[MrMatt]

Mr. Blackhill doesn't want people to have individual choice. He wants the government to make all the decisions.

I prefer to think for myself and make my own decisions, and am willing to live with the consequences. Mr Blackhill is willing to give up his freedom if it means that he no longer has to be responsible for anything. That's how cowards live.

I think that's a bit harsh.

But I think that it's a bad idea that leaving all the decisions up to someone who doesn't know your, or understand your situation, or have to deal with the consequences is bound to be a suboptimal solution, and many times might be an outright BAD solution.
The best societies allow more freedom and innovation, the worst have centralized authority and control.


The thing is, while I'm intelligent, educated, informed, and capable. I assume Mr Blackhill is as well, neither one of us would be happy if we had to abide by the others decisions on a wide range of topics. That's what those who support authoritarians don't seem to grasp, they think it's fine as long as "the right guy" is in charge, well guess what, it often won't be. Remember the US gave all sorts of Power to Obama, which ended going to Trump.
As much as MrBlackhill may be happy with having all the decision making power, he won't be as happy when I have it.
The best answer we've come up with is to let each of us make our own decisions as much as possible, and have a powerful authority dictate as little as possible.

Unfortunately many lack the education on why this is a good idea, and want to regress to an all powerful dictator model.

 

[damian13ster]

Sabrina Maddeaux: The incredibly incompetent Mélanie Joly

Foreign affairs is too important a cabinet position to be handled so carelessly

nationalpost.com

 

[MrBlackhill]

Mr. Blackhill doesn't want people to have individual choice. He wants the government to make all the decisions.

I'm not sure where I've stated that I was against individual choice and that I wanted the government to make all the decisions.

Taking authoritarianism to its extreme is bad, as much as taking libertarianism to its extreme is bad.

I'm still waiting for a libertarian to tell me how we would achieve equality.

Shouldn't everybody have equal rights to access the same quality of:

• Education
• Healthcare
• Information
• Security & safety

If no, then why. If yes, then how. I'm open to discussion.

About the vaccine mandates for instance, that's where though decisions suddenly arise. On one side, there's that person who wants the freedom to decide what goes into their body, therefore the freedom to chose to be vaccinated or not, and I totally understand this and fully agree. On the other side, there's that person who wants to feel safe from deathly viruses spreading through a pandemic and have a quick access to healthcare in case he needs it, and I totally understand this and fully agree. And then, to make the best rational decision (which has to be taken quickly as we must act fast during a pandemic), we need more data, more statistics, more studies, which we don't have beforehand, so we act based on experts opinions and history. And then obviously, as everybody panics and gets emotional, not everybody fully agrees, me neither, but we need somewhere some democracy, some collective intelligence and some trust. Unfortunately, without a government, that's hard. Also unfortunately, with a government and the human nature desire for power and influence, that's also hard.

 

[kcowan]

Maybe recall would work here? Get enough people upset and the guy gets removed from office by referendum. At least it serves as a wakeup call when a politician goes to far like JT!

 

[damian13ster]

I don't know, but the level of incompetency and lack of accountability is absolutely astounding.
Screw over your Ukrainian coworkers, send representative to a party celebrating Russia.

And it isn't exactly like it's the only minister that displays pitiful performance.

But that is natural. With fascist authoritarian in charge, the people around have to be inept to put up with it and never challenge the authoritarian

 

[HappilyRetired]

I'm not sure where I've stated that I was against individual choice and that I wanted the government to make all the decisions.

Taking authoritarianism to its extreme is bad, as much as taking libertarianism to its extreme is bad.

I'm still waiting for a libertarian to tell me how we would achieve equality.

Shouldn't everybody have equal rights to access the same quality of:

• Education
• Healthcare
• Information
• Security & safety

If no, then why. If yes, then how. I'm open to discussion.

I'm all for equality, I always have been. By equality I mean equal opportunity not equal outcome. Now, what you do with that opportunity is your responsibility. If you waste your opportunities then it's not my job to bail you out to make your outcome "equal" to mine. Trudeau isn't for equality because he imposes gender and race quotas.

Everyone has equal access to public schools, public healthcare, and information. I don't know how you can think otherwise. Has any Canadian ever been denied healthcare or the right to go to school? And if you have internet then you have access to all the information in the entire world just like everyone else.

 

[HappilyRetired]

The left sure hates it when you do to them what they do to you. You would think that 90% liberal New York would welcome these "immigrants" with open arms.







The New York Times

@nytimes


Thousands of migrants have been arriving in Washington, D.C., on buses sent by the governors of Texas and Arizona. With nonprofits and volunteer groups overwhelmed, many have ended up in homeless shelters and on the streets.
https://t.co/AN2iRCje1M

 

[MrMatt]

I'm not sure where I've stated that I was against individual choice and that I wanted the government to make all the decisions.

Taking authoritarianism to its extreme is bad, as much as taking libertarianism to its extreme is bad.

Sure, but as the current problem is government overreach, that's what we should be working against.

I'm still waiting for a libertarian to tell me how we would achieve equality.

Equality of outcome?
That isn't the goal or expected outcome of freedom.
Different people with different goals and different choices will end up in different places.
You won't have "equality".

Think about it, if one person wants to be a comedian, and another wants to be a fighter pilot, they will NOT have equal outcomes.
They are different people making different choices and that's just the way it is.

Shouldn't everybody have equal rights to access the same quality of:

• Education
• Healthcare
• Information
• Security & safety

If no, then why. If yes, then how. I'm open to discussion.

Of course, and if you find any unfair barriers preventing equal access, lets address them.

