It was a nice Saturday afternoon, that is, before I decided to read Maclean's Magazine. My husband has a subscription. I think I'm going to ask him to cancel it as it WAS a nice Saturday afternoon. There's an article in there that just got to me. Yes, I know. That's been happening a lot lately. I think I should turn the Internet off too.
~Disclaimer: Island of Bob Edition~
I believe in personal responsibility, rights and freedoms. I defend the law abiding and lawfulness of people AND government. If someone is charged AND convicted, in general that's their problem. It's that whole “do the crime, do the time” thing. It's also that whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing.
If I believe a law requires changing, I learn how to change it and try. I've also learned that takes A LONG FREAKIN' TIME and a little patience.
Now, I'm not a lawyer and what I say is my opinion and based on my own interpretations (unless I actually copy and paste it from somebody else.) Based on what I, myself have interpreted so far, the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club are probably right. Now here’s why I think this.
~End Disclaimer: Island of Bob Edition
Thank you, Boss of Bob~
The Hells Angels have become Constitutional defenders. I mean seriously, how weird is that? In B.C. they've had several pieces of property seized under the Civil Forfeiture Act. I've just learned of this act and it's been on the books since 2005. This disturbs me.
What I know of the Hells Angels comes from media so I'm not going talk too much about the club specifically, but rather about their situation. Now, the club hasn’t been charged with anything and the police have tried. Members of the club have been charged AND convicted, but not the club. What’s happened to the Hells Angels is a symptom of our ever crumbling rights. Let’s be clear here. Individual members being convicted of crimes is not proof the club is itself criminal. That would mean if your co-worker is charged and convicted of theft, your entire company is obviously unlawful. You are a criminal by simple association. It wouldn’t matter where the theft happened.
Judge Mackenzie - the acquittal judge for one of men charged - said the man before her (a known member of the Hells Angels) is not guilty for possession of cocaine. Since he has been found not guilty of a crime, that lack of evidence of a crime cannot be used to declare the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club a criminal organization. I’m paraphrasing here. All I can say is law is weird and I'm mostly okay with that. As far as I'm concerned, he’s innocent until proven guilty; anything else is speculation or conjecture.
Let's just skip the B.C. Supreme Court's inability to prove the Hells Angels are a criminal organization and move right to their squished rights.
If the Civil Forfeiture Office truly believes that unlawful activities have taken place on these properties or by the owners of the properties, why not pursue charges under the criminal code of Canada? Oh right, because they tried this once and failed. To try again (and with a different set of charges) will take too much time and effort. It's much easier to punish someone without that pesky due process stuff in the way.
As seen on the B.C. Ministry of Justice website, B.C. is one of two provinces that pioneered civil forfeiture to deter unlawful activity by taking away the instruments and proceeds of crime. From what I understand, it was meant for criminal organizations and the like, but it’s being used against jaywalkers. (I’ll try to turn the sarcasm down but it’s really hard sometimes.)
Seven provinces have since instituted it which makes me so very unhappy. This act allows the province to seize any asset it BELIEVES to be linked with unlawful activity. It doesn't seem to matter how small. “We like your view. YOU LOSE YOUR HOUSE!”
Okay, so I made that last part up... I hope.
The Hells Angels Motorcycle Club aren't the only targets of the Civil Forfeiture Act. They’re just the latest in a long line and they happen to have deep pockets. From what I've found, most others settle because to fight this in court costs a minimum of $50,000. Most lose anyway since they’re fighting the very system that took their stuff in the first place. It's sad to have to roll over because the government uses tax dollars to it's advantage to screw over, well, taxpayers.
So it’s time to head back to the B.C. Ministry of Justice website for more information. I should have read the whole page the first time, not just skimmed it. My (was healthy an hour ago) heart can only take so much.
“These proceedings are not commenced in court, they are an administrative process.
