more influence by stinking capitalists on alberta government policy.

[bikerdruid]

corporate lobbyists should be illegal. :mad:
.............the filthy rich have no business in the formulation of government policy.more influence by stinking capitalists on alberta government policy.
(particularly foreign corporate interests.)

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/energy+giant+lobbying+province/4493311/story.html

Edmonton - An American energy conglomerate owned by two powerful billionaire brothers who help fund the Tea Party and climate change denial movements in the U.S. has registered to lobby the Alberta government.

Alberta’s lobbyist registry shows that on March 15, Koch Industries signed up to lobby the province on energy and resource development policy issues, as well as taxation and economic development.

The company is run by Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in the world.

Koch Industries spokeswoman Melissa Cohlmia did not respond to interview requests Wednesday but released a one-sentence statement.

“Koch companies want to add value by providing quality services and products our customers desire and value in a way that is compliant with all laws and regulations,” she wrote.

[D'rok]

Free Speech is a bitch, ain't she.

[bikerdruid]

Free Speech is a bitch, ain't she.

this has nothing to do with 'free speech'.
it has to do with sovereignty.

[D'rok]

this has nothing to do with 'free speech'.
it has to do with sovereignty.It has everything to do with free speech. Even icky people are free to try to influence government policy. That's how freedom works. Everyone gets it, not just the virtuous.

BTW: There are Canadian firms lobbying Washington too, you know.

[D'rok]

Tell you what, bikerdruid. Instead of just making a "capitalists bad" rant, how about you critically examine the highly regulated lobbying sector in Alberta and give us an informed opinion about it. Start with the law that governs how lobbyists do their thing:

http://canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/sa-2007-c-l-20.5/latest/sa-2007-c-l-20.5.html

Then have a look at the role of the Ethics Commissioner wrt lobbyists:

http://www.lobbyistsact.ab.ca/LRS/GeneralSettings.nsf/vwEnHTML/Welcome.htm

Then look at some of public outreach on all of the above from Alberta Justice:

http://justice.alberta.ca/initiatives/Initiatives%20Library/AlbertaLobbyistsAct.aspx/DispForm.aspx?ID=2


Deal?

[Skeptic]

It has everything to do with free speech. Even icky people are free to try to influence government policy. That's how freedom works.

Yes, but communists are notorious for declaring everybody who holds views they don't like to not deserve freedom and thus fair game for arrests, deportations to the gulags, etc.

[dudalb]

Have no love for the Koch Brs whatsoever, but unless it involves bribery, they have the right to present thier views to the Alberta Government just like anybody else.

[Skeptic]

What, free speech for people Bikerdruid disagrees with?!?! NEVER!

[bikerdruid]

It has everything to do with free speech. Even icky people are free to try to influence government policy. That's how freedom works. Everyone gets it, not just the virtuous.

BTW: There are Canadian firms lobbying Washington too, you know.

well....it gives me a pain.....

and these are particularly 'icky people'.:(

[WildCat]

this has nothing to do with 'free speech'.
it has to do with sovereignty.
Except you want to protect "sovereignty" by banning free speech.

[bikerdruid]

Except you want to protect "sovereignty" by banning free speech.

corporate lobbyists certainly do not have the people's interests at heart.
they have no place in government.

[D'rok]

corporate lobbyists certainly do not have the people's interests at heart.
they have no place in government.I agree. It's a good thing, therefore, that they are not in government. In fact, it is a very good thing that the law I linked you to explicitly prohibits this.

[quixotecoyote]

Free speech is a wonderful thing.

I also think that spending money should not be recognized as speech. I know it is, don't bother telling me, I'm arguing that it shouldn't be. I think the Kochs should be able to speak their minds, write letters, and do all that wonderful stuff that an engaged citizenry should. I don't think that spending millions to influence public policy should get the same level of protection.

[WildCat]

Free speech is a wonderful thing.

I also think that spending money should not be recognized as speech. I know it is, don't bother telling me, I'm arguing that it shouldn't be. I think the Kochs should be able to speak their minds, write letters, and do all that wonderful stuff that an engaged citizenry should. I don't think that spending millions to influence public policy should get the same level of protection.
Do you think they should be prohibited from buying a full-page ad in the New York Times? Posting to craigslist? Advertising on radio/TV?

[quixotecoyote]

Do you think they should be prohibited from buying a full-page ad in the New York Times? Posting to craigslist? Advertising on radio/TV?


I would have no problem in principle with a monetary cap on how much could be spent by an individual/group/in total on/for political causes. My objections would be purely practical, whether or not it was achievable without overly infringing on actual speech.

[D'rok]

I would have no problem in principle with a monetary cap on how much could be spent by an individual/group/in total on/for political causes. My objections would be purely practical, whether or not it was achievable without overly infringing on actual speech.I wouldn't be in favour of a cap on how much a lobbyist gets paid or how much a person (corporate or otherwise) spends on lobbying. I would be in favour of some restrictions on the types of activities that should be considered legitimate lobbying. Anything that doesn't pass the smell test - i.e., that slips into impropriety or the appearance of bribery - should be off limits. How exactly that would work, I really don't know.

At a bare minimum, transparency is crucial, and it looks to me like the Alberta regime achieves that.

