5 ms·

Canada is a democracy. If you're not happy with your representation, you should pick that up with your representatives. The way you describe being forced to pay

• verisimi 3y ago
  It's not a democracy, as you then explain - it's a 'representative democracy'. You choose 1 person (from a selection of 2 or 3) and then they make all the decisions for the next 4/5 years. If they don't do what they said they would, this is fine - their pension is not at risk. Democracy is where you choose, or at least input into, the decision-making process. Forcible extraction of wealth, to be invested as the government sees fit cannot be justified by the fact that art is brittle. Art is awesome I agree, I don't want propaganda as art.
  • andrei_says_ 3y ago
    > Art is awesome I agree, I don't want propaganda as art. I totally get that and invite you to take a look at the art films sponsored by the film board of Canada. I have been unable to see any pro-government narrative in anything I’ve seen made with government money. It’s usually films which are just non-commercial and would otherwise not have been made. I absolutely want my tax dollars to go for that.
    • WalterBright 3y ago
      > I absolutely want my tax dollars to go for that. It's kinda cheap to be willing to spend other peoples' money on something. If you want to support such art, buy a ticket to see it.
      • closewith 3y ago
        Is there any government spending that you approve of? After all, all of it is spending other people's money.
        • WalterBright 3y ago
          Sure. The top functions of government are: 1. provide enforcement of peoples' rights 2. provide for the common defense 3. enforce contracts 4. protect common areas (like national parks) Pretty much what the US was for well over a century.
    • verisimi 3y ago
      You should spend your dollars how you like. Talking about the best way to spend dollars extracted forcibly (aka stealing) is a different question. It is stealing, if I don't want to pay, right? And it's ~40% of most people's income - far more than when one was expected to tithe 10% to the church. Re seeing a government narrative - how would you know? Do you see any films in support of trump, against the military, against government, promoting traditional Arab values, castigating Israel for taking no refugees, etc? These aren't causes I agree with btw, I mention them as blindspots in the presentation of reality that is provided, and that is a type of propaganda for the long game. Canadians especially (though Scandinavians are similar) have high level of trust and tolerance in government - where any external authority of your money, actions, etc is unwarranted. There is no agreement that we signed to allow for such unfettered control.
      • naasking 3y ago
        > It is stealing, if I don't want to pay, right Wrong. This is the same kind of error as calling copyright infringement theft.
  • hef19898 3y ago
    You cannot say "representative democracy" without "representative", sorry, I mean "democracy". You know, there are multiple forms of democracy, including ones called "republic".
    • verisimi 3y ago
      I do not consent to bring re-presented - I present myself. The whole thing is a slight of hand illusion, without consent or agreement. It is simply the tyranny we are born into, but we think it is fine, as this is what we have been told. It's quite self-serving when you think about it. 'You want to take 40% of my life's efforts? Take 60%, but make sure you give tax exemptions to the film studios with some of that money!'
      • hef19898 3y ago
        This deeply un-democratic attitude, which seems to be based on pure selfishness combined with a perceived exceptionalism, is really troubling. If you think a democracy, regardless of form, asking for taxes is tyranny you lack even the slightest trace of history or civics. And you show clearly, that you simply are not willing to participate, and take even the smallest responsibility, in modern society. True authoritarians, fascists and wannabe tyranns are happy to use that attitude to erode democracies.
        • verisimi 3y ago
          The attitude is not selfish. Standing by nodding while your government provides weapons, propaganda and conducts other immoral actions with their immorally extracted wealth from those all around you, is selfish. Why do you condone theft? You wouldn't think it was OK if those around you stole, or is a corporation stole, but it's OK that the government does it.... How? Which other mafia protection rackets do you like? Put simply, if it is not voluntary, if it is forced, it cannot be justified, regardless of how the party doing the forcing justifies of actions. It doesn't matter how many people are doing the forcing, what they call themselves, how many books they write to justify their actions (law, civics), how must they tell you it's for the greater good, etc. To think it is right is to suffer from Stockholm syndrome - you are justifying your abuser's actions. You wouldn't think it was alright for a husband to take his wife's money, or boss not to pay his workers, or a neighbour to take money from the old couple next door... so why do you think it's OK that government does this? People are confused - this is not a political issue it is a moral one. Politics ought to come after we agree the morals. It is fine for people to form free, voluntary associations, build roads or whatever. It is not right to force this association, and it can never be made right. It is wrong. Stealing, initiating violence, threatening violence is wrong. Might is not right, and can never be made right.