Whether proceedings are initiated in court or administratively, they are not reliant on criminal charges or convictions arising from the alleged unlawful activity.”
I BEG YOUR FU~BEEEEEEEP~
I apologize for my rather abrupt outburst. I've now calmed down a tad. I have to wonder, when the creators of this act first said those words, did it sound stupid when it bounced off the walls and back to their ears, too? Maybe it's just me then. So, having not even left the first page on civil forfeiture, I see that due process has been chucked out the window, stomped on, run over, and thrown in the garbage. Then they burned it, put it in the cat litter box and tossed it in the landfill. Or is that just my impression? Perhaps I need to calm down a little more.
First order of business: the idea of civil versus criminal law are being intermingled, or at least that’s what I’m seeing. This is seeming more like the American judicial system. We’re not America, we’re Canada. Let’s stay distinct, please. “We can’t get him in criminal court so let’s sue the pants off him!” Only, it’s the Crown doing the suing. I decided to head over to the Department of Justice website and get some clarity on this issue. There it says that civil or private law is between individuals or companies, you know, private citizens. Criminal or public law involves prosecution by the Crown as these cases involve crimes against society as a whole. So then why is the Crown suing individuals? That’s all mixed up.
With something like civil forfeiture, the Crown lost the war so they decide to brawl. The burden of proof is on the individual to say “I’m innocent of any charge of the criminal code beyond a reasonable doubt” but having to go through civil court to do it. The fun part is the Crown is both the judge and the prosecutor.
Your honour, presenting The Crown versus Miss Swan. We tried to charge and convict Miss Swan with theft and possession and distribution of cocaine but she was found not guilty of all charges. Now The Crown is suing her for her house as it was purchased through unlawful means.
Justice Civil Crown:
By what unlawful means was it acquired?
Theft, possession and distribution of cocaine.
Justice Civil Crown:
Oh, okay. The Civil Forfeiture Office may have her house then.
May I speak! It is my house and life after all!
Justice Civil Crown:
* gavel *
I’m really hoping I’m being facetious but it does have this feel to it. So, British Columbia just wiped their nose with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This seems to be happening more and more everyday, so why am I surprised by this one?
It seems that some have tried to get around the Charter by saying “Section 11 doesn't apply because we haven't charged him with anything. Let’s do this.” That section does start with “Any person charged with an offense...” Section 8, however states “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” The Supreme Court of Canada said civil forfeiture, to a point is okay and is putting a stop to some of it. I think it needs to stop all of it.
So what part of the Charter trumps what? The “evil Them” don't care. This act is to prevent unlawful activities don'tcha know. SO CHARGE THE PERSON UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA! THAT'S WHAT IT'S FOR! Forgive me, I’m having a hard time keeping my temper in check today. So, let's play this out to it's (il)logical conclusion. Don't charge anyone as that causes too much paperwork. Everyone is then guilty of something, and why not? I'm sure we can find something they've done if we look hard enough. Then we wouldn't be bogged down with pesky things like a judicial system and the government would have so much more money because they could SEIZE ALL THE THINGS!
So, if person X has not been charged AND convicted, how does a provincial court, no, not even a provincial court... This is administrative. How does the Civil Forfeiture Office (CFO) justify forfeiture of personal property? This is random. I realize they don't think so or don’t care to think so, but it is.
Back to the Hells Angels. The province went after the Nanaimo club house in 2007 for forfeiture. A police investigation was done, as was a property search and these turned up nothing. There was no criminal prosecution. Now three properties have been targeted for “forfeiture” because “It’s alleged they have been used as instruments in the commission of crimes including drug production, assault and murder.” Nothing has been proven in any level of court. To me, it seems like the province is just irked that they didn't win the first time. They couldn't say the Hells Angels are a criminal organization so they're taking their toys away.
