Democratic Revolution - Now Or Never

Just a small correction:
"Man... hath by nature a power.... to preserve his property - that is, his life, liberty, and estate - against the injuries and attempts of other men."
- John Locke
This was taken by Jefferson and "dissembled" because he knew that most men would never be property owners, but that they might misconstrue the intent of the Declaration of Independence.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson for the acurate assertion. The revolution has been forced upon all peoples of the world by these pathetic sociopaths. But these wannabe Gods should be careful- lest the revolution lands upon their doorstep!

I've read some of Dave's stuff and find it interesting, but what always seems to be missing is the individual. There's lots of talk about the "people" and things done by and for them, but persons somehow seem to get lost. Where do individuals and individual freedom of choice fit in on "Green Island". Or does the tribe truly decide everything, and the individual nothing?

What does the ambitious and enterprising person do in such a society? Would there still be room for those who have greater ability and drive than their neighbours, and wish to make their mark in the world? Are they just forcibly blended into the dough through social engineering, or made into outcasts or labelled "sociopaths" because they want to improve their own lives?

If all the decisions in your life are made for you, does it really matter whether it's one dictator or "the collective" doing so?

{sound of crickets chirping}

How about I take a crack at answering indy's question. I think a true freedom loving person like myself believes in the sovereignty of the individual. I would NEVER like to see an individual have his or her ability, uniqueness, or creativity quashed by some authoritarian tyrant, be it communist, fascist, democratic, or whatever the label. But I do believe, that in a modern economic and political system like we have, we need a proper balance in government and the economic system to ensure that all who do have ambition, drive, talent, creativity, and energy, can self- actualize and make great use of their talents and ideas. If all of the world's wealth is controlled by just a few and this wealth is not more equitably spread out, then many with all of the qualities mentioned above will not have a chance to shine. Conversely, those who are HONEST self made men and women should not see their efforts stunted to the point where its not worth it- which brings up another point- even those who work at a job that is not their dream job but they are stuck there because they never knew what they wanted to do with their life- this contribution must be worth it too! Everyone deserves a living wage. Everyone has a right to good health and quality education! I believe we can have an altruistic system where all people live a dignified life which strikes a balance. Because in this modern economy, just as much as we need the innovators, the individuals, we also need some pooling of money and resources to ensure that every individual has a chance to shine! Because we no longer live in the days where a pioneer just jutted across the land, staked his claim, and started from scratch. Hell, even back then, many pioneers were given land for free or next to nothing by a government looking to populate! So again, nobody really does anything all alone.

My link to the book "The Artificial Ape" is a kind of backdoor answer to his question:
If all the decisions in your life are made for you, does it really matter whether it's one dictator or "the collective" doing so?
According to the book, we are dependent on technology for our very existence today - which is to say that modern humans only superficially resemble pre-technology humans, where everything had to be done by musclepower. Our dependency has shaped our existence, and as such, much of the decisions made in our lives are completely out of our hands. Most of us are simply not able (and all the "training" in the world won't change this) to "disconnnect" from society and be competely on our own. So we are to a great extent competely dependent on the decisions made by a dictator or a collective.

Thank you both for the thoughtful replies. To be honest Rick, I didn't get where you were coming from with that link until you explained it in your subsequent post.

While I agree that technology and the scale of our society has made it impossible to disconnect entirely, that is no reason to surrender the concept of "sovereignty of the individual" that Dave referred to. For me, the purpose of individual rights is to help balance the desires of the group with the interests of the individual. All of us find ourselves in a minority position on some issue or set of interests at some point in our lives, and simply saying that the majority should always get its way is very simplistic and ultimately dangerous.

You don't even have to refer to the behaviour of rioting mobs, brainwashed cults or brownshirts to cast doubt upon the notion that the group is always right. What is the "Bystander Effect" if not evidence that groups can not always be trusted to behave responsibly?