 

[MrMatt]

I'm not sure where I've stated that I was against individual choice and that I wanted the government to make all the decisions.

Not all, just most.

I guess that's why I'm 50%-60% authoritarian. Too much authoritarianism is bad, too much libertarianism is bad, and I feel like we have to lean towards a bit more authoritarianism to achieve equal opportunity.

I want freedom except where absolutely necessary.
I also think government power should be routinely pruned somehow because it's gone too far.

As far as equal opportunity, the government is implementing racial quotas, and racist/sexist hiring to achieve outcome goals.
For example there was outcry about this job posting at Waterloo.

If you are a man, you can not apply. That is not equal opportunity.
I believe the discrimination was due to a federal funding requirement.

I would suggest that the way to ensure equal opportunity is to prohibit discrimination based on race and gender.
Government institutions should set the example.

If you have a competent HR department, when they hire they determine the scorecard BEFORE the interview, based on the job requirements, then measure and compare them using that scorecard.
Race/Gender/Orientation/Religion, should simply not be on that scorecard, unless it is a bonafide requirement.

 

[MrBlackhill]

Equality of outcome?

I don't want to enter the debate "equality of opportunity" vs "equality of outcome" as it's a debate about perception, so that's why I simply called it "equality" and make it fit the equality concept that you agree with.

For instance, one smart-*ss could argue that the 3 people had equal opportunity (as we gave them the same opportunity to use 1 box each), so then we'd call the second image "equal outcome" as unfair because some had the opportunity to use more boxes than others... Yet would you call that second image "unfair"?

Then I mentioned education, healthcare, information, security & safety because the more extreme we go towards libertarianism, the less we'd have this. Our neighbours in the US don't even have equal access to the same quality education and healthcare, for instance.

if you find any unfair barriers preventing equal access, lets address them.

Yes, the ultimate goal is to address barriers, as in the third image.

 

[HappilyRetired]

In the meme about equality the people are watching the game without paying for a ticket. 😁

If there was true equality they would have paid for a ticket like all the other fans did. It's not equality when you take something that you didn't earn or pay for. It's theft.

 

[MrBlackhill]

If you are a man, you can not apply. That is not equal opportunity.

Well, I also disagree with this.

To make it funny, a cisgender man could apply by mentioning that he "self-identifies" as a woman (or as a non-binary, or as a two-spirit). I wonder how they would deal with this. You cannot "validate" that someone does not self-identify as non-binary.

 

[MrBlackhill]

If you have a competent HR department, when they hire they determine the scorecard BEFORE the interview, based on the job requirements, then measure and compare them using that scorecard.
Race/Gender/Orientation/Religion, should simply not be on that scorecard, unless it is a bonafide requirement.

I don't agree with discrimination as part of the requirements, but I will agree with the use of the concept of representativeness as part of a selection process where this step comes in when there's a tie in competency.

For instance, say you need 10 people and gender representativeness would be beneficial, then you receive 100 applicants, the top 2 are both women scoring 97 and 96, then 4 men scored 92, then 6 women and 5 men all scored 90, the reminder scoring less than 90. In this case I wouldn't call it discrimination to end up selecting 5 women and 5 men due to the tie in competency evaluation (top 2 women scoring 97 and 96 plus 3 women scoring 90, plus 4 men scoring 92 and 1 man scoring 90).

 

[HappilyRetired]

I don't agree with discrimination as part of the requirements, but I will agree with the use of the concept of representativeness as part of a selection process where this step comes in when there's a tie in competency.

For instance, say you need 10 people and gender representativeness would be beneficial, then you receive 100 applicants, the top 2 are both women scoring 97 and 96, then 4 men scored 92, then 6 women and 5 men all scored 90, the reminder scoring less than 90. In this case I wouldn't call it discrimination to end up selecting 5 women and 5 men due to the tie in competency evaluation (top 2 women scoring 97 and 96 plus 3 women scoring 90, plus 4 men scoring 92 and 1 man scoring 90).

Why stop at gender? Maybe 50% of all teachers should be Conservative instead of the current 95% Liberal majority.

 

[MrBlackhill]

Why stop at gender? Maybe 50% of all teachers should be Conservative instead of the current 95% Liberal majority.

Because this would require you to divulgate your political beliefs, considering that people don't want to share everything about their personal life and beliefs. What about privacy, right?

And what if I have voted for neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals?

 

[HappilyRetired]

Because this would require you to divulgate your political beliefs, considering that people don't want to share everything about their personal life and beliefs. What about privacy, right?

Yeah, thank goodness no one ever had to prove their vaccination status. Privacy, right?

 

[MrBlackhill]

Yeah, thank goodness no one ever had to prove their vaccination status. Privacy, right?

Did you not show your ID cards when you were a kid trying to get in a bar to prove your age?

When there's a requirement by law, you will have the choice to keep your identification privacy or avoid the places that requires them in order to follow the laws.

 

[HappilyRetired]

Did you not show your ID cards when you were a kid trying to get in a bar to prove your age?

When there's a requirement by law, you will have the choice to keep your identification privacy or avoid the places the requires them in order to follow the laws.

There was no actual law passed requiring a vaccine.

 

[MrBlackhill]

There was no actual law passed requiring a vaccine.

I don't know about the rest of Canada, but I recall in Quebec it was required for some non-essential services, for instance dine-in restaurants.

 

[HappilyRetired]

I don't know about the rest of Canada, but I recall in Quebec it was required for some non-essential services, for instance dine-in restaurants.

You said it was law, now you say you don't know.

Maybe just stick to things you know and can verify instead of making things up.