There are so many example of this law being (mis)used. I could start listing them but it would go on and on and on. If you go the B.C. Ministry of Justice website, in the Civil Forfeitures section, you can find properties subject to administrative forfeitures. Then go to various other sites and check out the actual circumstances of the forfeiture. Look up more than one though, make sure the stories don’t conflict. I’ve had a couple conflict. Even those get a little wonky.
The unlawful activity can be itty bitty, or horrendously huge! The CFO isn’t picky as long as they can take something. You don’t even need to go through that annoying process of, well, process. Why actually get charged and convicted with a crime? You and I both know “they” saw something happen on your property! You probably have drugs in your house or car, too! It’s very lazy and the province likes it that way.
What’s said on the Department of Justice website seems contrary to the CFO. On the very first page, it talks about legal rights and responsibilities. It talks about how much of our laws are based on common sense. Civil forfeiture is more like a stab in the back and a toss under the bus. I find it difficult to trust a system that permits this. When will they come for my stuff just because I’ve said something they disagree with? I feel that time is coming. Thank God I no longer live in British Columbia.
Also, on the Department of Justice website, in the section called “The Role of the Public,” it says “Each of us has a part in ensuring that the law works properly and justice is done.” Practice what you preach. Seizing property under the auspices of preventing unlawful activity but not following due process is not preventative - it's vindictive. People scream police state far to frequently and easily but this is one of the few times I agree with them.
I did find a forum where people are saying “sounds perfectly reasonable to me,” or “sounds good to me,” in regards to civil forfeiture. They know and don’t care that the people suffering through forfeiture are not always charged. The sentiment of “If you get caught, you pay. Seems fine to me” only works so long as those saying these things aren’t the ones affected by laws such as these. As seen so often, it will be these people crying in the streets about how unjust it is when they’re the ones targeted. We’ll be hearing “I’m innocent! Don’t they know it’s innocent until proven guilty” and all that other stuff. It makes me wonder, are these the same people that get really angry at me when I drive the speed limit on a deserted highway at 2 am, then pass me like I’m road paint?
Laws such as civil forfeiture, the firearms act and anything that allows warrantless searches need to change. The government needs to stop these laws before they achieve royal assent. They’re put into place to stop crime but what they’re really doing is punishing those of us who, in general, were never criminals to begin with. I say in general because there is much speculation about the Hells Angels. This is one of the few times I have to let my personal feelings go, ignore reputations and remember, innocent until proven guilty.
I get it. The “it” I get was explained to me in one sentence. I got into a debate with someone who is very anti-industry. This person is obviously left wing. The sentence that explained the left wing mentality to me was “ I don’t have to research to know what’s good for the land and what’s bad for the land!.”
This picture is what started the conversation. To this picture, I said “fracking is safe.” Then all hell broke loose.
Really, the subject matter doesn’t matter. What matters is that something so … so… out to lunch was said at all. “I don’t have to research…” was in response to me saying “ I don't favour something such as this on a whim. I do many hours of research from many different sources. I read the reports for and against.” Apparently the hours of work, research and knowledge any of us put into any topic is discredited by feelings and is wasted time because they just “know.” I was always under the impression education was a good thing. Guess I was wrong. I feel remarkably underwhelmed by this sentiment.
Experts put time and effort into becoming experts. Corporations must work to regulations and environmental policies. Someone, lots of someones went to a lot of effort, work, and research to figure out what those should be and why. Independent organizations do their own independent studies and put out their own papers to keep industry working properly and working in everyone’s best interest. This is hundreds of thousands of man hours and it’s wasted because I’ve been informed liberals just “know.” Personally, I appreciate and take great value in the work these people do to become experts in the first place. By no means do I take it for granted.
I wish I had that power to just “know”. I’ve joked in the past that I learn through osmosis. My husband is an accountant turned information systems administrator and economist. The economist part happened because he took an economics course (I took the same one) and he passed it! Yay! But he didn’t know why. So he took a course to understand the first course. Then he read 357 books, took more courses, read some more books and this carried on. Now he’s going to write a book and a thesis in an effort to understand. I say I learn through osmosis because I have so much theoretical knowledge in accounting, information systems, and economics simply because he talks at me! His business magazines also lay around the house and I (sadly) started reading them a few years ago - and I find them interesting.