ETA: here is Alberta Jusice's guide to "what is lobbying".
http://justice.alberta.ca/initiatives/Documents/GuideToTheLobbyistsAct.pdf#page=8

I find the open-endedness of it a little troubling. Based on this, it looks to me like Koch could fly Alberta's Industry Minister on a private jet to a retreat in the Bahamas for a "meeting" and this would be in full compliance with the Act. That's what I mean about the smell test.

[quixotecoyote]

I wouldn't be in favour of a cap on how much a lobbyist gets paid or how much a person (corporate or otherwise) spends on lobbying. I would be in favour of some restrictions on the types of activities that should be considered legitimate lobbying. Anything that doesn't pass the smell test - i.e., that slips into impropriety or the appearance of bribery - should be off limits. How exactly that would work, I really don't know.

At a bare minimum, transparency is crucial, and it looks to me like the Alberta regime achieves that.

ETA: here is Alberta Jusice's guide to "what is lobbying".
http://justice.alberta.ca/initiatives/Documents/GuideToTheLobbyistsAct.pdf#page=8

I find the open-endedness of it a little troubling. Based on this, it looks to me like Koch could fly Alberta's Industry Minister on a private jet to a retreat in the Bahamas for a "meeting" and this would be in full compliance with the Act. That's what I mean about the smell test.

Well what else are they going to spend lobbying money (as opposed to say, advertising or campaign contribution money) for if not fancy gifts, trips, and expense coverages? It actually doesn't cost much to send a guy to go "Hey Senator, my boss would like you to vote this way." It's the money you drop on him one way or another that gets him to listen. I suppose if you know one of the Senator's buddies who retired, you can drop money on him to go talk to the Senator, but that's back to your smell test.

[Pardalis]

they have no place in government.

Says the anarchist.

[bikerdruid]

Free speech is a wonderful thing.

I also think that spending money should not be recognized as speech. I know it is, don't bother telling me, I'm arguing that it shouldn't be. I think the Kochs should be able to speak their minds, write letters, and do all that wonderful stuff that an engaged citizenry should. I don't think that spending millions to influence public policy should get the same level of protection.

citizenry?
the kochs are not alberta or canadian citizens.

[quixotecoyote]

citizenry?
the kochs are not alberta or canadian citizens.

So?

[D'rok]

Well what else are they going to spend lobbying money (as opposed to say, advertising or campaign contribution money) for if not fancy gifts, trips, and expense coverages? It actually doesn't cost much to send a guy to go "Hey Senator, my boss would like you to vote this way." It's the money you drop on him one way or another that gets him to listen. I suppose if you know one of the Senator's buddies who retired, you can drop money on him to go talk to the Senator, but that's back to your smell test.I think it is possible to successfully engage government without wretched excess. Something like lunch at the Petroleum Club seems reasonable to me. Or any other inncous sort of meeting arrangement or communication effort. And there's always the time-honoured tradition of retaining former staffers or MLAs/MPs, etc. after the statutory time limit prohibiting that sort of thing has expired. Those former insiders don't come cheap. I don't have a problem with that.

[bikerdruid]

Says the anarchist.

yes i do......corporate lobbying is one of the main reasons i despise governments.

[Pardalis]

yes i do......corporate lobbying is one of the main reasons i despise governments.

Lobbying is not government.

[D'rok]

yes i do......corporate lobbying is one of the main reasons i despise governments.Dude. In Canada, governments are the main reason that we aren't ruled by corporations.

[quixotecoyote]

I think it is possible to successfully engage government without wretched excess. Something like lunch at the Petroleum Club seems reasonable to me. Or any other inncous sort of meeting arrangement or communication effort.

That's not problematic as it's the type of thing any group could do. It also doesn't cost buckets of money.

And there's always the time-honoured tradition of retaining former staffers or MLAs/MPs, etc. after the statutory time limit prohibiting that sort of thing has expired. Those former insiders don't come cheap. I don't have a problem with that.

I mentioned that, but I'd thought you'd put hiring insiders to get special access and influence on the other side of the smell test. <shrug>

[Pardalis]

Biker, what would happen to all those corporations and interest groups if there were no governments? Would they magically disappear?

[bikerdruid]

Lobbying is not government.

corporate lobbying exerts powerful influence over government.
....and not for the interests of the people at large.

[Pardalis]

corporate lobbying exerts powerful influence over government.

That doesn't mean governments are to be blamed.

....and not for the interests of the people at large.

And in an anarchy, what would care for the interests of the people at large?

[bikerdruid]

So?

dude....you said, ". I think the Kochs should be able to speak their minds, write letters, and do all that wonderful stuff that an engaged citizenry should."

i merely pointed out that they were not citizens.
therefore, they should not get to "do all that wonderful stuff that an engaged citizenry" can.

[D'rok]

That's not problematic as it's the type of thing any group could do. It also doesn't cost buckets of money.What can cost buckets of money is having a lobbying firm on retainer to always be exerting that kind of pressure in a systematic way.



I mentioned that, but I'd thought you'd put hiring insiders to get special access and influence on the other side of the smell test. <shrug>I would if an insider went directly from government to a lobbying firm. After some arbitrary period of time, a former insider should get to earn a living in whatever manner he/she chooses in my view.

