Revisited: The Canary in the Coal Mine. Kelly Marie Richard. Part One
Canadians dream an unreal dream. The country - which they believe exists - has gone, has been transformed as they dream. Gone is the moderately successful democracy recognized around the world.
In its place interlocking “street gangs” have smoothly gained respectable power in the life of the nation. In its place political parties, courts, police, and legislatures are, in fact, more and more ruled closely by what, in the past, we called “organized crime”. The “new” organized crime “organizes” from the top, and enlists whole interlocking public institutions in its service.
The new “organized crime” works for the unregulated, unexamined, cut-throat operation of “Free Market” corporations.
One case reveals the unbelievably malign actions of legislatures, the RCMP, professional organizations, lawyers and law firms, the courts, regulatory bodies, and large corporations who seem appropriately (the latter), at the base, to be calling the shot….
The dental malpractice case of an ordinary Canadian focuses all the issues brilliantly. It gets to the root of a hundred other “higher level” public disgraces. The BC Rail and BC Hydro Scandals. The bullet-and-lie-ridden Robert Dziekanski murder. The (apparently) unchanged legislatures which are gutted and taken over by coercive-thugs-in-power.
“Dreaming Canadians” believe that their country is, somehow, different, is especially blessed, is by definition “decent”. They believe it is insulated from the stunning evil to which much of the rest of the world is subjected.
In a recent Toronto Star article, “The Quiet Unravelling of Canadian Democracy” (April 4 09) Jim Travers, National Affairs columnist, chose to disagree. Seconded by bc mary on her BC Rail Scandal site from British Columbia, he declared that Canada presently is making Africa look good! The lead-in to his story reads: “Muzzled MPs. A powerless cabinet. Politicized senior bureaucrats, Unaccountable parties. Canada’s democracy is in trouble.”
Travers should have continued: “An actively corrupt national police force. A legal system riddled with uncatchable criminals. A higher court structure which is hopelessly elitist and suborned. Associated regulatory bodies that are shells – nauseating supporters of the new organized crime.”
Essentially, he and bc mary are right – except she is more forthright! He still dwells on the crumbling edge of Canada’s cloud-cuckoo dreamland.
The Kelly Marie Richard dental malpractice case – brutally conducted and equally brutally brushed aside by all appeal sources – tells all BECAUSE it is the on-going story of an ordinary, painfully honest, deeply caring Canadian being savaged by wealth and power assisted by nearly every “citizen protection” institution in Canada.
How Have We Come To This In Canada?
To begin, you – the reader – probably ask: “What’s the big deal (in terms of Canada’s democracy) about one person’s dental malpractice case? Why should I give five minutes attention to it?”
Because the case rolls up everything Jim Travers is concerned about – everything that bc mary is concerned about. It reveals, starkly, how the future of ordinary Canadians will be mass, unmarked graves when they stand against Big Corporate Interests or challenge police and courts for failing, massively, to fulfill their roles.
Before bringing the on-going Kelly Marie Richard brutalization up to date, the answer still awaits: How Have We Come To This In Canada?
The answer, in brief, is that we have come to it globally, by a huge shift in real power – inside countries, among countries, and in the very structure of national and international institutions. The shift has taken place, fundamentally, because of the scheming and coercion by specific corporate alliances in the U.S.A. to dominate the wealth of the world. They have sought domination out of naked greed, the desire for uncontrolled luxury, and from the obscene power dreams that visit mediocre men and women who are all-but stripped of sanity.
Even just a year ago that last statement would have been un-writeable. Now it is seen, more and more, as simple truth.
What has that to do with the Kelly Marie Richard dental malpractice case? Everything. Since the power of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and our own sad caricature of a leader – Brian Mulroney, the change has been in progress. It has been pushed along by all of their successors, regardless of party identification. The international fix was in; all would cooperate.
That means it has been happening since Russian power collapsed, especially (1991), and the Capitalist “Free Market” lie moved into high gear. Since then, almost all restraints upon corporate (formerly) criminal conspiracies have been lifted. Almost all regulations to protect citizens, all guarantees of the freedom and independence of elected legislators have been undermined. The simple requirements of public service from pubic officials is now considered a joke.