We have to balance the desire (and, I'll acknowledge, need) for community with a need for privacy and respect for individual space and choice. We've all dealt with nosy neighbours and busybodies who think they know how everyone else should live. Some of them end up seeking political office or become commentators, columnists or activists so they can spread their "wisdom" across more than just their own neighbourhood.

Dave, you make a very good point about how the current system can actually inhibit the application of a persons talents and ideas if he/she lacks a certain level of economic security. It's one that has occurred to me as well. How does one ensure economic security for everyone without destroying the incentives which encourage innovation and effcient production?

No one achieves in a vacuum, but that doesn't erase the fact that there are some people who contribute far more than any of the rest of us, and others who contribute only what they absolutely have to (with our system often setting that bar pretty low). But as to how to ensure that everyone is given a fair chance to contribute - I confess I'm still struggling with that.

Some believe that simply removing the capitalist system and replacing it with socialism will make people less greedy and concerned with themselves, and cause them to become more altrusistic and other-focussed. I'm skeptical that such a radical transformation could take place, and I'm not even sure I'd want to live in a society where everyone always subordinates his/her own needs and desires to those of the strangers around him/her. I know for many of you it sounds like the ideal society, but I think such a society would be a dreadful place to live in.

I like the idea of personal property. I like that not everything is shared. I like the idea of each of us having a private component to our lives. I like the idea of people promoting their own interests, while respecting the rights of others. When I hear John Lennon's song Imagine, I don't think of what he's describing as a pleasant but unrealistic ideal dream world. I see it as a "be careful what you wish for" nightmare world out of a Twilight Zone episode.

I know I represent an extreme in this regard. The true balance between individuality and community is not something I can help establish, because my life experiences have taught me to distrust groups and community. I have no choice but to leave it to others with less skewed life experiences to do the work to set that balance.

I hope this response helps demonstrate that I too question things, including my own beliefs. I know that I've been strident in many of my past postings on Vive. I'm trying to dial that back, because I really do want to try to understand where you guys are coming from. Jared's articles really got me thinking about how I could be more constructive in my contributions. I will endeavour to do so from here on in.

What I believe is: "socialism" works best within a community, but "capitalism" works best between communities. This is very "loose" I know, because the connotative meanings of these words leave much to be desired.

In other words, one shares the work and rewards within the group (the family?), but one trades between the groups.

It's when ideologies begin to interfere to loosen the natural cohesion within the group/family, that's when it goes to hell.

To both Individualist and Dave:

I think you guys have more common ground than you realize. Individualist recognizes the need for community and the fact that no one achieves in a vacuum, while Dave recognizes the need for individual achievement and effort. This is a trend I've seen repeating itself in Canada on numerous occasions-John Ralston Saul wrote in A Fair Country about the various businesspeople who expressed concerns about the amount of foreign ownership in our economy, while Rudyard Griffiths, who defined himself as a libertarian on his Facebook page, is a fan of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Tim Hudak, and the conservative-leaning book Fearul Symmetry: The Rise and Fall of Canada's Founding Values shares these feelings. These people have the same concerns about foreign ownership as the likes of Mel Hurtig, David Orchard and Maude Barlow. More recently, Hurtig found himself recommending articles written in the Financial Post by Diane Francis, and the irony wasn't lost on him.

The sad thing is that too often the legitimate points we have end up being drowned out in the overheated rhetoric people use. At their core, I think people like Hurtig, Orchard and Barlow have some very important concerns about how much we can really afford to integrate with the U.S., particularly as regards our natural resources such as our oil and water...but the way they go about saying these things turns a lot of people off. Instead of going on about how people like Derek Burney and Stephen Harper are quislings, sellouts or what have you, we could just as easily ask the more straightforward question of whether we really want to be so integrated with an economy that's drowning in deficits and debt, staggering under huge military and social safety liabilities, and chronically high unemployment. A guy like Murray Dobbin has some important points to make about the value of community and what we've accomplished as a society...but when he makes enterpreneurs out to be sociopaths, he only shoots himself rhetorically in the foot.