[Virus]

corporate lobbyists certainly do not have the people's interests at heart.
they have no place in government.

Neither do communists.

[D'rok]

dude....you said, ". I think the Kochs should be able to speak their minds, write letters, and do all that wonderful stuff that an engaged citizenry should."

i merely pointed out that they were not citizens.
therefore, they should not get to "do all that wonderful stuff that an engaged citizenry" can.I hate to break it to you, but it isn't only citizens that enjoy human rights protections in this country. I'm surprised that you are not happy with this state of affairs, as I would have pegged you as more of a rights universalist.

[Pardalis]

It seems to me that in an anarchy, no legislation could ever be implemented, no law could ever be passed, and unfettered competition between conflicting interests would be rampant, it would be a world of lobbies, really. Not lobbies trying to influence government, but lobbies trying to influence eachother.

[quixotecoyote]

What can cost buckets of money is having a lobbying firm on retainer to always be exerting that kind of pressure in a systematic way.


Yes. It's kind of a problem for those who can't afford it.


I would if an insider went directly from government to a lobbying firm. After some arbitrary period of time, a former insider should get to earn a living in whatever manner he/she chooses in my view.

I'm assuming you meant "legal/moral/ethical manner" and I disagree that earning a living by using your personal relationship with people in power to promote the interests of those who paid you is moral, ethical or should be legal. However, since banning that directly does hit free speech, the value of free speech protection overrides the direct approach. Distinguishing between money and speech avoids the problem.


I hate to break it to you, but it isn't only citizens that enjoy human rights protections in this country. I'm surprised that you are not happy with this state of affairs, as I would have pegged you as more of a rights universalist.

Yep. That's what I was going for.

[D'rok]

It seems to me that in an anarchy, no legislation could ever be implemented, no law could ever be passed, and unfettered competition between conflicting interests would be rampant, it would be a world of lobbies, really. Not lobbies trying to influence government, but lobbies trying to influence eachother.Change "influence" to "rape and pillage" and I'm right with you.

[D'rok]

Yes. It's kind of a problem for those who can't afford it.True.



I'm assuming you meant "legal/moral/ethical manner" and I disagree that earning a living by using your personal relationship with people in power to promote the interests of those who paid you is moral, ethical or should be legal. However, since banning that directly does hit free speech, the value of free speech protection overrides the direct approach. Distinguishing between money and speech avoids the problem.I don't strongly disagree with this. I'm a little torn on what the correct approach should be. I keep reverting back to transparency as the most important value.

[quixotecoyote]

True.



I don't strongly disagree with this. I'm a little torn on what the correct approach should be. I keep reverting back to transparency as the most important value.

I'm not sure what a workable implementation is either. I'm pretty solid on the general principle, that seperating money and speech is good, but I haven't figured how all the details.

I think transparency is necessary, but not sufficient.

Right now, I can look at a list of organizations (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php) that spend money on politics and even see breakdowns of where that money goes. It's a good thing. However, just seeing that and knowing that doesn't stop that money from having influence or grant opposing parties a counterbalancing influence.

eta: Yes I know opensecrets is probably slanted right, I just picked the first result

[D'rok]

I'm not sure what a workable implementation is either. I'm pretty solid on the general principle, that seperating money and speech is good, but I haven't figured how all the details.

I think transparency is necessary, but not sufficient.

Right now, I can look at a list of companies (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php) that spend money on politics and even see breakdowns of where that money goes. It's a good thing. However, just seeing that and knowing that doesn't stop that money from having influence or grant opposing parties a counterbalancing influence.That list is more than just lobbying. The dollar figures include contributions to candidates and parties, which are not regulated at all in the USA. In Canada, they are severely restricted (max $1000 if memory serves).

[bikerdruid]

Neither do communists.

try and stick to the topic, eh?

[quixotecoyote]

That list is more than just lobbying. The dollar figures include contributions to candidates and parties, which are not regulated at all in the USA. In Canada, they are severely restricted (max $1000 if memory serves).

Yeah, I tried to do an edit to clarify a little, but you beat me to the punch.

I still think it makes the point that transparency only goes so far.

[D'rok]

Yeah, I tried to do an edit to clarify a little, but you beat me to the punch.

I still think it makes the point that transparency only goes so far.Agreed.

[Thunder]

I have no problem with lobbying, corporate or otherwise, as long as gifts and financial contributions to campaigns is strictly limited.

better yet, ban lobbyists from providing any campaign contributions.

if you want to donate to a campaign, you should forgo the right to lobby for that year.

folks, businesses, unions, and corporations lobbying politicians for certain legislation to be passed, should not be able to donate to campaigns. the possibility of a quid pro quo is too great.

[Pardalis]

try and stick to the topic, eh?

Could you answer my question?

What would happen to all these corporations and lobby groups if there were no governments around?

I'm trying to figure why at the same time you ask the governement to protect itself from interest groups by making it illegal for corporations to try to influence it, and at the same time you say you are an anarchist, which would mean that you want a political system where lobbying for one's own interests would be a way of life.

As soon as you have humans pulling together for a common cause, you'll inevitably get different groups for different causes, and conflicting interest will arise, and inevitably each group will start to try to influence the other.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

citizenry?
the kochs are not alberta or canadian citizens.

I am an Albertan and a Canadian citizen. If the Koch brothers need to say something to the Alberta government, they can just hire me and I'll say it for them.

[bikerdruid]

Could you answer my question?

What would happen to all these corporations and lobby groups if there were no governments around?



in anarchism, there would be no corporations either.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

in anarchism, there would be no corporations either.

In anarchism, you wouldn't be able to stop people from forming corporations.

[Skeptic]

I'm trying to figure why at the same time you ask the governement to protect itself from interest groups by making it illegal for corporations to try to influence it, and at the same time you say you are an anarchist, which would mean that you want a political system where lobbying for one's own interests would be a way of life.

From experience, most "anarchists", when they speak of "less government" mean, not having less government control in general, but simply a government that only passes laws and policies they agree with. The moment somebody does something they dislike, their reaction is, "why doesn't the government take my side and stop this nasty man from doing things I dislike? Help, help, I'm being oppressed!"

This is not really "anarchism", it's "I support totalitarianism so long as I agree with the dictator".

[MarkCorrigan]

in anarchism, there would be no corporations either.

So...we dissolve the government and implement a system of anarchy (what an oxymoron) and...then what?

What happens to the corporations?

[Skeptic]

So...we dissolve the government and implement a system of anarchy (what an oxymoron) and...then what?

What happens to the corporations?

Corporations would LOVE an anarchy. So long, ta-ta, child labor laws, minimum wage laws, etc. What's that? In an anarchy system the workers can walk off the job without being sued? Well, yes... but they need to eat.

[dudalb]

So?

Foreign Companies lobby the US government all the time.
I don;t mind them sending representatives to present their views; I don't even mind them spending some money on a PR campaign. What I do object to is bribery, whether they are called "contributions" or not.

[dudalb]

I am an Albertan and a Canadian citizen. If the Koch brothers need to say something to the Alberta government, they can just hire me and I'll say it for them.

"And I hereby leave my entire fortune to the people of Calgary, so they can move to someplace Decent to live.
AND..another boot to the head to all my relatives".....

[TragicMonkey]

I would have thought people'd be less upset with corporations trying to sway elected officials than with elected officials for letting themselves be swayed. I mean, if you elect a bunch of whores of course people are going to make them offers, and of course they're going to accept when the offer's high enough. Try electing people who aren't whores, and then they won't respond to any offers. (You have to get them drunk instead.)

[Pardalis]

in anarchism, there would be no corporations either.

As Sword of Truth said, how could you stop them? Would they magically disappear?

Could you expand on your thoughts a bit? Your answer seems a bit cryptic.

[theprestige]

I would have thought people'd be less upset with corporations trying to sway elected officials than with elected officials for letting themselves be swayed. I mean, if you elect a bunch of whores of course people are going to make them offers, and of course they're going to accept when the offer's high enough. Try electing people who aren't whores, and then they won't respond to any offers. (You have to get them drunk instead.)

Also note that the amount of resources spent by corporations to influence government is commensurate with the amount of control government can exercise over corporations.

The more government seeks to regulate corporations, the more important it becomes for corporations to influence government by any and all possible means. The results are, of course, predictable.

[lomiller]

Have no love for the Koch Brs whatsoever, but unless it involves bribery, they have the right to present thier views to the Alberta Government just like anybody else.

Why should foreign nationals have any right to lobby governments in Canada?

[bikerdruid]

Why should foreign nationals have any right to lobby governments in Canada?

my point exactly!

[Pardalis]

Could you expand on your thoughts a bit?

I guess this means you won't, or can't. My guess is that it's because you really haven't thought it through.

Oh well.

[bikerdruid]

I guess this means you won't, or can't. My guess is that it's because you really haven't thought it through.

Oh well.

it is not the topic of this thread.
this thread is about 'stinking capitalists and their influence on alberta government policy'....:mad:

[Pardalis]

it is not the topic of this thread.
this thread is about 'stinking capitalists and their influence on alberta government policy'....:mad:

And I'm trying to figure out how you reconcile this subject matter with your own political views (if you can call them that).

How can an anarchist ask the government to make something illegal for itself?

[bikerdruid]

And I'm trying to figure out how you reconcile this subject matter with your own political views (if you can call them that).

How can an anarchist ask the government to make something illegal for itself?

i never asked the the govt for anything.
i'm pointing out one of the reasons i despise governments.

[Pardalis]

i never asked the the govt for anything.
i'm pointing out one of the reasons i despise governments.


In the OP, you clearly state that you want corporate lobbyists to be made illegal.

Wouldn't your request have to pass by the Parliament?

[dudalb]

i never asked the the govt for anything.
i'm pointing out one of the reasons i despise governments.

You despise Governments.
You despide Private Business.
Just what the hell in the way of economic enterprises do you like?

[MarkCorrigan]

You despise Governments.
You despide Private Business.
Just what the hell in the way of economic enterprises do you like?

Nothing.

He wants us all to live in the woods generating lowe level electricity and not using horrible modern technology.

[bikerdruid]

You despise Governments.
You despide Private Business.
Just what the hell in the way of economic enterprises do you like?

the family farm.
small business.
cooperatives.

[bikerdruid]

Nothing.

He wants us all to live in the woods generating lowe level electricity and not using horrible modern technology.

b.s.
stay in the cities where you belong.

[Pardalis]

the family farm.
small business.
cooperatives.

All of which would have conflicting interests, and at some point or another they will try to exert influence on one another (unless each of theses cells live in bubbles, on different planets).

[MarkCorrigan]

b.s.
stay in the cities where you belong.

Hahaha.

Want to see where I live Biker?

Here's a hint. It isn't in a city.

[Pardalis]

the family farm.

Let's take this for example.

After a few generations, some of the kids of the family farm want to move out and start their own family farm. But they run into another young family that wants the same lot of land.

What then?

[J-Funk]

Why should foreign nationals have any right to lobby governments in Canada?

Because the relevant sections of the Charter say "Everyone" not "Every citizen".

[bikerdruid]

Because the relevant sections of the Charter say "Everyone" not "Every citizen".

when they pay canadian taxes, they can have access to canadian govts.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

"And I hereby leave my entire fortune to the people of Calgary, so they can move to someplace Decent to live.
AND..another boot to the head to all my relatives".....

"And another one for Jenny and the wimp..."

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Why should foreign nationals have any right to lobby governments in Canada?my point exactly!

They aren't representing foreign views. Whatever the Koch brothers want to say, I agree with.

As they are now representing the views of an Alberta citizen, Bikerdruids objections are now null and void.

[bikerdruid]

Whatever the Koch brothers want to say, I agree with.


wow...now there is some moral fibre for you....:rolleyes:
if they are stinking rich, they must be right!

[J-Funk]

when they pay canadian taxes, they can have access to canadian govts.

:rolleyes:

Last time I checked taxes weren't mentioned anywhere in the Charter.

[D'rok]

Why should foreign nationals have any right to lobby governments in Canada?

Because the relevant sections of the Charter say "Everyone" not "Every citizen".
Exactly right.

[D'rok]

when they pay canadian taxes, they can have access to canadian govts.Poor people don't pay taxes. Should they have access to Canadian governments?

[bikerdruid]

Poor people don't pay taxes. Should they have access to Canadian governments?
there should be no government.....
but it it must be, it should be controlled by workers and the poor.

[D'rok]

there should be no government.....
but it it must be, it should be controlled by workers and the poor.But they don't pay taxes. And many may be foreign nationals or permanent residents. In other words, freeloading non-citizens. That means no Charter rights for them, eh?

I hope you can recognize that I am simply applying your stated opinions.

[Pardalis]

but it it must be, it should be controlled by workers and the poor.

What's a worker? People work in corporations.

[Thunder]

there should be no government.....
but it it must be, it should be controlled by workers and the poor.

a planet with 8 billion people needs governments.

[Cobalt]

What's a worker? People work in corporations.

But not REAL work, don'tchaknow.

[Beerina]

corporate lobbyists certainly do not have the people's interests at heart.
they have no place in government.

Corporations employ most people. Employment is at the heart of "the peoples' interests". Any government, which is to say, any group of power-hungry people, who deliberately disallow same from participating are no friend of "the people", but rather their deadly enemy.

[Skeptic]

It's always amusing to see anarchists wanting the government to make something illegal...

[Skeptic]

Let's take this for example.

After a few generations, some of the kids of the family farm want to move out and start their own family farm. But they run into another young family that wants the same lot of land.

What then?

He isn't going to answer.

[lomiller]

They aren't representing foreign views. Whatever the Koch brothers want to say, I agree with.

So you want to go along with foreign nationals "whatever they say"? Well this is your right I guess but it does invalidate your views on Canadian politics.

[Skeptic]

I noticed in the case of many radical egalitarians, their egalitarianism is strictly aimed at those above them on the social scale -- millionaires, for example.

As for those below them on the social scale, such as (say) conservatives without a college degree, they show nothing but total contempt.

It's not really egalitarianism, it's merely anger at not being at the top of the heap, the typical childish reaction to life.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

wow...now there is some moral fibre for you....:rolleyes:
if they are stinking rich, they must be right!

It's not moral. It's not immoral. If I as a citizen of Alberta decide that I want to hear, or I want my MLA to hear what the Koch's have to say, then it nullifies all your objections based on the Koch's "foreignness".

The Koch's are well known business leaders. If they have a p;lan to bring investment and jobs to my province, then I want to know about it and have it given fair consideration.

So you want to go along with foreign nationals "whatever they say"? Well this is your right I guess but it does invalidate your views on Canadian politics.

No it doesn't. I am a legal Canadian citizen and have the same number of votes that you do.

[stokes234]

It's not really egalitarianism, it's merely anger at not being at the top of the heap, the typical childish reaction to life.

Ah, the old "socialists are just envious of millionaires" argument.

To quote Brasseye, you're wrong, and you're a grotesquely ugly freak. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJLJrldQzFM)

[SonOfLaertes]

it is not the topic of this thread.
this thread is about 'stinking capitalists and their influence on alberta government policy'....:mad:

Exactly, those mind-their-own-business agrarians in Alberta don't deserve to be lobbied by -

<<blacks out>>

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/16/108891/environmentalists-canada-gulf.html

damn, where'd that link come from? Whose trying to insert reality into this conversation? <<Reads Link>>

Damn, things seem to be a little more complicated then I was lead to believe ...