The propaganda for “Free Market” behaviour has been loud, constant, unrelieved. Populations have been media-drugged into believing outright lies about the need to remove law and regulation. That is increasingly because media has become an arm of “Free Market” corporate structure – becoming monolithic as changing governments become monolithic in support of what is, in fact, corporate criminality.
Remember. Police, lawyers, courts, oversight bodies, and professional associations operate within “socially permissible limits”. Given to being ‘clubby and elitist’ (as well as naturally reactionary) from the start, such organizations quickly succumb to in-group sweet talk, blandishments, subtle coercion, and pay-off.
Mounties who maintain integrity are re-assigned (as top-cop Guiliano Zaccardelli demonstrated), or dumped. Lawyers who fight – in such a milieu – for justice and honest public service are disabled. Courts become hierarchies within hierarchies in which “dependable” judges join the “A team”. Others … don’t.
Top judges, top RCMP officers, top politicians interact really or through shared ideology to obstruct justice. The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP is, for instance, a structurally (almost) useless organization. Anyone who accepts the top job (Paul Kennedy presently fills it) HAS TO KNOW that he or she is nearly useless, a highly paid shell, put in position to protect the criminal behaviour of the RCMP and to make it look like an oversight organization is present in RCMP affairs.
The Alberta Dental association allegedly protects malpractice in order (a) to protect the good name of dentistry in Alberta (!), and (b) to be on good terms with powerful insuring bodies.
Throughout the corrupt and debilitating overall structure described here, only one institution needs to break ranks to change everything. MPs in the House of Commons (or provincial legislatures) revolting against being muzzled could begin turning the corner. For they would then insist on major RCMP changes, changes to regulation of lawyers, changes to Breach of Trust laws governing cabinets, overhaul of the courts, etc.
If the RCMP turned honest, it could nail sleazy professional organizations, large corporations employing coercion and crooked law firms, politicians engaging in Breach of Trust, and so on.
Even empty, soiled, and pretentious organizations like the Canadian Judicial Council and the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP could rip the present obscene system wide open by preparing a series of Reports to the Public about real behaviour in their bailiwicks.
The world those “regulatory”, “citizen protection”, “public service” organizations really exist in is one in which Kelly Marie Richard and her two sons have been seeking a measure of justice. It is a world in which they have genuine, scientifically recorded evidence of malpractice.
But it is also a world in which huge corporate forces, together with RCMP, courts, law firms, regulatory agencies, legislatures, press and media are actively or passively working as a faultless team to prevent her case from ever coming to trial. (And have been doing so now for years!) They are doing that (literally) by working to destroy her and her two sons with a brutality Canadians do not believe possible “in Canada”.
That story in Part Two.
Revisited: The Canary In The Coal Mine. Kelly Marie Richard. Part One
Posted on Tuesday, April 07 at 21:49 by Robin MathewsContributed By
Article Rating
(2 votes)
Options
Stumble It!
Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1 2
How true. Canadians have just as many authoritarian leftists and statist control freaks as any other country, and more than some.
"To begin, you ? the reader ? probably ask: 'What?s the big deal (in terms of Canada?s democracy) about one person?s dental malpractice case? Why should I give five minutes attention to it?'"
Sorry, but even after reading several articles and posts on this topic, I'm *still* asking these questions. What happened to Ms. Richard and her children is unfortunate and appears unjust, but it's hardly the crushing indictment of our entire legal, political and economic system that Mathews seem to think it is. Of course, neither are the privitization "scandals" in BC that Mathews has been so obsessed with.
And if Mr. Mathews keeps calling referring to people other than himself as "elitist" and "pretentious", I'll have to start referring to him by a new nickname - The Pot.
"The shift has taken place, fundamentally, because of the scheming and coercion by specific corporate alliances in the U.S.A. to dominate the wealth of the world."
Yes, it always comes back to those big, bad Americans. You'd think that no other country had evil corporations. And what does any of this nationalist posturing have to do with a dental malpractice case anyway?