  • Propelloni 3y ago
    Well, Democracies as states are a lot more than the specific selection of the members of the legislative process. But for the sake of argument, a "representative democracy" has the people vote who is going to represent them in the legislative process for a time period. Your wish is that everyone allways participates in the legislative process? That's no more "real" democracy than the other, so let's be honest and call your approach "direct democracy" because that's term those who deal with this shit professionally use. FWIW, "direct democracy" has somehow acquired the status of a mystical saviour. It is usually flaunted by those who feel a lack of control and harbor the unproven assumption that they are part of a (silent) majority. I'm not saying that's the case with the OP. But the idea seems to be everything would be better because you would be involved in all decision making. But I've got bad news for you, so would be all the others. Those, who disagree with you. Those, who are following the liars with easy answers to hard problems. Those, who are smart enough to form a party and steamroll individuals. Those, who have more influence beyond the decision-making process. Those, who don't care. Those, who are not well informed on the topic (this includes all of us most of the time, BTW.) But that's just the obvious stuff. There are other hard questions: What will be decided directly? On what level? On what level of detail? Who would decide what to decide today? How do we decide? Who would decide how we decide? Who would phrase the questions? Who would provide the options? Who would count the answers? Who would implement the decisions? Who would be accountable? And so on. At least in Germany there is a large body of literature about this topic and the general consensus seems to be that the central problem is not who makes decisisons, but the last one, accountability. You alluded to this by saying a representative could change their mind and their pension would not be at risk. Direct democracy is unlikely to solve that problem, or if it does, you could port it to representative democracies just as well.
    • verisimi 3y ago
      You think I'm making a political point. I'm making a moral point - that stealing, initiating force, threatening force are wrong, and cannot be made right regardless of how one tries to dress it up. A wrong cannot be turned into a right. Government is based on immoral actions and lies. This cannot be avoided. People however suffer from Stockholm syndrome and want to defend their abusers, so mine is not a popular opinion.
  • version_five 3y ago
    Canada's effectively a single party state anyway, there is no material difference between our two parties and they both serve at the pleasure of a few elites. Nowhere in the developed world does voting have less value.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• WalterBright 3y ago
  A vote does not mean you have a free choice. A democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. > Public funding of it is essential to a healthy society. Conjecture. > i don't think that art that is funded publicly has to be popular. The goal is the opposite. If it has value, people will pay to experience it. Government art stands out as art that nobody would personally pay for.
• willcipriano 3y ago
  > It's very hard to make a living from art Its very hard to make a living off bad or average art. Most art/music/text is garbage that people wouldn't be willing to pay for. It's similarly difficult to make a living microwaving hot pockets in a town full of five star restaurants.
  • dmos62 3y ago
    > Its very hard to make a living off bad or average art. If your implication is it's easy to finance good art, I disagree. Where I live, most good theater productions are state funded. Production costs a lot. People aren't lining up around the block. Those who are lining up aren't willing to pay that much. A new wave of art marketing is improving things, but not enough. End of the day, art isn't very popular. The options are to subsidize, or let the industry die. If the art industry is as good as the money it brings in, then let it die. If its value to society is more than that, subsidize it. The commercial or non-state-funded theater productions (where I live) generally have little artistic value. They're populist and safe. Their priority is to be easy to market and to be a safe investment (think marvel movies).
    • willcipriano 3y ago
      > People aren't lining up around the block. Art that doesn't move people isn't good art. You can argue all day long how great a show is but if nobody wants to see it (or at least enough to cover the cost of creating it), it isn't. (Sometimes things are discovered posthumously sure, but that's a rare exception) We would never subsidize a restaurant that served food nobody wants to eat, why subsidize art that nobody wants to see?
      • Fricken 3y ago
        Orson Welles couldn't get his movies funded. Van Gogh never sold a painting. Mozart was near broke most of his career. The list of great artists who struggled to fund/sell and generally make a living off their work is so long it's a cliche. It can take a generation or several for this kind of work to matriculate into greater culture. Their value is immeasurable and uncapturable. Artistic and cultural works precede market economies by tens of thousands of years. A restaurant meal has an audience of 1 and is gone forever a half hour after it has been made.
• goodbyesf 3y ago
  > The way you describe being forced to pay sounds like you think you're living in an autocracy. No. He's describing tyranny of the mob. Which is worse than an autocracy. At least in an autocracy you know you are being fed a pile of bullshit. > Public funding of it is essential to a healthy society. No it's not. It's called government propaganda. > The idea of funding it is to free the artists from those constraints. No. It's to constrain artists to agenda. What you are really saying is I agree with the government propaganda and hence support it. That's all you are saying. In a democracy, government should be apolitical. People like you prove that democracy is actually a bad idea. It's funny how the foundation of modern democracy ( US ) was created on distrust of government and elites, but the 'democracies' that worship british royalties was founded on slavish worship of authority.
  • dmos62 3y ago
    Guy, I don't know who you're upset with or why, but it's not me. > tyranny of the mob You know that just means the perils of being a minority in a democracy, right? > pile of bullshit > propaganda > agenda > propaganda > distrust of government and elites > british royalties > slavish worship of authority What on earth are you talking about?
    • goodbyesf 3y ago
      > Guy, I don't know who you're upset with or why, but it's not me. I'm not mad at ya. Just your stupidity. > You know that just means the perils of being a minority in a democracy, right? Hence why the US is a republic. > What on earth are you talking about? 'It's funny how the foundation of modern democracy ( US ) was created on distrust of government and elites, but the 'democracies' that worship british royalties was founded on slavish worship of authority.' Or you can play your silly and childish games.
• millimeterman 3y ago
  The government is using tax money to fund the creation of consumer products, while consumers vote with their wallets that they don't want those products. Doesn't sound very democratic to me.