning Responsibilities:
The More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 made changes that, once in force, will remove statutory powers under the Planning Act from seven upper-tier municipalities identified in the legislation: Durham, Halton, Niagara, Peel, Simcoe, Waterloo, and York. Ontario remains committed to reducing municipal duplication across the province to deliver on shared provincial-municipal priorities, all while supporting its municipal partners. Proposed amendments to the Planning Act, as part of this legislative package, would provide flexibility for when changes to planning responsibilities for certain upper-tier municipalities would come into force. For Peel, Halton and York Regions, upper-tier planning changes would come into effect on July 1, 2024, with others coming into effect at a later date. Once in effect, planning policy and approval responsibilities of the regional municipality will be removed and the lower-tier municipalities will assume primary responsibility for all planning in their geographies, except for matters requiring provincial approval.

[Bytor]

Great. More Sprawl.

Context: Doug for only wants single-detached, not the missing middle. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/f...-1.7162251

[SF22]

A small tidbit in the April 10 Cutting Red Tape news release that may have been overlooked.
The province will be removing all planning powers from the upper tier governments starting for some municipalities on July 1st with others like Waterloo Region coming into effect later.
When that happens we can say goodbye to the Countryside Line as the region will have no power to override the local municipalities who wish to change the line within their boundaries.

https://news.ontario.ca/en/backgrounder/...more-homes

Municipal Planning Responsibilities:
The More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 made changes that, once in force, will remove statutory powers under the Planning Act from seven upper-tier municipalities identified in the legislation: Durham, Halton, Niagara, Peel, Simcoe, Waterloo, and York. Ontario remains committed to reducing municipal duplication across the province to deliver on shared provincial-municipal priorities, all while supporting its municipal partners. Proposed amendments to the Planning Act, as part of this legislative package, would provide flexibility for when changes to planning responsibilities for certain upper-tier municipalities would come into force. For Peel, Halton and York Regions, upper-tier planning changes would come into effect on July 1, 2024, with others coming into effect at a later date. Once in effect, planning policy and approval responsibilities of the regional municipality will be removed and the lower-tier municipalities will assume primary responsibility for all planning in their geographies, except for matters requiring provincial approval.

The province once looked at expanding the Greenbelt to include a bunch of area around Waterloo Region, but the Regional standards were higher and so it never really got pursued. Sounds like it's time to make that happen ASAP. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener...-1.4565737

[bravado]

I love the idea of “reducing municipal duplication” by maintaining 3 governments instead of 4. 

How about 1?!?