Oh, I guess we'll find out in Part Two. I'm all pins and needles.
To make it clear that you're seriously wrong about what you have said, I will give you an example of why our case is so important to Canadians...we have audio recordings of the court proceedings relating to our case proving that the court transcripts relating to our major dental malpractice case involving very serious injuries and losses to a woman and 2 children and millions of dollars in damages, that were prepared by the Court, a Federal Canadian court who decide the most important legal cases and issues in our country and are supposed to protect the rights of Canadians, have been significantly altered, falsifying them in a manner solely serving the defence in our case headed by a company known as CGI, a huge corporation who handle the litigation on behalf of most, if not all, insurance companies in Canada and the U.S., and who have have a very significant relationship with all levels of government in Canada and the U.S., including contracts with Justice Canada and provincial justice departments, including Alberta Justice, as well as with law enforcement, including contracts involving our national security.
Further we have clear undeniable evidence proving that several judges involved with our case have outright lied on the court record about the facts and evidence relating to our case to serve the interests of the Defence, including about facts relating to our case that are so obvious it is impossible to conclude anything but that these judges have intentionally unlawfully lied, further falsifying the court records to serve the defence, including for example falsely reporting on the court record that I failed to attend for examination for discovery relating to our case when the records, including the eleven signed transcripts prepared by the court reporter hired by the defence present at these eleven examinations for discovery, that we have complete copies of, as well as our audio recordings of these discoveries, prove this to be an outright lie.
Do you want these judges deciding your case? Do you want these judges deciding if you get compensation from the insurance company for a driver hitting you or your loved one and leaving you or them seriously disabled? Do you want these judges deciding if the doctor that operated on your child and seriously negligently injured them has to pay your child compensation or you for their long-term care? Do you want these judges deciding if the insurance company has to pay your claim for your home burning down and you losing all your possessions when your policy, which you paid for, says they do but they don't want to? Do you want these judges deciding serious criminal cases that affect you and your loved ones?
If you don't find this evidence, which is only the tip of the iceberg of the evidence we have relating to our case, to be of major importance to all Canadians and to be evidence proving democracy in Canada is in serious trouble, and at a time when Canadian men and women are dying fighting for the rights of citizens of foreign countries, which we Canadians are paying for, then clearly I again question who you are and what you do because that would not be reasonable or logical.
Kelly Marie Richard
Are you accusing me of being one of "them"?
If Robin Mathews had spent more time actually describing your experiences and accusations (as you've done here) and less time engaging in over-the-top rhetoric and hand-waving, I (and others on this forum) *would* be better informed about your ordeal. As it is, I don't know much because I haven't been told much.
How, for instance, is CGI's oft-cited business relationship with various levels of government relevant to your situation? Have you established a direct connection between these business relationships and your case? You suggest there is a connection, but does your evidence back that up?
I have made no judgement regarding the merits of your case, and if these things you say happened did in fact happen then I hope you are eventually able to find justice. I am *not* defending your opponents. I am defending a *system* which, despite its many well-documented flaws, is far better than anything Robin Mathews is offering up as an alternative.
"If you don't find this evidence, which is only the tip of the iceberg of the evidence we have relating to our case, to be of major importance to all Canadians and to be evidence proving democracy in Canada is in serious trouble, and at a time when Canadian men and women are dying fighting for the rights of citizens of foreign countries, which we Canadians are paying for, then clearly I again question who you are and what you do because that would not be reasonable or logical. "
Do you plan to publish this evidence on a website, so we don't have to simply take your word that we've seen only "the tip of the iceberg"?
You question my motivations in commenting on this, but my only concern is that Robin Mathews is offering up your situation as an argument for radically altering our economic and political system in a way that I believe would be harmful to Canadians. Robin is hostile to private enterprise, those who promote individual liberty and autonomy and pretty much anything he considers "American". He is an old-school central-planning authoritarian socialist, which basically puts him on the opposite political pole from a right-libertarian like myself.
I don't want to throw the baby of competitive private enterprise and consumer choice out with the bathwater of corporate corruption. I don't want the state owning or running all the railways, banks, manufacturers, media, etc. That would just open us up to different forms of corruption, which we would have even less power to fight.