<<blacks out again>>

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/13/108558/canada-pipeline-deal-too-costly.html

What's this now? <<Reads Link>> Hmmm ...

<< waits for BikerDruids thread railing against Alberta and their greedy meddling in the American Heartland >> ...

[Skeptic]

Ah, the old "socialists are just envious of millionaires" argument.

To quote Brasseye, you're wrong, and you're a grotesquely ugly freak. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJLJrldQzFM)

See what I said about contempt for those they consider below them?

[stokes234]

See what I said about contempt for those they consider below them?

I see exactly what you're saying. You genuinely believe you can determine the motives of an entire movement of people based on a hunch. You think my ad hominem compares to the ad hominem you're directing at hundreds of millions of people? Meh.

[DC]

See what I said about contempt for those they consider below them?

you capitalists just hate poor people.....

[bikerdruid]

you capitalists just hate poor people.....
hate is a strong word
most capitalists care nothing for the poor.

[MarkCorrigan]

Explain who counts as a capitalist, please?

[DC]

hate is a strong word
most capitalists care nothing for the poor.

btw, it was not meant serious....

[bikerdruid]

Explain who counts as a capitalist, please?

anyone who places capital gain above the well-being of individuals and the earth.

[Corsair 115]

Why should foreign nationals have any right to lobby governments in Canada?


What about 'foreign nationals' lobbying (directly or indirectly) on behalf of their governments?

I'm thinking here of, say, the U.S. ambassador to Canada or the U.S. Secretary of State. Surely when they have closed door meeting with the Canadian government officials there must be some form of lobbying going on behind the scenes in regards to whatever bilateral issue is up for discussion.

[MarkCorrigan]

anyone who places capital gain above the well-being of individuals and the earth.

So despite agreeing with large bits of capitalist theory, I'm not a capitalist.

Neither is Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet, or Steve Jobs, or Wozniak, or...

[Skeptic]

anyone who places capital gain above the well-being of individuals and the earth.

This is meaningless. It means in reality "anybody who disagrees with me".

[bikerdruid]

This is meaningless. It means in reality "anybody who disagrees with me".

what a crock!
i defined my term very clearly.
it could only be meaningless to those who are so blinded that that don't wish to know the truth.

[MarkCorrigan]

So despite agreeing with large bits of capitalist theory, I'm not a capitalist.

Neither is Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet, or Steve Jobs, or Wozniak, or...

Yo Biker, ever going to address this?

[bikerdruid]

Yo Biker, ever going to address this?

how would i know if you are a capitalist or not?
your input on the forum would show you to be a person of morals.
not all capitalists are evil.

[MarkCorrigan]

Explain who counts as a capitalist, please?

anyone who places capital gain above the well-being of individuals and the earth.

how would i know if you are a capitalist or not?
your input on the forum would show you to be a person of morals.
not all capitalists are evil.

Seriously?

[Skeptic]

what a crock!
i defined my term very clearly.
it could only be meaningless to those who are so blinded that that don't wish to know the truth.

ALL business activity whatever -- including selling lemonade on the sidewalk -- involves some pursuit of "capital gain" and some damage to "the earth" or to "people" (if the lemonade stand wasn't there people could get home faster instead of walking around it; a tree could always be grown where a store is built, etc.)

And if people engage in them it means they put that capital gain above the earth and humanity (at least from your point of view -- I think capitalism benefits humanity, certainly massively more than the alternatives.)

So you just defined anybody who engages in any business whatever as a "stinking capitalist". Yet you don't go after all businesses -- only those you don't like. John Lennon was, like, cool, man; Wall-mart on the other hand is the devil incarnate. Well?

[bikerdruid]

ALL business activity whatever -- including selling lemonade on the sidewalk -- involves some pursuit of "capital gain" and some damage to "the earth" or to "people" (if the lemonade stand wasn't there people could get home faster instead of walking around it; a tree could always be grown where a store is built, etc.)

And if people engage in them it means they put that capital gain above the earth and humanity (at least from your point of view -- I think capitalism benefits humanity, certainly massively more than the alternatives.)

So you just defined anybody who engages in any business whatever as a "stinking capitalist". Yet you don't go after all businesses -- only those you don't like. John Lennon was, like, cool, man; Wall-mart on the other hand is the devil incarnate. Well?

absolutely wrong. man you do like to go 'over the top', eh?
i defined a capitalist as,"anyone who places capital gain above the well-being of individuals and the earth. "

so, you. as is so common, read what you wished to read and ran off at the keyboard.

there is nothing wrong with making a living. there is nothing wrong with selling goods and services.

[Skeptic]

absolutely wrong. man you do like to go 'over the top', eh?
i defined a capitalist as,"anyone who places capital gain above the well-being of individuals and the earth. "

Which, by your definition, includes the lemondate stand kid.

[theprestige]

anyone who places capital gain above the well-being of individuals and the earth.

What, exactly, is the well-being of the earth?

