The Theory Of Altruistic Government

I have lived by the dictum that when politicians (and big business/union leaders) say "yes" they mean "no", and when they say "no" they mean "yes". It seems to work plus or minus 3%, 19 times out of 20...............<br />
<br />
As a handy example, we have the Harper promise of accountability:<br />
<a href="http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsJun1307.html">http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsJun1307.html</a><br />
and this may be considered a classic example of "yes" meaning "no" (or is it "no" meaning "yes"?)<p>---<br>"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." <br />
-Max Planck<br />
<br />

BRAVO!

---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake

This idea that "government" is somehow intrinsically dishonest and evil is a dangerous and false one. When I became active in the anti-nuclear war movement of the 80s, I found to my amazement that government and democracy in Canada performs exactly as advertised, and is alive and well. People who harp on the refrain "you can't trust politicians" are invariably poorly informed about the workings of their own system here in Canada, and jump to the conclusion that because any responsible government has to represent ALL Canadians, it is dishonest when it does not follow through on a rash promise to a particular interest group. By and large, Canadian politicians are probably more upstanding, honest and moral people than those they represent. They are certainly better informed, if not immediately upon election, then shortly thereafter. Steer away from this conspiracy, us vs them nonsense, and all sweeping attacks on government. The government of Canada represents ultimately the collective will of all Canadians, and the nihilists and cynics do nothing but obstruct progress. Canada is not the US, as anyone who looks beneath the surface will understand.

---
Brett Mann

Ok you have my attention on this support your claim please because there is much evidense to the contrary
Dio

---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake

"Ok you have my attention on this support your claim please because there is much evidense to the contrary"

Dio - a damned good response!

I second the motion. Brett, will you PLEASE show us how all the evidence that directly contradicts your claims has been so wrongly misinterpreted. I really do want to be wrong because what I have come to understand that is going on is making me more than a little uneasy.

Perhaps the problem here is in the word "promises". A promise from a politician is not like a promise from the guy who sells you a used car. In the case of government, things are very very complicated, and often change. Any responsible government must be able to adapt to circumstances for the good of all. This makes it very easy to attack realism as dishonesty. Perhaps politicians should lose the word "promise" from their vocabulary and focus on educating people about how the system really works. The key point is that an elected government is elected to represent all the people, not just the wishes of their core party supporters.

Another key point is that "government" is quite complex and multifarious, with the civil service , the court system, the senate and other agencies all supporting (or opposing) the elected parliament. My experience has been that if you care deeply enough about an issue and start organizing, and enough other people agree with you, it won't be too long before you're making your case to the Minister of the Crown responsible for the file and having your case at least listened to by the policy makers (who have to serve all Canadians remember, not just your cause). Government is slow, ponderous, like an ocean liner, hard to turn around on a dime. Sometimes, as in the case of legalization of marijuana, a cause I support, the delays can seem obstructionary. But let's look at the support from the Senate, the Supreme Court, and various politicians and political parties that this issue has received. When a sufficiently large proportion of the population supports something, it tends to get done, eventually. We must not slip into a paranoid distrust of government. It is simply not justified, across the board, and undercuts the power we have as citizens. The people who don't want you to trust government are those who want no government constraints on the rich and powerful.

---
Brett Mann

Brett,

Your idealism is commendable.

But in my opinion it is misplaced in any multi-cultural country such as Canada.

Please do a little research on the effects of multiculturalism on a country as a whole, and villages. cities, counties, etc.

In a nutshell here is what I found: In a multi-cultural society no one trusts another, every idea offered is suspect as having ulterior motives. And I am just as guilty of this as the next person.

The question at hand is WHY???

My thoughts are that in a multi-cultural society the aspirations of the various cultures are too diverse for any broad-based commonality of purpose.

Since in North America, Canada especially, it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, the silent majority gets screwed.

Hence the wholesale mistrust of big government.

For the forty years or so that I have been politically conscious, as it were, I have often asked myself this question when federal or provincial laws were passed: "Is this new law REALLY in the best interest of the country and its population"?

In most instances, unfortunately, the answer to that question was a resounding NO!

Latest case is the taxation of investment trusts. I have no problem acknowledging that my family got badly hurt by this governmental action. Enough reviews have been done on this issue to show that taxing these funds REDUCES tax revenues. So in whose best interest was this legislation????

One more case. 10 or so years ago there was a law suit in Winnipeg, I think, contesting the tax avoidance allowed by REVCAN of some $750,000,000.00 by the Bronfman's family trust when they moved it to the USA. In whose best interest was this decision? Certainly not Canada's. Do you have any idea how many individual taxpayers have to work how long to cough up that much cash?