I don't want Canadians to isolate ourselves economically and culturally from the US. I don't want the "longest undefended border" to become a new Berlin Wall.
That is my only "agenda". I don't want to live in a socialist state.
The evidence we have proving CGI are involved in serious corruption in Canada, including in Canadian courts, and are using their extensive government contracts to assist their private unlawful interests is substantial and important enough that they tried to have me wrongfully committed because of the evidence I have and what I know, as the evidence proves, which I can provide you with if you are interested.
Before my sons and I were so horrifically injured, which by the way the evidence supports was intentional and part of unlawful research being done to patients by the University of Alberta who pay orthodontists to do clinical research in their private practices that they don't tell their patients about that includes intentionally seriously injuring some patients, and the efforts to cover this up and deny us justice started, I never thought much about any of what Mr. Mathews writes about...but after all my sons and I have been subjected to, including being terrorized by the defence's efforts to unlawfully commit me indefinately to shut me up, which I know sounds unbelievable yet the evidence proves is true, I turned to Robin Mathews for help because he was one of the few people who didn't do what I believed you were doing...saying how could a dental malpractice case be important and why should I care about about this woman and her kids and what they are reporting about this. And Robin listened, despite how unbelievable what has been done to us sounds, and let me send him the evidence and took the time to review it and it convinced him that we were reporting the truth and he cared about what is being so horrifically done to my sons and I. I can tell you for a fact that things in this country are every bit as bad as Mr. Mathews reports they are, whether we want to see it or not, and that in fact it's our not wanting to believe it that is allowing those behind the corruption to take over and destroy our country.
We are setting up a website, it's just taking longer than we hoped because of the serious harrassment and injustice we continue to be subjected to...which is far beyond anything you could ever imagine possible in Canada, with no exaggeration.
We have the evidence supporting everything we have reported about our case, including what I have reported above, and have shared it with many, and we will provide this evidence to anyone who is interested in it as we feel it is extremely important that as many Canadians are informed about it as possible.
Below is just a few little examples from the court records to add to what I reported above, but yet no where near the most damning evidence we have.
The evidence proves that the current judge, Justice Scott Brooker, is outrageously playing along with the constant lies of the Counsel for the Defence during court proceedings to falsify the court records to fraudulently make it look as if my sons and I have acted improperly relating to our case to deny us justice and unlawfully help the defence, and further are doctoring the court transcripts to further serve the defendants.
On March 28, 2008 the following discussion took place between
Justice Brooker and the Counsel for the Respondents?: (A107 line 15 - 27)
The COURT: ?It?s not a situation where he hasn?t shown up for an examination
for discovery that?s been scheduled as I understand it??
MR. BODNAR: ?No, not (INDISCERNIBLE), sir.?
THE COURT: ?And much of this seems to relate back to his mother.?
MR. BODNAR: ?Because she certainly didn?t show up - -?
THE COURT: ?Of course.?
MR. BODNAR: ? - - for discovery dates.?
THE COURT: ? I understand that. So, I mean, we are really in effect
somewhat of a cleaner slate somehow.?
18. During the initial case management conference on May 16, 2006
Alan Rudakoff reported to Justice Chrumka: (A108 line 21 - 23)
??I have concluded, subject to undertakings, my discovery of Ms. Richard??
19. The plaintiff Kelly Marie Richard, the Appellant?s mother and primary witness
for the Plaintiffs?, since Ryan Trigg and his brother Justin were children at the time
the Respondents injured the Plaintiffs, attended for eleven days of examinations for
discovery. The Appellant was also present at these eleven discoveries. The
Plaintiffs have copies of the 1,539 pages of transcripts of the eleven examinations
for discovery Ms. Richard attended for. Page 1, 376 documents Mr. Nelson stating:
??we come all the way down to your office for 11 of these discoveries?? (A109,
A110 line 17 - 18, A111, A112)
The Appellant?s audio recording of the October 2, 2008 proceedings, (A200),
documents that after Justice Brooker refused to inform the Appellant of the
deadline for his filing his Notice of Appeal, the Appellant clearly stated:
?Well, May I ask why you would deny me, a self-represented Plaintiff,
this assistance and specifically when you have made such great efforts to
assist the Counsel for the Defence, experienced lawyers, as the evidence
proves, such as Your Lordship suggesting to me to set dates for examinations
for discovery with me that the Defendants themselves never requested or
applied for prior to you suggesting it and without me being given notice
approximately two years after the deadline set by this Court and in violation of
the Court Order ordering the December 22, 2006 deadline for discovery to be
completed related to this action. That is not reasonable or fair.?