[bikerdruid]

Which, by your definition, includes the lemondate stand kid.

how the heck to you see that.
do you think that the kid at the lemonade stand would sell his mother for profit?
you are so off base it's amazing.

let me repeat this slowly, so you might be able to understand it this time.

t-h-e-r-e i-s- n-o-t-h-i-n-g w-r-o-n-g w-i-t-h m-a-k-i-n-g a l-i-v-i-n-g.

t-h-e-r-e i-s- n-o-t-h-i-n-g w-r-o-n-g w-i-t-h m-a-k-i-n-g m-o-n-e-y.

i-t- i-s o-n-l-y w-r-o-n-g w-h-e-n m-a-k-i-n-g m-o-n-e-y i-s d-o-n-e t-o t-h-e d-e-t-r-i-m-e-n-t o-f o-t-h-e-r-s-, o-r t-h-e e-a-r-t-h.

[bikerdruid]

What, exactly, is the well-being of the earth?


if you really need to ask such an inane question, it is not worth the time to discuss the matter with you.
:boggled:

[MarkCorrigan]

Seriously?

So, you're still not going to respond to the glaring contradiction?

[theprestige]

if you really need to ask such an inane question, it is not worth the time to discuss the matter with you.
:boggled:

I'm sorry you think the question is inane; I don't think it's any more inane than talking about the well-being of the earth: One is inane only if the other is inane.

If you have a serious, meaningful definition of "the well-being of the earth", I'd like to learn more about it.

I'm sure you do have such a definition: It's clear that you're using the term to summarize a whole set of ideas that you think are true and important. I'd like to hear more about those ideas. That is the purpose of my question.

I hope you don't think it's inane to ask you for details about your beliefs and ideas. I hope that you are actually quite willing to discuss the details of your beliefs and ideas.

Now that I've explained myself a little better (hopefully), let me ask again: What, exactly, is the well-being of the earth, in your opinion?

[Skeptic]

how the heck to you see that.

Simple.

He is making a lemonade stand to make money.

That lemonade stand uses timber (thus hurting the environment) and might annoy passers-by (thus putting his gain of capital above their well-being).

So, by your definition, he is putting "capital gain above the need of humanity and the earth".

It's done on a very small scale, of course, but that's just the point: your definition is so broad it can apply to anybody that engages in any business whatever -- including the kid with the lemondate stand.

Since you do not apply it that way, it is clear that it's not really the definition you use. Instead, you simply put a target on some businessmen people you dislike, and then use this definition (which applies to all businesses whatever) as if it was the "real reason" you hate them.

But the real reason is that you simply don't like some folks and thus declare them the enemy of the world. In short, a typical communist view.

[bikerdruid]

So, you're still not going to respond to the glaring contradiction?

i have addressed it in several subsequent posts.

[MarkCorrigan]

i have addressed it in several subsequent posts.

No, you've ignored it in several subsequent posts.

You talk about how not all capitalists are evil, but you explicitly stated you think Capitalists are people who put money above the welfare of others.

Either you were using hyperbole, in which case I'll have to ask you what counts as a capitalist again, or you don't really think that some capitalists are ok, in which case I can't take you seriously.

Which is it?

[Skeptic]

first off, unlike you, i do not hold children as responsible for the sins of humanity. there is nothing wong with using wood, if it is harvested sustainably.

Okay, then. Let's say a 16-year-old lemonade stand owner, no longer a kid, using evil, non-sustainably harvested wood. He would count as a dirty capitalist, right?

[bikerdruid]

Okay, then. Let's say a 16-year-old lemonade stand owner, no longer a kid, using evil, non-sustainably harvested wood. He would count as a dirty capitalist, right?
:boggled:

[bikerdruid]

at the risk of steering this thread back to the topic, here is another link to the nefarious activities of the koch bros.
they are helping gov walker with union busting in wisconsin.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/274-41/5657-scott-walker-and-the-koch-brothers

"Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker will be among friends today when he testifies before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Nearly half the Republican committee members receive funding from the notorious union-busters, Charles and David Koch. Three of the witnesses - including Walker - are supported by the Kochs."

WE DON'T WANT THEM OR THEIR DISDAIN FOR WORKERS IN ALBERTA!!

[MarkCorrigan]

i have a great fidel shirt.:)
the hammer and sickle is the international symbol of worker's solidarity.
my more political avatars of late are in honour of canada's upcoming election.
there are alternatives to harper's fascist government.

btw. this thread is about alberta politics,


Harper is many, many things. Primary among them is a total and utter douche.

He isn't a fascist. If you can point to even one fascist policy, then I will concede the point to you, and you've STILL not explained your amazing self-contradiction.

[kmortis]

Please stick to the topic. In case you are not clear about what the topic it, here's a hint, it's not other posters.

[MarkCorrigan]

Please stick to the topic. In case you are not clear about what the topic it, here's a hint, it's not other posters.

I would argue that Biker's definition of capitalist is related to the topic, albeit somewhat tangentially so.

[DSo]

koch bros. ...

WE DON'T WANT THEM OR THEIR DISDAIN FOR WORKERS IN ALBERTA!!


btw ... it is way too late. The Koch brothers have been huge investors in Alberta for decades.

see:
Koch Exploration Canada Ltd.
Flint Hills Resources Ltd.
Bow River Pipelines
Inter Pipeline Fund
Ect.

... just sayin.

[bikerdruid]

btw ... it is way too late. The Koch brothers have been huge investors in Alberta for decades.

see:
Koch Exploration Canada Ltd.
Flint Hills Resources Ltd.
Bow River Pipelines
Inter Pipeline Fund
Ect.

... just sayin.

investing is one thing....being asked to advise the government is entirely another.

[Mycroft]

investing is one thing....being asked to advise the government is entirely another.

Shouldn't policy makers have access to all points of view?

[bikerdruid]

Shouldn't policy makers have access to all points of view?

not at tax-payers expense.

[DSo]

not at tax-payers expense.

How do taxpayers have income to pay taxes?

Investment leads to revenue which leads to income which leads to taxes ...

Investors are most certainly entitled to a voice.

[bikerdruid]

How do taxpayers have income to pay taxes?

Investment leads to revenue which leads to income which leads to taxes ...

Investors are most certainly entitled to a voice.

that's the point.
the kochs are investors.
they have made fortunes on alberta oil.
it should not be expected that alberta taxpayers should be paying for their advice.

[DSo]

that's the point.
the kochs are investors.
they have made fortunes on alberta oil.
it should not be expected that alberta taxpayers should be paying for their advice.

Alberta taxpayers are paying for their advice? I doubt it. More like the Koch's are incuring costs out their own pocket in a lobbying effort.

Nothing wrong with that considering they have a vested interest in gov't policy. I'm not saying they are the only ones with a vested interest. They are one of many including individual taxpayers, the environment, unions, etc. That is one the jobs of gov't ... make choices in the public interest amongst many compeating interests. The gov't also needs to realize that not all parties will have the resources of an outfit such as the Koch's. In some ways the gov't needs to be there to "stick up for the little guy". But that in no way precludes the big guys from having a voice. It does not work that way in a free society.

[bikerdruid]

Alberta taxpayers are paying for their advice? I doubt it. More like the Koch's are incuring costs out their own pocket in a lobbying effort.

taxpayers always wind up paying for lobbyists, one way or another.
corporate lobbyists have no business interfering in government.

and american taxpayers will be paying for their expenses, since they will doubtless be deducting them from their taxes, that they probably don't pay anyway.

[theprestige]

taxpayers always wind up paying for lobbyists, one way or another.
corporate lobbyists have no business interfering in government.

and american taxpayers will be paying for their expenses, since they will doubtless be deducting them from their taxes, that they probably don't pay anyway.

Admit it: you just make this stuff up as you go along, don't you?

[bikerdruid]

Admit it: you just make this stuff up as you go along, don't you?

not at all.

[Skeptic]

It does not work that way in a free society.

Ah, but there's the rub. Communists don't believe in a free society, but in a dictatorial one-party society, since they believe that's the only way to protected "the workers" from the evil capitalists.

That worked out well, didn't it? The workers did so wonderfully well in, er, Russia, Cuba, etc.

[lopeyschools]

Bikerdruid, are you an Albertan? If so, you belong to a rare endangered breed of human, the Albertan Communist, not seen since Alberta became a have province!

[Skeptic]

Oh, don't knock it. The party of the masses just might break the 0.1% barrier this election cycle.

[Skeptic]

The problem with the Canadian communist party is that, like most communist parties in the west, it is "all chiefs and no indians": that is, it's full of middle-class, college-educated, would-be "revolutionary leaders", who want to explain to the workers how awfully they are treated, or to lead the workers in a revolution against the system, or to organize the workers in their revolt, or educate the workers about their situation, or help the workers learn the truth, etc., etc., but it doesn't actually have any workers in it...

[Eddie Dane]

Have no love for the Koch Brs whatsoever, but unless it involves bribery, they have the right to present thier views to the Alberta Government just like anybody else.

And on that note, Eddie declared the thread over.

[Eddie Dane]

The problem with the Canadian communist party is that, like most communist parties in the west, it is "all chiefs and no indians": that is, it's full of middle-class, college-educated, would-be "revolutionary leaders", who want to explain to the workers how awfully they are treated, or to lead the workers in a revolution against the system, or to organize the workers in their revolt, or educate the workers about their situation, or help the workers learn the truth, etc., etc., but it doesn't actually have any workers in it...

It never escapes the taste of presumptuous arrogance does it?

I know quite a lot of "workers".
(my best friend is a construction worker and I often go to his favourite bar to drink beer and watch Rugby with the oppressed Lumpenproletariat).

The thing is, most of them are quite clever and have a serious distaste of arrogant college softies trying to "save" them.
In fact, it is positively ironic how many of exploited proletariat lean right on most issues.

[Skeptic]

99% of these "champions of the workers" would crumple into a heap and ask to die after a day's work in construction or in a factory.

[Mycroft]

not at tax-payers expense.

I don't see how it's at tax-payers expense.

If policy makers are to make policy on any given industry, it makes perfect sense to have input from the people that run that industry. They're the ones who are most informed.

And I think you make a mistake in assuming that just because they get input from those people that their decisions will be entirely shaped by that input. In a democracy, the political leaders are still elected by the people, and ultimately answerable to them.