Even then a given individual's political beliefs often aren't as cut and dried as they seem. Griffiths is a fan of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, but he's just as concerned as Hurtig and Saul about foreign ownership. Hurtig himself is against nationalizing private businesses, as he stated when he was interviewed on CBC's Ideas show a couple of months ago. Conrad Black, who one would expect to be a full-fledged supporter of the Tea Party, has been fiercely criticizing a lot of what the Republicans have been doing, from what I've seen.

I'll be getting into this in another article I intend to write in the coming weeks, but my fellow Canadian nationalists have gotten into the same trap that bedevilled Stephen Harper and his supporters a decade and a half ago. When Harper was head of the National Citizens' Coalition, his writings rarely revealed anything but anger and complaints, with his most constructive solution being the infamous "firewall" letter. Now, fast-forward fifteen years and we have people like Adam Daifallah and Paul Wells writing about the new positive vision of Canada that the federal Conservatives have been promoting, while the Council of Canadians and its affiliated groups are the ones with the doom and gloom omens. I found a very interesting article on the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' blog that describes this very same problem, and criticizes the left itself for not offering a more positive vision. Of course, that same positive vision offered by Jack Layton (R.I.P.) is what launched the NDP to Official Opposition status.

I don't know how much any of you are involved in the political blogosphere, but some of the stuff going on out there illustrates the exact problem I'm illustrating. When people like Kate McMillan and the Small Dead Animals Crew get into online pissing matches with the likes of Sister Sage and her followers, they end up making everyone on their side look bad by comparison. It's one of the reasons why, until very recently, I've never done any blogging of my own.

You might wish to add "grudgingly" for my recognitions at least.



You make a good point. I've been told that I sometimes come across like some Ayn Rand disciple, when that's not how I really think. When Margaret Thatcher said that there was no such thing as society, only individuals and families, that statement resonated with me, even though I knew it couldn't possibly be true (or desirable) in a literal sense. The rhetoric takes on a life of its own, and when it's read as prose as not poetry, misunderstandings occur. The nature of online forums even further accentuates this polarization and tendancy towards extremes.



I can buy that about Hurtig and Barlow, but Orchard seems more to me like Robin Mathews than like them. Like Mathews, he comes across as genuinely and viscerally hating the US.



My issue with Dobbin isn't just his seeming disdain for any sort of private or individual initiative, but his corresponding and uncritical belief in the idea of the state as the source of all good things in a society. He comes across as willing to put unlimited power in the hands of (social democratic) governments, although further to your points perhaps he is simply being pro-state in an exaggerated way to counter the promoters of small government, who themselves for the most part have no intention of drowning government in a bathtub.

Once again Jared, I appreciate your ability to bridge this chasm. I only hope that you can continue to be patient with those of us who can't.

You're right. Neither Orchard nor Matthews should "hate" the US. Rather they should "hate" the successive governments which promoted our dependence on the US.

I think that, given our geography and history, our respective economies couldn't have been kept completely separate. However, I agree that there are valid concerns about "deep integration", especially given the current state of the US economy.

Other countries that had empires and became overextended were able to retract and adjust to a reduced level of prominence and influence in the world, and I believe the US will make the adjustment successfully as well. Of course, Americans at present are largely in denial about this change in circumstances, but that's just a normal part of grieving a loss.

Perhaps a less dominant US will make Canadians feel more secure in terms of our own sovereignty. Being the next-door neighbour of what was for so long the sole superpower was bound to make Canadians feel a little insecure. Perhaps over time we will become even better friends with our American neighbours, without either of our societies giving up those traits that make us distinct from one another.

"eggs-in-one-basket" syndrome. For that, I blame Canada's "business elite" for being lazy and taking the easy way out. They've never learned the word "hustle". The current situation between Canada and the US is a case in point. Somewhere back in the 70's, Trudeau once declared that we were no longer "hewers of wood and drawers of water", that our manufacturing capacity came of age. Well, now where do we stand, with our petrodollar underpinning the whole economy?