The transcript of the October 2, 2008 proceedings prepared by the Court
inaccurately documents that the Appellant stated the following:
?Well, May I ask why you deny me, a self-represented Plaintiff, this
assistance and especially when you made such great efforts to
assist the Counsel for the Defence, experienced lawyers, as the
evidence proves, (INDISCERNIBLE) Your Lordship suggesting
(INDISCERNIBLE) to set dates for examination for discovery with me
Defendants themselves never requested or a (INDISCERNIBLE)
without me being given notice approximately two years after the
deadline set by this Court and in violation of the Court Order ordering the
December 22, 2006 deadline discovery be completed related to this Action.
That is not (INDISCERNIBLE) or fair.? (A. R. F 39 line 19 - 27, F40 line 1-5)
The transcript produced by the court has been altered significantly changing the
meaning of what the Appellant said about an important issue relating to his appeal.
His precious, what passes for "democracy" within capitalism, is being increasingly exposed by its own obvious failures and corruptions, for which he has no real answers of course. So when one dare not answer the charges, stonewalling, attempting to deflect and avoid, and obfuscate, is the path typically taken by the criminal ruling class mind.
It deserves no more serious treatment or consideration than that.
Good work, Robin. The System everywhere is increasingly being seen for what it really is, naked as a Jay bird without its fancy coloured plummage to conceal its reality.
Time for it to be brought down.
Coyote
I understand and respect your feelings of gratitude and loyalty to someone who has championed your cause so vigorously.
I'm not deflecting anything. I don't have to assert or pretend that competitive free enterprise or minimalistic government is free of corruption. I need only demonstrate that your "cure" is worse that the disease it purports to treat.
So much of life is about trade-offs - freedom vs. security, wealth creation vs. equality of distribution, rewarding success vs. protecting those who fail, encouraging self-reliance vs. assisting those who cannot look after themselves. And of course, the ultimate trade-off - majority rule vs. individual rights. What freedoms would you have people give up in order to achieve the level of "social justice" you desire? How much individual material prosperity must people give up to achieve the equality of outcomes you so crave? How much autonomy and liberty must people sacrifice in order to make certain that no one is ever exploited or treated unfairly?
"His precious, what passes for 'democracy' within capitalism, is being increasingly exposed by its own obvious failures and corruptions, for which he has no real answers of course. So when one dare not answer the charges, stonewalling, attempting to deflect and avoid, and obfuscate, is the path typically taken by the criminal ruling class mind."
Say there are two people working in the same job. Frank has been there only two years, but is twice as productive, much more conscientious and only half as error prone as Roger, who have been there for twelve years. Which of the two, if either, should be paid more? Which one should be promoted when the supervisor job comes open? I know what the standard union answer would be, and it's the exact opposite of mine.
"The System everywhere is increasingly being seen for what it really is, naked as a Jay bird without its fancy coloured plummage to conceal its reality.
Time for it to be brought down."
To be replaced with a system where "all pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others"? No thanks.
I don't know Indy, but what you describe quoted above, sounds an awful lot like capitalism to me. Idealized at that.
Coyote
I don't know Indy, but what you describe quoted above, sounds an awful lot like capitalism to me. Idealized at that.
Coyote
Well, there is one important difference. Capitalism doesn't make any pretense of egalitarianism in either income or power. People don't have equal talents, they don't put forth equal effort and they don't take equal risks. Why should they have equal outcomes? How is that just?
An unequal distribution of income/wealth *may* be unjust. But an equal one is *certain* to be so.
Going back to Frank and Roger - why should Roger get the higher pay and the promotion simply because he's been there longer? Unions have expended a great deal of effort to remove any consider of merit from compensation or advancement. I consider that highly unjust. Market-based free enterprise may be an imperfect meritocracy, but at least it represents an attempt at a merit-driven system, unlike socialism, which concerns itself only with evening distribution, ignoring the concepts of earning and rewarding achievement.
Of course, when all market-based instruments are removed, socialism fails even at equality, because a leadership clique always emerges (hence Orwell's quote). The difference is that the ambitious need no longer prove themselves or demonstrate any kind of organizational talent in order to take power. They need only play good courtiers and cronies and ingratiate themselves to the right patron. Or, like Jean Chretien, they merely have to keep their butt in the chair long enough and wait their turn to become the "big man".
At least one, which I'll grant you, What Passes For an Individualist. (Actually, you are just one of the many herd followers of capitalism, the status quo, which takes no real "individualism" at all.)
And what I grant you is, that power in society (its political institutions and economy), and of course, control over the wealth of society that goes along with that, demonstrated at least by history thus far, seems to RIGHTLY belong to those, and the ruling class positioning that results, with the courage to seize it, by force of arms if necessary, and willingness to suppress any other contending class forces i.e. "the Leveller" working class and peasant forces of the English Civil War. (It was the "round head" forces of capitalism which seized and managed to hang onto this "power", for further example, by force of arms from the old landed aristocracy under King Charles, when that system was in decline, and ITS power was there for the grabbing.)
So, to this degree, the capitalist class of today are the heirs of this "act of courage" and preparedness to "seize power", and have evolved their "system of control", continuing to successfully defend it from all "levelling" class forces contending in society against it, down into the present day. Thus far, at least.
On the other hand, the working class masses, while they have at times demonstrated across the history of capitalism their own ability to organize, advance democracy and defend their economic interests, more or less successfully at times, they have not to date demonstrated a "sustained" ability or courage to take on the ruling class of capitalism and roundly defeat it, or seize the Holy Grail of political and economic power for their "collective selves". This I grant you.
And for this failure, and until they finally do demonstrate this courage and ability, as I'm convinced is certainly in the history cards of the future, to be played we know not when for 100% certain, nearer or further, they must content themselves, as you describe, with being pigs, with their noses largely pushed out of the trough by the Bigger Pigs of Capital, devoid of either real/decisive political or economic "power", and subject to the whims and caprice of those Big Pigs who still demonstrate the courage/will to hang onto it and their feeding frenzy place at the trough.
Other than that, your views on "unequal pay", still used to deny female workers equal pay, as well as more equitable pay across society and the class structure generally, and "seniority rights" are irrelevant to me. As a worker myself, I know what the real "endless ass kissing and favouritism" alternative is to "seniority rights" within the capitalist enterprise workplace. So, on this issue, we would just pin you down to the ground, and, like a stout oak pole, plant the authoritarian capitalist "ass kisser" choice where the sun doesn't shine.
Coyote
You're fond of violent imagery. Your thuggish revenge fantasies reveal a great deal about you...
"As a worker myself, I know what the real 'endless ass kissing and favouritism' alternative is to 'seniority rights' within the capitalist enterprise workplace. "
...and so does your disdain for the merit principle. But hey, the fact that you see working hard and adding value for ones employer and clients as "ass kissing" is also very revealing.
"Other than that, your views on 'unequal pay', still used to deny female workers equal pay, as well as more equitable pay across society and the class structure generally, and 'seniority rights' are irrelevant to me."
Well, your notions of working class empowerment matter little to me, because I do not see the working class as a single homogenous entity with perfectly aligned interests. The system you desire will yield winners and losers, even within the so-called "working class".