I could go on and on and on with additional examples.

The unfortunate thing is that, regardless which political party forms the government, NOTHING WILL CHANGE!

Unless the silent majority votes for independent candidates so that this group holds the balance of power in a minority government. Also, vote out any incumbent.

Then we would see some REAL change, for the better it is hoped.

But, to put your trust in government by big parties and voting for them hoping things will change or improve, is insanity.

H.F. Wolff

"We must not slip into a paranoid distrust of government. It is simply not justified, across the board, and undercuts the power we have as citizens."

Please explain to us how it is possible for the Canadian people to become more empowered through a trust in government, and conversely how it is possible for the people to become less empowered by not trusting the government?

"The people who don't want you to trust government are those who want no government constraints on the rich and powerful."

Are you trying to convince us that it is the poor and feeble who are somehow funding and promoting the established political parties?

Brent Mann, Sir,<br />
Thank you for responding to my query According to some it could be taken as foolhardy or an honest attempt to satisfy a question that arose out of your assertion (claim) “This idea that "government" is somehow intrinsically dishonest and evil is a dangerous and false one”<br />
Perhaps there was a time when those who choose to ‘govern’ had some degree of honesty. The title and following assertion sets up the topic well! ”What is The Theory of Altruistic Government? In short, it is the irrational belief that the government will do what they promised to do because they were elected to do it.”<br />
<br />
Does your argument hinge on the word intrinsic*? Because I can see where a belief based upon intrinsic might be construed as you claim, dangerous and even false. There is however an however and that however is it is equally dangerous and false to believe government is not a deliberate set of acts to subjugate the will of the electorate to its, and co-conspirators agendas.<br />
Throughout History the examples abound where the *intrinsic nature* of government has been *proven*.<br />
<br />
This claim is a non sequitur: “People who harp on the refrain "you can't trust politicians" are invariably poorly informed about the workings of their own system here in Canada, and jump to the conclusion that because any responsible government has to represent ALL Canadians, it is dishonest when it does not follow through on a rash promise to a particular interest group.”<br />
<br />
Further, you have introduced you own presupposition into the claim, “rash promise” seems to me an in-congruency where “false” promise would be better suited. . <br />
<br />
<br />
To meatier parts:<br />
<br />
Personally I ain’t much for dichotomies, Edward de Bono’s mind liberating concepts are more to my liking, so for those of us who do believe that, “This idea that "government" is somehow intrinsically dishonest and evil…” A Just society has within it a means to satisfy our claim as it is we also who expect a workman ( hire out for pay) to give value for payment. Clearly what we speak of exists, otherwise we could not speak of it In terms of linguistic clarity. To understand of what I speak we both must have the reality of the other and it is clear you have no understanding of those you assert are dangerous and hold false beliefs.<br />
Where exactly is the danger of a free thinking entity?<br />
And how, exactly, are they holders of falsities (read: liars)?<br />
In my hallucination of the world, (You yours/ I mine.) danger lies in the direction of group think.<br />
So where do we stand?<br />
Do we hold the view that the other ‘just doesn’t ge’ it? Or perhaps introduce Po to yes and no?<br />
Po for possibility <br />
Do we look to Alfred Korzibsky : <a href="http://ebooks-planet.com/download/manhood_of_humanity.zip">http://ebooks-planet.com/download/manhood_of_humanity.zip</a> ?<br />
<br />
The introduction alone sets the tone <br />
<br />
<br />
‘<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*intrinsic Show phonetics<br />
adjective<br />
being an extremely important and basic characteristic of a person or thing:<br />
works of little intrinsic value/interest<br />
Maths is an intrinsic part of the school curriculum<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />

Danger does not only lie in "group think", although this can be a dangerous phenomenon. Group-think is not necessarily worse than "individual-think". The point is that the best good for all occurs when people are able to trust and co-operate with each other, and fallible as it is, government is the mechanism through which we do exactly that. What is truly dangerous is conspiracy thinking, for it always in the end is an escape from personal and national responsibilities and realism.