Still, if I don’t understand something, I look it up, find resources to help me understand, or ask people who know about the subject matter. I don’t just “know.” I wish I did. It would make debating with a certain friend of mine a lot easier.
Look at her! She’s cute! She also keeps me on my toes. She doesn’t just “know”. Like me, when Mrs. “Look at me, I’m cute and innocent” starts debating, she researches and asks questions and stuff and it’s everything I can do to stay half an inch ahead of her! What she doesn’t know is I sometimes lag behind in our debates, something I just refuse to admit until we’re done. She can see it as it’ll take me a few minutes to answer her every now and then but I’ll never admit it! I might be considered a little stubborn you see. She uses facts and opinions against me darn it! That’s okay, that’s what I try to do to her too.
Dodge, Parry, Thrust! - I just don’t let her know when I’ve fallen off the log. I regroup and attack again!
I have to say, there are days she makes me feel like this!
I think it's going to be a nice conversation and SHE ATTACKS FROM ALL SIDES! AHHHH! You think it's cool to be Neo but.. it's not!
I’m sounding complain-y but she keeps me honest. AND mental martial arts is far more fun than talking to someone who says “ you work with the oil industries therefore they pay you big bucks to run interference? are you that industry washed?...I feel sorry for you somehow....” or “I ignore ‘facts’ that come from big industry! mistruths diluted with lies!”
First, I don’t work for oil industries though it wouldn’t matter to me if I did. I defend them if I do, I defend them if I don’t. Wait… why am I defending them for free? I digress. I simply live in Alberta. Second, the assumption that anyone will go to the effort of putting out such amazingly consistent lies over so many years is insanity. That means every company in the oil and gas industry would have to be on board. That’s thousands of companies in Alberta alone. The “lie” couldn’t deviate at all. That would be impossible. Each company would have to be consistent in pushing the same misinformation. That’s a lot of work. It’s easier to tell the truth. Ask the Obama administration. They tried to control the media as well as everything else and it still doesn’t work. The truth squeaks through!
So, what I understand is if a liberal/progressive/left-winger gets it in their mind that they are correct in their convictions, using facts isn’t going to convince them to change their views. The facts are “wrong” no matter what. What they feel is correct and what the left wing media tells them to feel is correct, end of story. Mainstream media, in my opinion, depends on people like him. Their narrative would fall apart if more people wanted actual facts, I suppose.
I would feel sad for those on the left side of the spectrum that feel as he does, but I don’t.
I am simply disappointed.
I was actively trying not to write anything about the Calgary municipal election, but after a couple of articles that I've read, I snapped and I have to.
I have to ask: how did the homebuilders become evil? I mean, I know how this all started, I've seen the video but why is this continuing after so many months? The homebuilders themselves have said nothing public for a couple of months. They’ve been nice, quiet neighbours, SO WHAT’S THE DEAL? Why is it everytime I pick up the paper, someone is saying something disparaging about them? Are any of the homebuilders running for a council position? Not that I’ve seen. So, why are they being so vehemently attacked?
In my opinion, the homebuilders are not inherently evil. They are businessmen. If you know me at all, you know I think businesspeople are generally okay people, but I don’t know these guys personally, so I am making an assumption. Others in this fine city however feel that the homebuilders are evil and push this idea onward. The video came out in, what, March? So it was a big deal in the spring but all has been quiet since then. The homebuilders do what they do, life seemed okay for awhile, then BAM! *political crosshairs*
So I ask again, why are they being targeted? Is it because they dared speak against his Purple Worship and have the funds to help others run their campaigns? That could be it. They're probably racist, too. * apparently I have sarcasm turned on today *
Alright, so I rewatched the nefarious video. From what I saw, Mr. Wenzel had notes on the various aldermen and candidates on a ward-by-ward basis and whether or not they were pro-industry or not. His concern was, this term is four years long, not three, so whomever is voted in should be business-minded. As he's speaking, he admits politics is not his game and he's never really had to pay attention before, but feels he does now. He tells the group how much they are allowed to donate to a candidate each year and encourages them to do so stipulating that, if they do not, they get what they deserve. (He touched on a point of legality. What a terrible person.) He also encourages them to donate money to the Manning Centre. He does bring up the whole “well how much is this going to cost me?” and says “well how much does not supporting candidates you believe in cost in the long run?” I'm paraphrasing.
Mr. Nenshi did say the Manning Centre needs to be investigated for accepting donations. Okay, why? Anyone can accept donations! I can accept donations. The Manning Centre is a non-profit corporation, not a charity. They don’t provide a donor with a charity tax receipt so they are playing above board. I would expect that from an organization named after Preston Manning.
Mr. Wenzel did the campaigning and fundraising for some candidates. If I were a candidate that received a donation from these guys, I'd thank him for making my job that much easier. Mr. Nenshi calls what happened in this video illegal and unethical, then uses this video to his advantage. He says “Look at this! Look at how horrible these people are! Quick, give me money to make sure they can't do this again! Vote for me!” He also hires an anti-oilsands lobby group to work for city hall (but that's a whole other issue.)
So what's the problem? Is this not what candidates do all the time? Why is it distasteful when businesses get together and plan an election strategy but not when campaign teams get together and try to win? If Cal Wenzel were an alderman and the homebuilders his campaign team, this video would never have been an issue. The meeting would have been considered “strategy.”
Because it was businesses, in this case homebuilders, it was called illegal and unethical and we’ve been told it’s not democracy. We also heard the Manning Centre needs to be investigated because they are accepting donations and shouldn’t be as they are a partisan political centre. Yes, they are. They are not a charity and don’t provide tax receipts. What the homebuilders did was express opinions and decide what they wish to do with their money. Mr. Wenzel even went so far as to say “you’re allowed to donate this much per year legally.” Wait, he provided some useful information. That’s horrible! And quite frankly, if Mr. Nenshi truly believed what was happening with the homebuilders or at the Manning Centre were illegal in anyway, why were the RCMP never called?
Some of the aldermen have jumped on this bandwagon as well, but it seems to be the aldermen that are buds with Mr. Nenshi. This is such a bad idea. The homebuilders and the city will have to work together once this election is over and if Mr. Nenshi and his Chosen Ones win, they’ll start on an antagonistic foot. How is this even remotely okay? The homebuilders have been made the “villain” and they'll not likely forget.
I’ve so far talked about past events. These aren’t even the events that irritated me. Well, they irritated me but they’re not what ticked me off. What actually tweaked me is what I read in the Calgary Sun yesterday. Apex Builders Group (a homebuilder) circulated a memo to its employees with regards to the election. In the memo, they put which candidates best suited the company’s interests by ward, that they're closing the office early on October 21st, and encouraged the employees to go and vote. They make no demands, the employees can still make whatever choice they wish (of course) and they're being asked to vote. Management was simply EXPRESSING THEIR OPINION. Now what annoyed me is this: Nenshi's demand on who the company supports.
I beg your pardon? It's none of his business. The memo was leaked and the Calgary Herald printed it. That's fine. Actually, it's not - because to me, they've done nothing wrong, but it's been printed and it can't be unseen. But, printed or not, Mr. Nenshi has no right to demand anything of the sort! He may as well have demanded to see who they’re going to vote for too!
Having now seen the leaked memo, Mr. Nenshi is glad to know which candidates are “development friendly.” He says it tells people who to avoid. Say what? So the entire election is based on this and this alone? There is only one platform topic in the Calgary municipal election? He’s decided to vilify some candidates because of someone’s opinion of them?
“Traitor child. I must despise you now.”
So often I see in papers and hear on the news how elections shouldn't be based on smear campaigns yet this is one of the biggest smear campaigns I've seen locally and for what reason? Because capitalists are tired of being taxed to death? Because capitalists are using their resources to their benefit?
This isn’t the first time I’ve seen something like this but it is the first time I’ve seen it so plainly. I lived in Tofino, B.C. for a time and my husband was the financial controller for a fish farm. We were there long enough for a municipal and provincial election. The municipal election wasn’t that big a deal but the provincial was. We had to work towards a candidate that wouldn’t work towards taking jobs away. The fish farm (which isn’t terrible at all) was responsible for about 8% of employment in the area.
When it was time for the provincial election, we had to consider which candidate would best serve our interests and not take away our jobs. Guess who received corporate and personal donations (and our vote.) If we felt a candidate would work with environmentalist whack-jobs in an attempt to shut down fish farms and logging, we didn’t want to give them money or support of any sort. That would be counter-productive. Why support someone trying to shut down the industry that puts food on our plates, our friends plates, their family’s plates? The difference is, fish farms and the logging industry weren’t vilified for it. They were vilified for other reasons.
Now, let’s head back to Calgary. I assume the homebuilders would feel the same way as fish farmers or loggers. If someone is working against them and their industry in some fashion, they would try to stop it. There’s nothing wrong with that. Be it in taxes, policies or industry changes, if they feel there are candidates that work in their best interests, why would they not get together and say “yes, these are the people that will work with us. Let’s help them win.”
Nenshi and his cronies have to stop vilifying homebuilders. It's not productive. It's a waste of time and if he and his “friends” win, this will do nothing to further partnerships in the future. You can't call someone on the carpet today and expect him to be your best friend tomorrow. New communities have to be built, old communities have to be maintained and that means they have to meet face to face at some point. In a negotiation, I would put my money on the guy that's been doing the job, taking bids and running a business for 30 years over a university teacher who fluked his way into the mayor's seat 3 years ago.
Today I go and take a quick look and what do I see? Apex Builders standing by their memo. What do they say? “The intention of our memo was simply to engage our employees and to encourage them to get out and vote for the candidates that best represent their personal interests and beliefs.” In other words “here’s our opinion, go form your own. Yay if they match, but if they don’t, they don’t. VOTING is what matters” All of the candidates should be happy with that. It should never have come down to “now you know who to avoid.”
The fact that Nenshi even believes someone needed to be vilified to further his own career is despicable. He chose someone, a group of someones that haven’t even publicly engaged him for a number of months. I could understand it if he attacked Jon Lord or another mayoral candidate but not a group that’s not even in the running. It’s low, it’s petty and to me, it shows his true moral values. I didn’t vote for him before, based on this, I’m sure not voting for him now but you can bet the farm on October 21st, I’m voting for someone.
I hope I’ve engaged you and I encourage you to go and vote for the candidate that best represents your personal interests and beliefs.
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies
I have to question socialism and why so many people ascribe to it. The “Concise Encyclopedia of Economics” describes socialism as a “tragic failure of the twentieth century.” Socialism depends on taking money from one group, giving it to another and controlling one group for the benefit of another. It could only work for so long. For this reason, I need to understand how socialists think. I'm trying to decode them.
To begin, I see socialism and communism used synonymously and that is not correct. From the research that I've done, Karl Marx touched on socialism, but only briefly. One must start from a capitalist society, move into socialism which is a necessary step towards communism. It is not a stopping point nor is it the same thing.
Socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds.
Communism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Okay, fantastic, looks like a great idea, except it's not. If I look simply at socialism, the greater the deed, the better you are treated OR the greater your ability, your deed spreads amongst many. The issue I have with this is, it wouldn't happen by choice but by force. People in general also would not have the choice as to who gets the benefits of their ability.
For example, let's say there are five manual labourers, one of which has a physical disability. He's there because he must have a job to feed his family. Instead of saying he should have a different type of job within the company such as sweeping floors, this person is kept on as a manual labourer. Since the rest can keep up with the work load and he does do some minor work, all of the wages have been adjusted accordingly. The four people who have the ability to do the job to it's fullest have taken a pay cut to support the one who can't out of some weird moral obligation. The choice was never given to them. Instead of moving the one to a more suited position and paying all accordingly, the one gets paid more and does less while the four get paid less and do more.
It all becomes about perspective and only those in control will determine what a “deed” is worth. There will always be problems with that. Someone will always disagree. There has to be a net loss somewhere.
Communism has its own problems, and the biggest one I see is the definition of “needs,” whose are worth more, and it doesn't matter what you do, you'll never get more than the basics of life. There can never be innovation in communism. There is no incentive for innovation; no one needs a smartphone.
Now back to decoding socialists.
From what I understand, they want business owners taxed as much as possible, they want the rich taxed as much as possible and they want various services made available by the government paid for by taxes. Socialists also want everything and everyone (except them) controlled by law and government. Everything should be nationalized or regulated. Am I right so far? Remember, this is my impression.
As long as TAX is the keyword here, there are problems with the socialist ideal and subsequently, the communist ideal.
The rich are mobile. The more a government taxes the rich, the more the rich are inclined to move. This was proven in France when they enacted a 75% tax rate on people who made more than 1 million Euro per year. Many wealthy French registered their residences in kinder “tax havens” such as Belgium or Switzerland. It's causing problems because the French government still doesn't have the revenue it was hoping for. It also happened in Maryland, USA. Between 2007 and 2010, so many taxes were created that people got frustrated and started leaving. So many people left Maryland that it caused a $2 billion decrease in tax revenue. Some articles say people left for other reasons such as weather, and I'm sure that's true, but that wouldn't account for that much of a decrease in tax revenue.
Socialists from what I read, want businesses taxed into non-existence. I don't understand. If they love taxes so much why kill the economy with such a tax burden? They usually pick on corporations. What's wrong with corporations? My husband's business is a corporation. Does that mean it's inherently evil? Probably, simply because he opened it as a corporation. If it were a sole proprietorship, would his business then be benign?
But why is Enbridge Inc. evil? Well, because it's an energy company AND it's an “Inc.” That means incorporated. There is probably a plethora of other reasons but we’ll pick on those some other time. The thing about any business is, it wants to make money or it dies. The easiest way to continue making money is legally. Yes, in the short term, cutting corners, screwing the little guy, and breaking the law would make anyone money but it never lasts. Following law and regulations costs - and is it ever annoying - but in the long run, no one complains and the company continues making money. It then hires more people, pays people, gives bonuses and does lots of other nifty stuff. All good companies do this.
Something else I could say about Enbridge or any good company is, a dollar made by them is not a dollar taken away from somebody else. Just because my husband makes money doesn't mean our neighbour doesn't. (He doesn't work for Enbridge, I'm just saying he makes a good living, Enbridge also makes a couple of bucks, life is good for producers!)
If the socialists had their way, both of these companies would be taxed so much that producing anything would be pointless. They wouldn't be able to take their profits and re-invest them into research and development or their employees OR themselves in the form of education. Say they want to purchase new safety equipment, they couldn't because their money went to taxes. No one works for free and private companies don't like working for the government. If too much money goes to the government, private capitalist companies of any kind would start closing down. Then where would all this beloved tax money come from? Where would all the “rich people” be that socialists like to complain about so much (and tax) if not for these large companies to help make them rich? Why would anyone start up a company that could grow into a large company, that make normal people into rich people?
Socialists also want the “rich” taxed and the definition for rich changes all the time. If we became as socialist as these advocates wanted, what's the incentive to make money? It would only be stolen. The product of one's mind is taken away in the form of taxes. When I see protesters make up signs that say “you can still be rich, just not that rich” why would one even bother, should the socialists win the argument? What right does someone else have to tell me what the limit of my bank account is, either in my business or personal account? How does this thought become okay? Is it because they are too lazy, or lacking, to make that money themselves without stealing it? Would they feel the same way if I said someone on welfare or employment insurance is only permitted their necessities, and a smart phone is not a necessity. They are permitted food, rent, utilities, clothing only. They'd scream from the bleachers and protest with fancy drawn up signs! Somehow I'd be wrong even though welfare is government money paid for by taxes.
So if you bring this out to its logical conclusion, socialism and communism have a shelf life. This type of government - if enacted to it's utmost potential - will fail. Once everything is nationalized, everything is regulated, everyone works in some fashion for the government or “for the greater good,” (according to ability, according to need) the country will be broke. For socialism to work at all, there must always be some form of capitalism from which to take. Socialism failed, and anyone who reads history and does any research whatsoever would know this. Communism failed. The guys who created it couldn't make this ideal work so why does anyone think they can make it work today?
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905
Vladimir Lenin was the first person to try enacting socialism but soon realized the intrinsic difficulties of an economic system without profit incentives or competition. He thought the market would become less complex without these ideas in place, and that people would work for the greater good, not in rational self-interest. It fell apart quickly and a mixed economy was put back in place within four years. Soon after, various other leaders tried to save socialism and communism but things got worse in Russia. It ended in total economic disaster in the 1980's. There you have it. A history lesson in 30 seconds or less or your money back!
So let's try it again, only here! Sounds like a fantastic idea. Personally, I'd rather not but it seems people are insane. We all know what Einstein said about insanity.
Occupy Wall Street was an interesting attempt to force socialism upon us. People who didn't seem to work
and who had too much time on their hands moved into parks in a whole lot of cities, destroyed them, assaulted one another and made a general pain of themselves. They made up signs and protested about income inequality and wanted to reduce the influence of corporations on us as a whole (while texting on their iPhones.) They made demands of business and the government, and eventually lost interest and left. These demands however were to debilitate the evil “one percenter” and force the government into action against them. It is the “one percenter” that pays the “occupiers” bills so I'm not sure what they were hoping for. If they won, they'd see how much tax is now lost to them for their welfare cheques and other entitlement programs that they love so much.
People in Quebec want free education, paid for by tax dollars - which are paid for by people who work, and companies and stuff.
People don't want pipelines built, which will create jobs, and more taxes and more taxpayers and a better economy.
I could go on but I think you get my point.
So, in my efforts to decode the socialist mindset, I have completely failed. I still don't understand them. It wouldn't take much thought to figure most of this out. It wouldn't take much research to figure out socialism and communism have both failed as an economic system in our not too distant past. I have to ask, with so much out there to read and research, and with so many of these people calling themselves educated, why don't they know this? Could it be because they have degrees in gender studies and liberal arts instead of political sciences and macro-economics?
I've moved over here from another blog. I was at C.J.'s Opinions and decided I need a place to call my own so I created Island of Bob.
I'm not abandoning C.J.'s Opinions, I'm just no longer adding to it. Any new idea or opinion I get hit with will now end up here. I did copy one article over but that was more to see how my new place looked.
So far, I'm liking my new home. C.J's Opinions is just a blog. Island of Bob is a website and blog. Somehow that'll make things different. I'm just not sure how yet.
On Island of Bob, differences of opinions are welcomed. Individual freedom and responsibility is promoted. Respect, morality, and virtue is valued.
Island of Bob is still in its infancy and a work in progress. Sit back, relax and enjoy my little Island on the Internet.
I'm a Canadian classical liberal (individual freedoms are important) who photographs stuff. I also happen to have few opinions about a few things. Read my stuff, you'll see what else there is to me.