You really need to stop reducing humanity to a series of abstractions. An individual is more than the sum of his/her group affiliations and socioeconomic characteristics. That's what collectivists can never seem to grasp. Pay equity, affirmative action, etc. don't deliver actual justice on an individual basis. They can only deliver statistical parity among arbitrarily defined groups. Two wrongs may add up to zero, but that isn't the same as them being right. The more we see individual human beings as unique and worthy of consideration in their own right and not simply as a unit or representative of an aggregation, the sooner we can move past all the old tribalisms that have plagued humanity. Each human should strive to be a tribe of one. *That's* where my individualism lies - not in the uniqueness of my ideas, but how I value my uniqueness as a person, and how I reject ideas that attempt to lump me (or you) into some superficially similar mass of humanity.
Actually, it is not I, I suggest, who reduces humanity to an "abstraction", as you call it. But rather it is yourself who is overly smitten by and idealizes this imaginary " free market individual" in society, whose "power" derives simply from his own pursuit of "self wealth". In fact, though this is true only to a very limited extent, be it without that "individual's" attachment to the "power" that derives from being part of a "class collective" , in this case a ruling class (Chamber of Commerce, Council on Business Affairs, a pro-ruling class political party etc., or other forms of what are really "ruling class unions"), that fights for and maintains, by laws and "collectively wielded" force where necessary, "an order of society and its institutions that is conducive to his/her "individualist" pursuit of "self-serving" wealth. Otherwise, said lonely "individual capitalist" would be "powerless and inconsequential" in fact.
Of course we are all "unique individuals" of greater or lesser "individual potential" and even some "limited power". This is but a trite observation. It is only through recognizing and acting through some other "collective of common interests" with others however, in this case "our class", that a greater power is achieved over the affairs of a whole society and its economy, indeed, in our time, over even a globalized economy, at/to a level where a greater common interest is likewise achieved, that includes the possibility of realizing each of our "individual interests and possibilities".
Collectives such as class and "the almighty individual" are not mutually exclusive phenomenon, one excluding the possibility of the other, but two different aspects of the same whole.
A common mistake, I grant you make, within the view and interests set of the capitalist system, this over-blowing of the importance of the "individual". It arises out of the desire and interests of its class minions, one being yourself, (a) to over-emphasize their own importance and make their collective selves the gold standard in society, and (b) to prevent the working class and other lower strata elements from appreciating the potential power of their own "united collectivity"... such as is enjoyed by the "individuals" of the capitalist ruling class, for example.
But then, you really know all this, just not with this particular twist or perspective slant, that is from a quite different set of individual and class interests.
Which is enough said by me, which subject distracts from Robin's and Scout's purpose here. It is just that your naive presumptions sometimes beg retort.
Coyote
I paid the highest possible wages and gave my guys the widest possible freedom of expression and action so they had to use their brains and imagination.
Whenever there were major decisions to be made, like the purchase of equipment, or contracts, we had meetings, where even the apprentices had their say. Of course, I made the final decisions, but nobody's ideas were ignored, so people could feel that they belonged to the system. They were always free to criticize my decisions and they did without fear.
Often I told other managers to tell their workers what they had to do and then get the hell out of their way. They were shocked: "But our job is to manage" and screw up. I can improve, or even double the productivity of any workplace by leaving people alone and treating them like human beings.
Even 20 years later, when I met some of my former guys, they told me that my shop was the best place they've ever worked in. 2 of the guys have been with me for 22 years and 2 years as fellow employees, before I opened my shop. When I left, there wasn't one of my old crew left within a year. They all quit. The new owner was a good "conservative" and they hated his guts.
Ed Deak.
I've been the non union employer of skilled tradesmen, in custom manufacturing, in Vancouver for 22 years and they all received the same pay.
So you chose not to reward your most productive, imaginative and hard-working employees. That's a shame.
How is being paid in accordance with the value you've added "Friedmanite"? Your system exploited those who by their effort and talent should have earned more than their less productive co-workers. For the sake of administrative simplicity, dogmatic egalitarianism and avoidance of the *perception* of favouritism, you paid some of your workers more than they deserved and others less than they deserved. I know you hate competition, but is even the concept of *earning* beyond your grasp?
Well, somebody had to do the thinking and make the decisions, I suppose. You were too busy revolutionizing economics and science.
Perhaps you should have just ended your sentence there.