---
Brett Mann

<br />
<br />
"What is truly dangerous is conspiracy thinking, for it always in the end is an escape from personal and national responsibilities and realism"<br />
<br />
WTF is conspiracy thinking?<br />
<br />
Is conspiracy thinking some denial of the works of Carolen Quigley?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley</a><br />
Quotes<br />
There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known. (p. 950} <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. {p. 1247} <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. <br />
The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world. <br />
- All from Tragedy and Hope <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
No country that values its safety should allow what the Milner group accomplished in Britain, that is, that a small number of men should be able to wield such power in administration and politics, should be given almost complete control over the publication of the documents relating to their actions, should be able to exercise such influence over the avenues of information that create public opinion, and should be able to monopolize so completely the writing and teaching of the history of their own period. (p. xi) <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This event of March 1936, by which Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, was the most crucial event in the whole history of appeasement. So long as the territory west of the Rhine and a strip fifty kilometers wide on the east bank of the river were demilitarized, as provided in the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pacts, Hitler would never have dared to move against Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. He would not have dared because, with western Germany unfortified and denuded of German soldiers, France could have easily driven into the Ruhr industrial area and crippled Germany so that it would be impossible to go eastward. And by this date, certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe. In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine. It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism. <br />
- Both from The Anglo-American Establishment <br />
<br />
Books<br />
Evolution of Civilizations (1961) ISBN 0-913966-56-8 <br />
Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966) ISBN 0-945001-10-X <br />
The Anglo-American Establishment (1982) ISBN 0-945001-01-0 <br />
<br />
Notes<br />
^ Quigley's influence on Bill Clinton <br />
^ Acceptance Speech to the Democratic National Convention by Governor Bill Clinton<br />
<br />
<br />
PULL...EEZ!<p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />

"The point is that the best good for all occurs when people are able to trust and co-operate with each other,"

So far so good ...

" and fallible as it is, government is the mechanism through which we do exactly that."

There's the mechanism of government, which despite obvious and glaring flaws that should be fixed, is all that we have to work with, but there's also the untrustworthy people who get elected by default and who order the government about.

I do not trust the people who are ordering the government about and for very good reasons. For one thing, the elected elite do nothing to fix the many obvious and glaring problems with our so-called democracy because it is not in their best interest to do so. Also we have seen case after case of elected officials lying, thieving, and lying some more, and the party of lies and thieving is continuous year after year, election after election, and it's endemic across all of the "big" parties.

What's there to trust in that?

"What is truly dangerous is conspiracy thinking"

You lost me completely with that old line of thought. Please tell me, what do you mean by "conspiracy thinking"?

"for it always in the end is an escape from personal and national responsibilities and realism."

Are you trying to say that anyone who sees the truth is both delusional and dangerous because of it?

Throughout history we've seen many of the kind who think that knowledge and awareness is delusional and dangerous. What I think is most dangerous of all, are people who have placed a blind trust in whatever belief system they may subscribe to, and who in the process of protecting their narrow minded views attempt to label nonbelievers as being dangerous heretics.

A decade of economic crisis in Peru has spawned many such structures. The most notable of these are the People's Kitchens established by the urban poor. At least 1500 existed in Lima alone by the end of 1988. In each of these some twenty to twenty-five families pool resources and work cooperative to help maintain family members and others who may be temporarily or permanently without a stable source of income.

Because most of those involved in the administration of People's Kitchens are women, the growing importance of these organizations has given women a new source of political power, a new sense of self-esteem, and the experience of radical praxis in political struggle against the state.

The People's Kitchens are an embarrassment to a government that has overseen the most severe economic crisis in the history of the country. (*1) Yet the Peruvian government has been unable to provide effective alternative sources of relief for pobladores, the inhabitants of shantytowns or barriadas. Although political repression at the neighborhood level is intense in Peru, and although government efforts to coopt and control neighborhood organizing efforts have been partially successful, the autonomous organizations of the poor have continued to flourish, in part because they are essential to the survival of the population.

Much has been written about Peru's "informal sector" and the proposed development of a "vigorous new economy" based on family entrepreneurship allied with foreign capital in a "free-market system." The political importance of communal organizations in the barriadas has been overlooked by the proponents of "El Otro Sendero,"--or "the Other Path," as the right-wing opposition's programs is called, playing off the name of the revolutionary Peruvian guerrilla group, the Shining Path--but it has been acutely felt by those who are actually locked in the struggle for political power in Peru, not the least of whom are barriada women themselves.

Background and Development



---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake

Jumping Jesus! I get tired of playing "Beat the spam detector!" but being a tenacious sort ...see above
anyway look what the poor of Peru will do that we will not!: embarass the government
We arew so freakin Po-lite
and pc that actions such as the poor of Peru do shame us for our inactivity
or should
Dio

---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake