Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is one of the most internally illogical statements I think I've ever seen on this forum. Surely you can re-read this and understand why this doesn't follow, right? I mean, even assuming the first premise is correct.

No, I don't see how it is illogical. Explain. And ya, the first premise is correct. Libertarinism is a selfish philosophy bent on maximizing personal freedom and individuality, whereas a society is all about sharing and mutual sacrifice for mutual goals.

Technically you could have a society of Libertarians, but it would be pretty ####ty. Imagine driving down individual road segments, paying a toll for each one, if the owner decides it's OK for you to use. But then for simplicity maybe a bunch pool their road resources, and then, oh whoops, it's no longer Libertarianism because now you have shared resources and goals, you've lost your individual control over it. Fundamentally incompatible.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Can you elaborate?

Modern Libertarianism is focused around laissez-faire economics and minimal government intervention. It prioritizes the individual over the group (society). Fundamentally it is incompatible with a society because it ignores the needs of that society to instead focus on the needs of the one.

Most societal level problems require societal level solutions. Increased taxes, increased oversight, increased services. A libertarian is against all of these, instead saying the individual should only rely on themselves.

So any proposal, plan or attempt to solve societal issues with societal mechanisms would be fought by the libertarian.

His logic seems pretty fine, if you accept the premise of what a modern libertarian's focus and goals are.

I mean I guess I'm more libertarian than I thought. Surely not every solution means the government needs to get involved with regulations, oversight and taxes? I think that there are some things that the government should provide and it's not everyone for themselves, but I'm not too keen on the solution for everything being in the hands of the government either.

[aaronck]

I guess the UCP forget they are the ones in charge and could have changed all these things over the past 4 years, but decided to wait until now to act? Must just be a coincidence that it's election time

[GirlySports]

Police and fire, that's it. The rest is up to us!

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Police and fire, that's it. The rest is up to us!

I'm not going to allow a fire truck to reach your home becuase it has to cross my pavement, and the weight might damage it. Plus Ralph hasn't repaired his culvert damage, so it isn't going to make it to your house anyway.


Isn't this new society great?

[fotze2]

Girlysports you know better.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

No, I don't see how it is illogical. Explain. And ya, the first premise is correct. Libertarinism is a selfish philosophy bent on maximizing personal freedom and individuality whereas a society is all about sharing and mutual sacrifice for mutual goals.

I'm obviously not a libertarian but the latter is clearly an oversimplification of what libertarianism is about. That said, even if your description were correct, it's not the case that anyone who wants maximum freedom and individuality will always oppose "society-level goals". Where those "society level goals" are more likely to produce an environment fostering individuality and personal freedom, the libertarian you describe would logically be for that thing. Police forces, infrastructure, clean water, that sort of thing. There are many other society-benefiting things they tend to be for as a result of that utilitarian calculus, but are of the (often addled) view that those things are better provided by private enterprise than through tax dollars.

This Manichean thing you tend to do where you simplify everything to a point where it could be printed on a fortune cookie is extremely annoying, but I guess there's a reason I don't usually bother with this thread even during election season. I'll return to taking my own advice now.

Technically you could have a society of Libertarians, but it would be pretty ####ty.

Well, yeah. By pointing out that you're saying something facile I'm not arguing that libertarianism is a good way to run a country, province, town, or... anything, really.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm obviously not a libertarian but the latter is clearly an oversimplification of what libertarianism is about. That said, even if your description were correct, it's not the case that anyone who wants maximum freedom and individuality will always oppose "society-level goals". Where those "society level goals" are more likely to produce an environment fostering individuality and personal freedom, the libertarian you describe would logically be for that thing. Police forces, infrastructure, clean water, that sort of thing. There are many other society-benefiting things they tend to be for as a result of that utilitarian calculus, but are of the (often addled) view that those things are better provided by private enterprise than through tax dollars.

This Manichean thing you tend to do where you simplify everything to a point where it could be printed on a fortune cookie is extremely annoying, but I guess there's a reason I don't usually bother with this thread even during election season. I'll return to taking my own advice now.

Well, yeah. By pointing out that you're saying something facile I'm not arguing that libertarianism is a good way to run a country, province, town, or... anything, really.

Fair enough points, but you then get into the weeds. Maybe Doug doesn't want to pay taxes for police becuase he has loads of guns. Fred agrees with Doug. But Nancy is having none of that, becuase she needs police to keep her cows safe. But Doug says that's on her, why should he pay for that?


So you have to accept, or not accept some level of societal goals. Which I guess would lead to different levels of Libertarianism as their is vegan, vegetarian, vegetarian with eggs, etc...And one could argue, is it true Libertarianism if you go in on societal goals, even if the benefit would be greater to that individual if they don't?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Slava

I mean I guess I'm more libertarian than I thought. Surely not every solution means the government needs to get involved with regulations, oversight and taxes? I think that there are some things that the government should provide and it's not everyone for themselves, but I'm not too keen on the solution for everything being in the hands of the government either.

I also don't think all, but definitely most do. And I don't mean every problem in a person's life, but societal level issues like climate, emergencies, public safety, public health.

Taking the current wild fire situation right now. The government has evacuated Edson and Drayton Valley to protect people and give the firefighters room to do their job. This is the government intervention.

There is a very vocal group from both towns that want to be let back to their homes. They have even threatened to start a convoy to break down the checkpoints. This is a libertarian point of view, I will deal with it on my own.

This view will actually make dealing with these fires more difficult as the firefighters would also have to worry about civilians, it would require more resources if those people need rescuing, but to them their individual liberty is more important than society.

This is modern libertarianism in a nutshell. Are there some problems that don't need government assistance? Probably, but honestly I can't think of one right now that affect the entire society but can be fixed without the need of government.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

What the author said is it would cost the government nothing but it would cut GDP growth by 0.03% a year (3 one hundredths of a single point). That would be a loss of about 100 million dollars a year in GDP growth.

I mean, this is a hugely disingenuous take also. The government mandating we run the power grid as 100% renewable wouldn't cost the government anything, because it would get paid for in much higher power bills, so that part is totally irrelevant.

And GDP would mostly be the same, because the same amount of money would be spent in total, which is what gdp measures. Of course, if you have someone with $2000 of monthly income and their power bill goes from $65 to $130 they're going to have to cut $65 elsewhere. And with inflation on other items thats getting harder. But they'll probably still spend the whole $2k, so gdp is mostly the same, they just have a lower standard of living/quality of life.

The hit to gdp is mostly from losing some businesses, the ones who decide to set up show elsewhere once our power costs go up, or some that were barely making it and shut down.

Anyway, I won't need to cut back on food if power prices doubled, but there would be some folks who would. I think zero carbon by 2035 is a terrible idea, because it strands a huge amount of natural gas power investment in AB. Nearly all the construction is green power now anyway, so until storage tech catches up taking the nat gas offline is a big mistake.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

I mean I guess I'm more libertarian than I thought. Surely not every solution means the government needs to get involved with regulations, oversight and taxes? I think that there are some things that the government should provide and it's not everyone for themselves, but I'm not too keen on the solution for everything being in the hands of the government either.

Isn’t the fact that the problem exists means the individual solution failed?

For example homelessness exists. It’s clear that individual response through charity and community have failed to address this issue. So doesn’t that leave the options as either state intervention or live with the problem?

Unless the state intervention is the cause of the problem then it’s a failure of the individual systems.

Now there might be debate between address the symptom and address the cause and the incentives that are created by various interventions but the choice isn’t between the state solving or the individual solving it’s between deciding the status quo is acceptable or state intervention.

[iggy_oi]

If anyone caught Danielle Smith’s attempt to deflect from her ties to the wing nuts in take back Alberta, you may have noticed that she stated the NDP has positions on their council for every Union. That statement is categorically false.

Perhaps Yoho and the other UCP supporters can explain to us why she goes out of her way to lie to her constituents and why they support this blatant liar.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1656319239173869570

This should appeal to a lot of Albertans.

Did the moron and Deplorable Daniele forget that they had a majority gov't for the past 4 years?

[TheIronMaiden]

I'd like to challenge the notion the UCP put forward about "ending the revolving door" on homelessness and criminality surrounding such.

While there is no doubt the system the UCP has in place now is not a solution or working towards a solution, harsher criminalization is not likely to reduce incentives to commit crimes, or prevent repeat offenders, rather, it aims to make a longer cycle of homelessness and criminal activity. Instead of a revolving door that lasts 6 months it will last 16 months.

Down stream punishment can not change the upstream determinants.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Was the Affordability Action Plan grotesque? Is the issue the $600, kids, seniors or the $180,000 qualification?

Yes.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Did the moron and Deplorable Daniele forget that they had a majority gov't for the past 4 years?

The UCP on crime rates:

[Faust]

Alberta NDP @AlbertaNDP

In a newly uncovered video, Danielle Smith lays out her detailed plan to sell off “any of the hundred hospitals” that are part of our public healthcare system.

Not only does she want Albertans to pay to see a doctor, she wants to privatize hospitals too.

https://twitter.com/albertandp/statu...622883841?s=21

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Did the moron and Deplorable Daniele forget that they had a majority gov't for the past 4 years?

They have had a majority for all but 4 years of the last half century.

If there is an issue with crime that starts at the provincial government level, it is their fault.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Faust

Alberta NDP @AlbertaNDP

In a newly uncovered video, Danielle Smith lays out her detailed plan to sell off “any of the hundred hospitals” that are part of our public healthcare system.

Not only does she want Albertans to pay to see a doctor, she wants to privatize hospitals too.

https://twitter.com/albertandp/statu...622883841?s=21

Ya, but it's a great idea, because privatizing our labs has gone so well...


I also like this video becuase it's about as crazy as she has ever looked with her hands about her head like moose antlers.

[woob]

So I just got a "Say YES to kids" NDP email with a picture of Notley and some little punk in an Oilers jersey. I'm voting UCP. Sorry all.